Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

I don't know how to interpret "never been closer" to a nuclear weapon but if we truly thought they were close, we should strike them today. why give them time to complete it, or worse use it.

Posted

Long term occupation like we did in the middle east they couldn't do. Short term they could do a ton of damage and kill hundreds of thousands. 

Just me, but I'd never want Russia or China at our doorstep with control over our skies and the choice of how badly to injured us. No matter how badly I hate Trump and Republicans. 

Posted
23 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

 

For the record, and I absolutely detest Trump and pretty much every asshole that voted for him, but this was the right call.  It wasn’t working, the Iranians weren’t required to comply with inspections and they were secretly enriching uranium at undeclared sites anyway-I don’t want to get into a source-off, but mine is unimpeachable on this.  If you don’t care to get into a pissing contest about who is right, I’ll just defer to “how do YOU know it was working?”

Name your source and get them here for questioning. 

Otherwise, how do you know it wasn't working? 

You're the one that wants us to engage in war with Iran. With almost $40 trillion in national debt, a crumbling national infrastructure, millions of homeless and destitute in our streets, a national housing shortage, and an aging population that is struggling to afford health care and cost of living expenses. 

The burden of proof is on you. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I’m in total agreement that Bibi is basically Elon Musk promising self-driving will roll out five minutes from now, but I’m skeptical that WE would have already known about it.  
 

What we might read into Israel’s early success is they have ground assets and presumably far better human intelligence than we do.  Either way, they put their money where their mouth is rather than defer it until later.  

GWB has had them on the "axis of evil" for over 20 years. By now, there is absolutely no chance Bibi has intelligence better than what we would have. To the contrary, Bibi was butthurt about Obama's peace deal that allowed inspections and that every unbiased observer agreed was being complied with, so I would trust our own intel over theirs. When Trump tore up the deal, which happened I believe around the same time John "war in Iran is my wet dream" Bolton was still in his cabinet we would have had even more of an incentive to keep the closest tabs on Iran's progress.

To my mind, if either country had smoking gun evidence that Iran were on the "1 yard line" like that tweet says, it already would have been published and shouted from the rooftops. And before they could get to the 1 yard line that also means they had entered the red zone months ago, which if that had been true there never would have been so much diplomatic progress with Witkoff. So either our intelligence community had been asleep at the wheel for months across two administrations or maybe just maybe this is another Bush-style exaggeration.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Tuco said:

What vote are you talking about?  Israel has never been on the UN Security Council.  We didn't pay Israel for their vote; we paid them for their restraint.  (Which is one of the many reasons we should stop paying them, seeing how they have chucked that restraint in the bin.) 

Yeah, that’s my bad. I distinctly remember commentary in 2003 about the 10 billion loan, its timing with the UN security vote as powell was drumming up support with our allies and forming the coalition of the willing, and commentary that the 10 billion loan was timed to it. I didn’t find live links that support my statement. I found one that looked related but it was a dead CNN link.

I concede to you and @WhatTheBuck 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

It seems to me that this is an easy calculus. Iran could soon have a nuclear weapon. It is thus possible that, at some point in the near future, Iran could use a nuclear weapon. The use of a nuclear weapon is a risk the world cannot bear. We must therefore attack Iran with nuclear weapons. It is the only way to mitigate the risk of a potential nuclear attack. 

Also, as a bonus, this whole thing might bring Jesus back to smite a bunch of shit and judge the fuck out of us. Which I understand from a series of depressing Sunday morning lectures I was subjected to in my youth, is somehow a good thing.

Edited by BrickHorn
  • Rage+1 3
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Name your source and get them here for questioning. 

Otherwise, how do you know it wasn't working? 

Are you daft, man?  I already said I'm not naming my source.  CIA veteran at high level under multiple administrations and who will share stuff with but certainly not to blab about it here (which is partly why I've tried to keep some of what he told me corroborated more publicly).  

As far as your other point, every problem you listed is a policy choice (or abrogation of one).  I don't see a single one of them that is competing with national security as in "you can do this or that, but not both".  

17 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

By now, there is absolutely no chance Bibi has intelligence better than what we would have.

Why do you presume this?  Israel has FAR more reason to have better intelligence in Iran than we do.  I've never asked this question, but I'd bet the vast majority of our intelligence gathering is centered around Russia and China, which is probably as it should be.  

19 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

there never would have been so much diplomatic progress with Witkoff.

What diplomatic progress?  That which is claimed by the Trump administration, that you don't trust anyway?

I come back to "if you're Israel, and you choose this moment in time with it's obvious risks, why now?"  And no, I don't think it's purely as simple as Netanyahu trying to retain power.  

Posted
41 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't know how to interpret "never been closer" to a nuclear weapon but if we truly thought they were close, we should strike them today. why give them time to complete it, or worse use it.

.... because they can't use it if they do get it ....

and if they gave it to the houthis or hamas and either of them used it tehran is gone 10 minutes later, vaporized

Posted
It seems to me that this is an easy calculus. Iran could soon have a nuclear weapon. It is thus possible that, at some point in the near future, Iran could use a nuclear weapon. The use of a nuclear weapon is a risk the world cannot bear. We must therefore attack Iran with nuclear weapons. It is the only way to mitigate the risk of a potential nuclear attack. 
Also, as a bonus, this whole thing might bring Jesus back to smite a bunch of shit and judge the fuck out of us. Which I understand from a series of depressing Sunday morning lectures I was subjected to in my youth, is somehow a good thing.

Doesn’t he come back and fight the anti-Christ? Like Batman in The Dark Knight Rises.

I wouldn’t mind watching a fight between Jesus Christ and Donald Trump. Talk about ratings.
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

It seems to me that this is an easy calculus. Iran could soon have a nuclear weapon. It is thus possible that, at some point in the near future, Iran could use a nuclear weapon. The use of a nuclear weapon is a risk the world cannot bear. We must therefore attack Iran with nuclear weapons. It is the only way to mitigate the risk of a potential nuclear attack. 

Also, as a bonus, this whole thing might bring Jesus back to smite a bunch of shit and judge the fuck out of us. Which I understand from a series of depressing Sunday morning lectures I was subjected to in my youth, is somehow a good thing.

Thank god we kept Saddam from getting nukes.  Totally worth it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

GWB has had them on the "axis of evil" for over 20 years. By now, there is absolutely no chance Bibi has intelligence better than what we would have. To the contrary, Bibi was butthurt about Obama's peace deal that allowed inspections and that every unbiased observer agreed was being complied with, so I would trust our own intel over theirs. When Trump tore up the deal, which happened I believe around the same time John "war in Iran is my wet dream" Bolton was still in his cabinet we would have had even more of an incentive to keep the closest tabs on Iran's progress.

To my mind, if either country had smoking gun evidence that Iran were on the "1 yard line" like that tweet says, it already would have been published and shouted from the rooftops. And before they could get to the 1 yard line that also means they had entered the red zone months ago, which if that had been true there never would have been so much diplomatic progress with Witkoff. So either our intelligence community had been asleep at the wheel for months across two administrations or maybe just maybe this is another Bush-style exaggeration.

the only other anomaly i can think of is the boys lied to tulsi and set her up the bomb

literally

Lee Road and Fort Meade only miss on purpose

Posted
14 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Are you daft, man?  I already said I'm not naming my source.  CIA veteran at high level under multiple administrations and who will share stuff with but certainly not to blab about it here (which is partly why I've tried to keep some of what he told me corroborated more publicly).  

As far as your other point, every problem you listed is a policy choice (or abrogation of one).  I don't see a single one of them that is competing with national security as in "you can do this or that, but not both".  

Why do you presume this?  Israel has FAR more reason to have better intelligence in Iran than we do.  I've never asked this question, but I'd bet the vast majority of our intelligence gathering is centered around Russia and China, which is probably as it should be.  

What diplomatic progress?  That which is claimed by the Trump administration, that you don't trust anyway?

I come back to "if you're Israel, and you choose this moment in time with it's obvious risks, why now?"  And no, I don't think it's purely as simple as Netanyahu trying to retain power.  

Yeah, no one lies their ass off on the Internet. Why even say something like that if you have no proof? Don't be that guy. 

"High level CIA guy"

unimpressed michael keaton GIF

So Israel has far better reason to have better intelligence on this than we do? Netanyahu also has his freedom and power as reasons to lie his ass off and drag us into a war we cannot afford and cannot stomach especially for no legitimate reason whatsoever. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Are you daft, man?  I already said I'm not naming my source.  CIA veteran at high level under multiple administrations and who will share stuff with but certainly not to blab about it here (which is partly why I've tried to keep some of what he told me corroborated more publicly).  

As far as your other point, every problem you listed is a policy choice (or abrogation of one).  I don't see a single one of them that is competing with national security as in "you can do this or that, but not both".  

Why do you presume this?  Israel has FAR more reason to have better intelligence in Iran than we do.  I've never asked this question, but I'd bet the vast majority of our intelligence gathering is centered around Russia and China, which is probably as it should be.  

What diplomatic progress?  That which is claimed by the Trump administration, that you don't trust anyway?

I come back to "if you're Israel, and you choose this moment in time with it's obvious risks, why now?"  And no, I don't think it's purely as simple as Netanyahu trying to retain power.  

There were sources other than Trump and Witkoff indicating that the deal was close. There's no point in speculating whose intelligence is greater than the other's because the fact remains that if a smoking gun ever existed we'd have seen it.

The American people deserve more than a chart from a DC think thank.

Edited by chainsaw
Posted
11 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

There were sources other than Trump and Witkoff indicating that the deal was close.

I'm not seeing anything online that's not using Trump as the source.  What sources are you seeing and why do you trust them?

14 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

There's no point in speculating whose intelligence is greater than the other's because the fact remains that if a smoking gun ever existed we'd have seen it.

Again, why do you presume this?  I've been taking deep dives into anything Israel-Iran related over the last couple of days and nobody in the foreign policy establishment, many of whom would have an interest in promoting their credentials as an insider, are making a claim that they KNOW Iran was about to have enough enriched uranium for a bomb or that that DON'T KNOW.  

I'm really surprised that you would rely on this particular administration, however, to inform you about their intelligence on the matter.  

 

23 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Yeah, no one lies their ass off on the Internet. Why even say something like that if you have no proof? Don't be that guy. 

I'm not trying to "prove" it, nor was "proof" offered to me.  Someone I trust relayed it to me and I'm confident that's not something about which he would speculate, and if that's insufficient for your skepticism then so be it.  

Posted
44 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Are you daft, man?  I already said I'm not naming my source.  CIA veteran at high level under multiple administrations and who will share stuff with but certainly not to blab about it here (which is partly why I've tried to keep some of what he told me corroborated more publicly).  

As far as your other point, every problem you listed is a policy choice (or abrogation of one).  I don't see a single one of them that is competing with national security as in "you can do this or that, but not both".  

Why do you presume this?  Israel has FAR more reason to have better intelligence in Iran than we do.  I've never asked this question, but I'd bet the vast majority of our intelligence gathering is centered around Russia and China, which is probably as it should be.  

What diplomatic progress?  That which is claimed by the Trump administration, that you don't trust anyway?

I come back to "if you're Israel, and you choose this moment in time with it's obvious risks, why now?"  And no, I don't think it's purely as simple as Netanyahu trying to retain power.  

 

IMG_2460.gif

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted

Lost in all this (for a variety of reasons, one being that Iran's retaliation seems to be dying out and looks very limited) is that Iran dropped a bomb on a major (and occupied) hospital in Israel. This isn't going to buy them any immediate mercy or grace in the same way that a lot of anti-Israel folks will not have a lot of sympathy for the afflicted Israeli's/hospital.

This doesn't seem like an action that will move Israel or allies to the table for a ceasefire and/or peace. So either Iran doesn't want the peace (despite rumors that they do) or it was an acccident because their military leadership has been neutered and have a bunch of 2nd and 3rd line leaders trying to make chicken salad.

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I'm not trying to "prove" it, nor was "proof" offered to me.  Someone I trust relayed it to me and I'm confident that's not something about which he would speculate, and if that's insufficient for your skepticism then so be it.  

I like you and believe you but you should have probably just left all that out in the first place. It's an online messageboard-- nobody has any credibility without links. Unless you are on the recruiting board.

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Vegas64 said:

Lost in all this (for a variety of reasons, one being that Iran's retaliation seems to be dying out and looks very limited) is that Iran dropped a bomb on a major (and occupied) hospital in Israel. This isn't going to buy them any immediate mercy or grace in the same way that a lot of anti-Israel folks will not have a lot of sympathy for the afflicted Israeli's/hospital.

This doesn't seem like an action that will move Israel or allies to the table for a ceasefire and/or peace. So either Iran doesn't want the peace (despite rumors that they do) or it was an acccident because their military leadership has been neutered and have a bunch of 2nd and 3rd line leaders trying to make chicken salad.

one of the first israeli missiles that took out the 3 top men was a direct hit on a residential tower.....

and the he-said she-said re: shooting/bombing hospitals/aid trucks in gaza.....

everyone has scoreboard on everyone in the atrocities department

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Hagbard Celine said:

one of the first israeli missiles that took out the 3 top men was a direct hit on a residential tower.....

and the he-said she-said re: shooting/bombing hospitals/aid trucks in gaza.....

everyone has scoreboard on everyone in the atrocities department

I think we have scoreboard on everyone in the modern weapons era. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Lost in all this (for a variety of reasons, one being that Iran's retaliation seems to be dying out and looks very limited) is that Iran dropped a bomb on a major (and occupied) hospital in Israel. This isn't going to buy them any immediate mercy or grace in the same way that a lot of anti-Israel folks will not have a lot of sympathy for the afflicted Israeli's/hospital.

This doesn't seem like an action that will move Israel or allies to the table for a ceasefire and/or peace. So either Iran doesn't want the peace (despite rumors that they do) or it was an acccident because their military leadership has been neutered and have a bunch of 2nd and 3rd line leaders trying to make chicken salad.

So now Israel doesn’t like bombing hospitals? Make up your mind, people.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Pasken said:

So now Israel doesn’t like bombing hospitals? Make up your mind, people.

Was Israel's hospital being used to house terrorists and terrorist operations and munition storage? Or was it a normal healthcare space full of sick people? Inquiring minds.

  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bibi is the problem.  Seems kind of obvious. 

Trump, Bibi, the Ayatollah?  Hard to pick who’s the worst of that bunch.  Put them in a room and hope for a natural (or unnatural) disaster.  

  • Like 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Was Israel's hospital being used to house terrorists and terrorist operations and munition storage? Or was it a normal healthcare space full of sick people? Inquiring minds.

You don't believe that lie do you?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, LCHorn said:

Are you daft, man?  I already said I'm not naming my source.  CIA veteran at high level under multiple administrations and who will share stuff with but certainly not to blab about it here (which is partly why I've tried to keep some of what he told me corroborated more publicly).  

As far as your other point, every problem you listed is a policy choice (or abrogation of one).  I don't see a single one of them that is competing with national security as in "you can do this or that, but not both".  

1. Do you have an established rep around here as someone with high level connections? Unprejudiced question as I truly don't know.

2. WTF is a CIA veteran at high level doing sharing intelligence with you? Doesn't this make him/her a security breach? Isn't divulging state secrets (for persons other than Trump) a profound felony if not traitorous? Maybe you should report this guy to the FBI.

 

Further, my mouth is agape that an Israeli hospital getting struck by a missile where no person was killed is big news while this:

image.thumb.png.c3ac025b56489a65be275270ef427ee1.png

Is not worthwhile reporting on the same level because it's so fucking common. I suppose Hamas was hiding weapons and using a starving crowd as a cover that justifies Israel's starvation/bombing campaign against the civilians of Gaza.

We're not aligned with the good guys in this one. We must really try to let that naive view of the world go.

I don't want to see any civilians murdered. I don't place higher value on Israeli civilians than Gazans. Or Iraquis. Or Iranians. Or Afgans. Or whoever else we slaughter or support the slaughter of worldwide.

Fuck Israel.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
30 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Was Israel's hospital being used to house terrorists and terrorist operations and munition storage? Or was it a normal healthcare space full of sick people? Inquiring minds.

What difference does that make to the families of the formerly just sick but now dead people that were in those hospitals?

Posted
8 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Andy Samberg GIF

Trump is the most predictable negotiating idiot on the planet. He is as see-thru as Saran Wrap.  The rest of the world figured him out years ago and just sits back watching him blather a bunch of nonsense, until he ultimately just folds like card table chairs. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

I hate when hospitals are hit. Not going to rejoice and anyone who cheers for that simply because it was in Israel is an asshole. Fortunately, have not seen anyone in this thread celebrate the hospital attack. I do think it's fair to point out the media's double-standard and it's a healthy reminder for us to acknowledge our own biases.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, LCHorn said:

Are you daft, man?  I already said I'm not naming my source.  CIA veteran at high level under multiple administrations and who will share stuff with but certainly not to blab about it here (which is partly why I've tried to keep some of what he told me corroborated more publicly).  

This is why nobody is giving you any grace. Such a person certainly isn’t sharing anything with you, and if they are, they can’t be trusted in the slightest. First, the simple fact that they shared it is likely treason. Second, their poor lack of judgment in trusting you to keep your mouth shut indicates they have a terrible sense of character. Both of those facts make the rest of us think you and/or your friend are full of shit. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Hermanator said:

They want Netanyahu and Israel to do it? There's no guarantee Netanyahu stops at eliminating the Ayatollah. Actually, I'd be shocked if he did. You'd be looking at the prospect of an Israeli occupied Iran and all the horrors that would go with that. 

Yes, I think the majority of the diaspora are fine with Netanyah/Israel taking out the Supreme Leader. The idea of an Israel occupied Iran is not something they take seriously or even consider a possibility. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
58 minutes ago, C-Man said:


Trump hasn't ruled a lot of things out.

Why?

to rule something out you must:

A.) Know said thing exists

B.) Know that it is an option you can access / choose

C.) Understand the consequences of your actions / choice.


It would be charitable to assume that Trump has all three of these elements on any subject…. At all. Maybe on issues that directly affect him right now, at this second. But anything past this minute, hour, day? Nah. 

It cannot be stressed enough that this man has no morality, values, or belief in anything other than himself.

He would allow his own grandchildren to be drown in hydrofluoric acid if it spared him from any pain or suffering.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
46 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

1. Do you have an established rep around here as someone with high level connections? Unprejudiced question as I truly don't know.

2. WTF is a CIA veteran at high level doing sharing intelligence with you? Doesn't this make him/her a security breach? Isn't divulging state secrets (for persons other than Trump) a profound felony if not traitorous? Maybe you should report this guy to the FBI.

 

18 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

This is why nobody is giving you any grace. Such a person certainly isn’t sharing anything with you, and if they are, they can’t be trusted in the slightest. First, the simple fact that they shared it is likely treason. Second, their poor lack of judgment in trusting you to keep your mouth shut indicates they have a terrible sense of character. Both of those facts make the rest of us think you and/or your friend are full of shit. 

Look, at risk of beating a dead horse further on it, I'm a little surprised that the idea that Iran wasn't complying with the JCPOA is controversial or would require I name my source further in order to justify that I believe it to be true.  

To @RomaVicta point, I'm an OIF veteran and have a few connections in that community, including amongst those that have also worked or attended UT.  One of those happens to be retired but is considered to be a subject matter expert on global intelligence matters, if not the middle east specifically.  There isn't anything I've written that I would consider in the national interest to keep confidential and I'm also confident that my friend wouldn't share anything that would be considered a security risk if it were passed.  

That said, I offered it in the spirit of better understanding the conflict--if you don't want to believe it, that's okay.  I'm not here for the collection of internet points, I just like the conversation even if I don't agree with someone.  

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Just so we're not going completely off topic, these are the sources you're citing that are meant to corroborate the US and Iran were close to a deal?  I don't see anything in your links that suggests that.  

That said, the War on the Rocks podcast from Tuesday does discuss this subject and one of the guests shares your position (the other disagrees).  It's good, I'd recommend a listen, though if you're bored by munitions capacity you and just want information on "why does Israel attack now?" you can check out after the first five minutes.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Yes, I think the majority of the diaspora are fine with Netanyah/Israel taking out the Supreme Leader. The idea of an Israel occupied Iran is not something they take seriously or even consider a possibility. 

I think you've mentioned that you're part Persian, I'm married into it--it's interesting listening to that side of the family alternate between "they need to get rid of Khamenei" to "that said, I don't know why we can't have the bomb."

Posted
7 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

 

Look, at risk of beating a dead horse further on it, I'm a little surprised that the idea that Iran wasn't complying with the JCPOA is controversial or would require I name my source further in order to justify that I believe it to be true.  

To @RomaVicta point, I'm an OIF veteran and have a few connections in that community, including amongst those that have also worked or attended UT.  One of those happens to be retired but is considered to be a subject matter expert on global intelligence matters, if not the middle east specifically.  There isn't anything I've written that I would consider in the national interest to keep confidential and I'm also confident that my friend wouldn't share anything that would be considered a security risk if it were passed.  

That said, I offered it in the spirit of better understanding the conflict--if you don't want to believe it, that's okay.  I'm not here for the collection of internet points, I just like the conversation even if I don't agree with someone.  

Just so we're not going completely off topic, these are the sources you're citing that are meant to corroborate the US and Iran were close to a deal?  I don't see anything in your links that suggests that.  

That said, the War on the Rocks podcast from Tuesday does discuss this subject and one of the guests shares your position (the other disagrees).  It's good, I'd recommend a listen, though if you're bored by munitions capacity you and just want information on "why does Israel attack now?" you can check out after the first five minutes.  

We may not end up in agreement but I appreciate the good faith engagement and hopefully will get a chance to listen to the source you linked.

To answer the question you posed, the following parts say the US was willing to allow Iran to continue its civilian enrichment activities in exchange for the JCPOA-like conditions

https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-us-nuclear-talks-rome-enrichment-trump-witkoff/33422138.html

Quote

Witkoff, who has been representing the United States in the talks, has shifted his position since the Oman-mediated negotiations started in April. At one point, he suggested that Washington would agree to Iran enriching uranium to 3.67 percent purity -- as set under the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abrogated in his first time in office.

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/02/iran-nuclear-deal-proposal-enrich-uranium

Quote

Iran has consistently said it won't sign any deal that bans enrichment for civilian purposes — a red line that is irreconcilable with the U.S. public posture.

    But the proposal described to Axios by two sources with direct knowledge — one of whom provided a point-by-point breakdown — would seem to offer a clearer path to a deal.

The best news would be if both sides return to the table and return to the substance of the JCPOA.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, LCHorn said:

-I don’t want to get into a source-off, but mine is unimpeachable on this.

Care to elaborate?

Edited by Biff Tannen
Oh you won’t name your source. Well then I have to assume you are full of shit and just a troll


×
×
  • Create New...