Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Civilians killed by Big Jew

Civilians killed by Big Jew

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 09:24 AM

Civilians killed by Big Jew 
 
 
And NATO raiders/US-led Coalition raiders who follow the wishes of Big Jew 
 
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
 
 
Syria: US-led Coalition's aerial attacks in Raqqa killed hundreds of civilians - new report
 
 
 
 
 
 
June 5, 2018
 
 
 
 
 
 
The devastation in the city is as bad as any Amnesty has seen in decades of covering conflicts around the world © Amnesty International
 
First-hand investigations in the destroyed city reveal extent of civilian casualties, as Coalition's 'war of annihilation' decimated extended families and neighbourhoods
 
'On the ground in Raqqa we witnessed a level of destruction comparable to anything we've seen in decades of covering the impact of wars' - Donatella Rovera
 
City was blitzed but ISIS fighters were allowed safe passage out of Raqqa in deal with Coalition and Kurdish forces 
 
UK carried out 215 airstrikes but claims it killed no civilians
 
'The UK needs to come clean over its role in this carnage' - Kate Allen
 
US-led Coalition forces killed hundreds of civilians - and injured thousands - in the Syrian city of Raqqa in the process of "liberating" them from the Islamic State armed group, Amnesty International said in a new report today, ahead of tomorrow's one-year anniversary of the Raqqa offensive.
 
Amnesty researchers visited 42 Coalition airstrike sites across the ruined city and interviewed 112 civilian residents who survived the carnage while losing loved ones in the attacks.
 
The victims highlighted in Amnesty's report cut across the city's socio-economic spectrum and range in age from a one-year-old baby girl to a man in his 80s. 
 
Their harrowing stories and immense losses stand in stark contrast to the Coalition's repeated claims that they took great pains to minimise civilian casualties. In September, at the height of the conflict, Coalition commander US Lt Gen Stephen Townsend wrote that "there has never been a more precise air campaign in the history of armed conflict". Raqqa residents, such as airstrike survivor Munira Hashish, tell a different story: 
 
"Those who stayed died and those who tried to run away died. We couldn't afford to pay the smugglers; we were trapped." 
 
She and her children eventually managed to escape through a minefield "by walking over the blood of those who were blown up as they tried to flee ahead of us."
 
Raqqa's residents were trapped as fighting raged between ISIS militants and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighters, supported by the Coalition's air and artillery strikes. Meanwhile, ISIS mined escape routes and shot at civilians trying to flee. Hundreds of civilians were killed: some in their homes, some in the very places where they'd sought refuge, and others as they tried to escape. 
 
Amnesty's research and Raqqa residents' accounts - detailed in the 70-page report, 'War of annihilation': Devastating Toll on Civilians, Raqqa - throw into serious question the Coalition's insistence that their forces did enough to minimise civilian harm. The report details four emblematic cases (see below) of civilian families brutally impacted by the aerial bombardment. Between them, they lost 90 relatives and neighbours - 39 from a single family - almost all killed by Coalition airstrikes. Amnesty believes the cases are part of a wider pattern and provide a strong prima facie case that many lethal Coalition air and artillery strikes were disproportionate or indiscriminate attacks carried out in violation of international humanitarian law and are potential war crimes.
 
Shortly before the military campaign, US Defence Secretary James Mattis spoke of a "war of annihilation" against ISIS in Raqqa, and from 6 June to 12 October 2017 the US-led Coalition operation - involving US, British and French forces - carried out tens of thousands of airstrikes. The US military said it fired 30,000 artillery rounds during the offensive, while its forces are known to have been responsible for more than 90% of the airstrikes. Much of the city was destroyed, with countless homes, private and public buildings and infrastructure reduced to rubble or damaged beyond repair.  
 
Amnesty has written to defence officials in the USA, UK and France seeking additional information about the report's cases and other attacks, with Amnesty asking about Coalition tactics, specific means and methods of attack, choice of targets, and precautions taken in the planning and execution of attacks, and about any investigations carried out to date. 
 
Donatella Rovera, a Senior Crisis Response Adviser at Amnesty International, said:
___________________________________________________________________________________
 
"The Coalition's claims that its precision air campaign allowed it to bomb ISIS out of Raqqa while causing very few civilian casualties do not stand up to scrutiny. 
 
"On the ground in Raqqa we witnessed a level of destruction comparable to anything we've seen in decades of covering the impact of wars. 
 
"A senior US military official said that more artillery shells were launched into Raqqa than anywhere since the Vietnam war. Given that artillery shells have margin of error of over 100 metres, it is no surprise that the result was mass civilian casualties.
 
"When so many civilians are killed in attack after attack, something is clearly wrong, and to make this tragedy worse, so many months later the incidents have not been investigated. The victims deserve justice."
___________________________________________________________________________________
 
Four Raqqa family case studies
 
The case of the Badran family illustrates how dire the situation became for civilians trapped in Raqqa. Over the course of several weeks, 39 family members were killed in four separate Coalition air strikes as they moved from place to place inside the city, desperately trying to avoid rapidly shifting frontlines.
 
"We thought the forces who came to evict Daesh [ISIS] would know their business and would target Daesh and leave the civilians alone. We were naïve. By the time we had realised how dangerous it had become everywhere, it was too late; we were trapped," Rasha Badran told Amnesty. After several attempts to flee, she and her husband finally managed to escape, having lost their entire family, including their only child, a one-year-old girl named Tulip, whose tiny body they buried near a tree.
 
The Aswads were a family of hard-working traders in Raqqa. Some of them stayed behind to protect their belongings from looting, seeking shelter in their basement. But, on 28 June a Coalition air strike destroyed the building, killing eight civilians, mostly children. Another family member lost his life when he stepped on an ISIS mine when he returned to the city to try to recover the bodies days later. 
 
Despite repeated attempts to flee, the Hashish family lost 17 members, mostly women and children, over a two-week period in August. A Coalition air strike killed nine, seven died as they tried to flee via a road which had been mined by ISIS, and two others were killed by a mortar launched by SDF.
 
The fate of the Fayad family illustrates how a Coalition blitz during the final hours of the battle wiped out entire families in the Harat al-Badu area of central Raqqa, where ISIS fighters were known to be using civilians as human shields. The deaths of Mohammed "Abu Saif" Fayad and 15 family members and neighbours in Coalition airstrikes early on 12 October seem all the more senseless because, just hours later, the SDF and the Coalition agreed a deal with ISIS, granting remaining ISIS fighters safe passage out of Raqqa.
 
Benjamin Walsby, an Amnesty International Middle East Researcher, said:
___________________________________________________________________________________
 
"If the coalition and their SDF allies were ultimately going to grant ISIS fighters safe passage and impunity, what possible military advantage was there in destroying practically an entire city and killing so many civilians? Raqqa's civilians are returning home to ruins, pulling loved ones out of rubble, and facing death or injury from mines, IEDs and unexploded ordnance. The Coalition's refusal to acknowledge its role in creating this catastrophic situation adds insult to injury."
___________________________________________________________________________________
 
UK forces carried out 215 airstrikes in Raqqa
 
According to the Ministry of Defence, UK forces carried out 215 airstrikes in Raqqa. Up until last month, UK ministers had repeatedly claimed that UK forces in Syria and Iraq had killed no civilians. On 2 May, the Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said that a UK drone missile killed a civilian on a motorcycle in eastern Syria in March. Amnesty has written to the Ministry of Defence seeking detailed information over the UK's airstrikes in Raqqa.
 
Kate Allen, Amnesty International UK's Director, said:
___________________________________________________________________________________
 
"Civilians in Raqqa have suffered grievously at the hands of Islamic State, but they've also been imperilled by the Coalition's disproportionate aerial attacks. 
 
"The Coalition's operations in Raqqa have killed hundreds and injured thousands of civilians and the UK needs to come clean over its role in this carnage.
 
"Having conducted more than 200 airstrikes in Raqqa, the UK needs to be able to show that its targeting was proportionate and that it took proper measures to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties in its joint operations with the US and others. Instead of repeating a mantra about there being 'no evidence' of civilian casualties from UK airstrikes, the MoD should publish proper data about its Raqqa attacks - dates, times, locations, weapons used and intended targets. 
 
"Crucially, ministers should explain how the UK has investigated the impact of its attacks in both Raqqa and Mosul. For example, has the UK carried out on-the-ground investigations at the sites it bombed and interviewed survivors and witnesses?
 
"With a Defence Committee set to examine Operation Shader, now is the time for the UK to demonstrate to the British public that the UK's military role in Syria and Iraq has been responsible and lawful. The Government should establish a thorough, impartial investigation into all allegations of unlawful attacks and civilian casualties from UK operations in Raqqa and Mosul."
___________________________________________________________________________________
 
Operation Shader is the operational code for the UK's contribution to the multinational military operation against the Islamic State armed group in the Middle East. 
 
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
 
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#2 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 09:30 AM

VIDEO: Pentagon Admits Killing of Iraqi, Syrian Civilians but only 119
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 November 2016.
 
 
 
 
 
 
The United States airstrikes against ISIS terrorists have led to death of civilians in Iraq and Syria, the US military admits.
 
The Pentagon made the announcement on Wednesday, putting the number of civilian casualties at 119, way fewer than the figures posited by monitoring groups.
 
The US military command in the Middle East (Centcom) said all the casualties were from 24 airstrikes only.
 
"We have teams who work full time to prevent unintended civilian casualties," Colonel John Thomas was quoted as saying in the Centcom statement. "We do all we can to minimize those occurrences even at the cost of sometimes missing the chance to strike valid targets in real time."
 
He further claimed that "in each of these strikes the right processes were followed; each complied with Law of Armed Conflict and significant precautions were taken, despite the unfortunate outcome."
 
The announcement ran counter to the US accusations against Moscow, alleging that the Russian military targets civilians in Syria.
 
The figure also ran counter to what has been published by monitoring groups, including London-based NGO Airways, announcing that the US-led coalition has so far killed 1,787 civilians.
 
The US and some of its Arab allies began their allegedly anti-Daesh campaign in Syria in September 2014 without any authorization from Damascus or a UN mandate.
 
Since then, they have been carrying out airstrikes in the war-ravaged country, but their air raids have done little to stop the Takfiri group's advances there.
 
Syria has been gripped by a foreign-backed militancy since March 2011 and Daesh terrorists still control parts of the country and neighboring Iraq, Press TV reported.
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#3 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 09:35 AM

54 civilians 'inadvertently killed' in 7 US-led coalition strikes in Syria, Iraq
 
 
 
 
 
02 December 2016.
 
 
 
 
 
 
The US-led coalition airstrikes in Syria and Iraq have left 54 civilians "inadvertently killed" in seven strikes between March and October, according to the coalition's official statement.
 
"Although the coalition makes extraordinary efforts to strike military targets in a manner that minimizes the risk of civilian casualties, in some cases casualties are unavoidable," the coalition said in a statement.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#4 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 09:39 AM

Over 20 Civilians Massacred in US-Led Coalition Air Raids in Northern Syria
 
 
 
 
 
12 November 2016.
 
 
 
 
 
Over 20 civilians were killed and many more were wounded in the US-led coalition airstrikes in two villages North of Raqqa.
 
The US-led coalition's fighter jets bombed the ISIL-villages of al-Hisheh and Khaniz, while backing the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces' (SDF) offensive there.
 
At least 20 civilians were killed and more villagers were injured in the air raids.
 
This is the first case of war crime of the US-led coalition while providing air support for the Kurdish-led attack on Raqqa, codenamed Angry Euphrates Operation. The US-led coalition has done multiple war crimes in other regions of Syria, including Deir Ezzur.
 
In order to recapture several regions they lost in their previous battles with ISIL, the SDF stormed terrorists' positions and captured the villages of al-Hisheh and al-Roweile,eh.
 
Taking control over the villages of al-Hisheh and Khaniz by the SDF was done by the direct back up of US-led coalition's fighter jets.
 
Kurdish forces rejected their role in al-Hisheh massacre and underlined that they had not given any information to coalition's fighter jets about ISIL's positions.
 
On Wednesday an airstrike by the US-led coalition killed at least 23 people, including a child, in a village near the ISIL-held city of Raqqa in Northeastern Syria.
 
The strike targeted the village of al-Hisheh, about 40 kilometers North of Raqqa.
 
Raqqa, on the Northern bank of the Euphrates River, was overrun by the ISIL terrorists in March 2013 and was proclaimed the terrorist group's so-called headquarters the following year.
 
The attack is not the first US-led airstrike to leave civilian casualties.
 
In mid October, at least 15 civilians were killed when a US-led attack hit areas in the Daham Village near Sulouk in the Northeast of Raqqa.
 
Since 2014, the United States has been leading a bombing campaign in Syria and neighboring Iraq with the declared objective of hitting ISIL.
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#5 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 09:44 AM

U.S. Launch Chemical Weapons Attack On Syria - Media Blackout
 
 
 
 
 
June 10, 2017
 
 
 
 
 
The U.S. has been caught launching a chemical weapons attack on a city in Syria with a population of 200,000 citizens. 
 
The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces dropped a cluster of airstrikes containing illegal chemicals on Syria last Tuesday, which was largely ignored by the mainstream media.
 
Thefreethoughtproject.com reports: While popular outlets such as Reuters reported that "as artillery and coalition aircraft pounded targets in the city, SDF fighters moved in small groups into the district," there were some key aspects they appeared to leave out.
 
International outlets and witnesses on Twitter noted that some of the airstrikes resembled cluster bombs or white phosphorus, both of which are internationally banned on residential areas.
 
View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter
 
 Follow
 
 maytham @maytham956
 
45 civilians killed in #Raqqa #Syria due to #US-led coalition airstrikes that used White Phosphorus! #UNSC and MSM must be busy for that!
 
11:17 PM - 8 Jun 2017
 
  370 370 Retweets   172 172 likes
 
Twitter Ads info and privacy
 
Xinhua News, China's state press agency, reported that "Tens of civilians were killed on Thursday when the U.S.-led airstrikes targeted Syria's northern city of Raqqa with white phosphorus," citing a report from Syria's Sham FM radio.
 
Russia's Riafan.ru reported that "Coalition forces led by the United States of America shell Raqqa and suburbs of white phosphorus munitions," citing reports on Twitter, which said the U.S.-backed coalition conducted 20 air raids.
 
Although the total number of civilian deaths has not been confirmed, early reports suggest that nearly 50 people were killed. The U.S. has yet to acknowledge whether white phosphorus was used during the raids.
 
White phosphorus is described as an "incendiary and toxic chemical substance used as a filler in a number of different munitions that can be employed for a variety of military purposes."
 
The chemical was banned internationally after the 1980 Protocol on Incendiary Weapons restricted the "use of incendiary weapons as a means or method of warfare during armed conflict."
 
The use of chemical weapons is clearly prohibited in international armed conflicts. The International Committee of the Red Cross noted that "employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices is listed in the Statute of the International Criminal Court as a war crime."
 
If the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces are successful in regaining control of Raqqa from ISIS, then the question remains of who will control the city moving forward. The SDF announced plans in April to run the city using a civilian council-with the help of more than 3,000 U.S. ground troops-which would further a divided Syria, and would keep the U.S. is at odds with Assad's government.
 
The same president who claimed to be heartbroken over the "innocent babies" who were reportedly killed in April in a chemical attack that was immediately blamed on Assad's government-despite evidence that suggested otherwise-has said nothing about the reports that suggest his country could be guilty of the same crime he condemned.
 
While it is not likely that the United States will fully address the reports, it should be noted that by remaining silent, the mainstream media is also reminding the public of its hypocritical nature.
 
The same MSM that provides obsessive coverage of everything President Trump posts on Twitter, has seemingly ignored the flurry of Tweets from various users suggesting the use of chemical weapons by a U.S.-backed coalition.
 
 Follow
 
 Rami @RamiAILoIah
 
HARROWING footage from #ISIS-held Raqqa. The US-led Coalition is using mass White Phosphorus bombing civilian populated neighborhoods #Syria
 
10:15 PM - 8 Jun 2017
 
  603 603 Retweets   232 232 likes
 
Twitter Ads info and privacy
 
 
_____________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_____________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 
_____________________________________________________________
 
KEEP SYRIA FREE AND INDEPENDENT FROM ISRAEL AND USA
_____________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#6 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 09:47 AM

US Starve 100's Of Thousands Of Syrian Children To Death
 
 
 
 
 
April 30, 2017
 
 
 
 
 
US guilty of starving hundreds of thousands of Syrian children to death
 
The United States are starving hundreds of thousands of Syrian children to death, following the same strategy that caused 576,00 Iraqi children to die due to UN sanctions imposed the 1990's.
 
Between 1991 and 1997, half a million Iraqis died of malnutrition due to harsh United Nations Security Council sanctions placed on the country following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
 
According to Chuck Sudetic, a journalist who spent time in Basra documenting the sanctions, "between 1991 and 1997 half a million Iraqis died of malnutrition, preventable disease, lack of medicine, and other factors attributable to the sanctions; most were elderly people or children. The United Nations Children's Fund puts the death toll during the same period at more than 1 million of Iraq's 23 million people."
 
Thefreethoughtproject.com reports: In 1995, the U.N. proposed the Oil For Food Program which sought to ease some of the burdens caused by the sanctions by allowing Iraq to sell more oil to pay for humanitarian necessities like food and medicine. While first resisted by Saddam Hussein, who initially claimed that the program violated sovereignty, the program was later initiated and Hussein used the program to his advantage. Slate's Michael Crowley wrote that Hussein took advantage of the program in three ways: first, by ignoring stipulations and selling oil illegally to Syria, Turkey, and Jordan among others to the one of about $13.6 billion; utilizing "pricing schemes, surcharges, and kickbacks to milk another $7 billion or more from oil buyers and sellers of humanitarian supplies"; and engaging in bribery via "a list of people who were given vouchers to buy Iraqi oil at below-market price-essentially, multimillion-dollar buy-offs." The program ended abruptly and "subsequent investigations show the program was poorly managed and riddled with fraud," according to PBS.
 
"The failure of the program wasn't just in providing food, medicine and comfort to the Iraqi people; the failure of the program was also not having strong oversight and checks and balances that would have prevented a small group of people and nations from raping billions - billions - of dollars from the people of Iraq," former Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) told PBS.
 
Worrisome New Sanctions In Syria
 
The sanctions imposed on Iraq have been inarguably disastrous, and Oil for Food was known to be an overall failure rampant with corruption that did little to ease the suffering of Iraqi civilians. Syria is no stranger to American-led sanctions, as they have been imposed in the past by the Bush and Obama administrations. But is the United States headed toward repeating history in its newest sanctions on Syrian scientists?
 
On April 24th, the Trump administration placed sanctions on 271 Syrian government employees in response to the sarin gas attack that killed 80 civilians. "The United States is sending a strong message with this action that we will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons by any actor, and we intend to hold the Assad regime accountable for its unacceptable behavior," said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin." The New York Times noted that the sanctions are targeted toward "highly educated Syrian officials with deep expertise in chemistry who were thought to have the ability to travel extensively and possibly to use the American financial system."
 
The Associated Press states that "any property or interest in property of the individuals' sanctioned must be blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them." Also according to AP, "Three U.S. officials said that the sanctions are part of a broader effort to cut off funding and other support to Syria's President Bashar Assad and his government amid the country's escalating civil war. The U.S. blames Assad for a recent chemical attack on Syrian civilians, and responded earlier this month by launching missiles against a Syrian airfield."
 
France has joined the United States in assigning responsibility to the Syrian government for the chemical attack, while Russia and Syria have denied that the Assad regime was behind the attack. Former Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), a longtime opponent of sanctions, continues to question the United States' assertion that Assad gassed his people. Members of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former U.S. intelligence officials, have repeatedly urged President Trump to carefully re-evaluate all aspects of the incident and his position on retaliation. On Saturday, the group criticized Defense Secretary James Mattis' assertion of there being "no doubt" that the Syrian government is "retaining" chemical weapons, noting that Mattis sounded quite similar to Vice President Dick Cheney when he proclaimed there was "no doubt" that Hussein possessed WMD's.
 
"In the case of Syria, the 'no doubt' standard Mattis has employed does not meet the 'reasonable man' standard. Given the consequences that are attached to his every word, Secretary Mattis would be well advised not to commit to a "no doubt" standard until there is, literally, no doubt." - Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
 
While the newest issue of sanctions on Syrian government workers is not nearly as extensive as those placed on Iraq in the 90's, the American people are being told the same story about the Assad regime as they were told about the Hussein regime: that dictators are in possession of dangerous weapons and must be stopped. But what must be stopped are hurried military retaliations and intensified meddling in foreign affairs that pose no imminent threat on the United States. As deplorable as some actions overseas have been, the U.S. government is once again indicating its eagerness to participate in further battle to weaken Assad- an eerily familiar mission, and one that President Trump once promised the public that he would avoid.
 
_____________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_____________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#7 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 10:04 AM

https://engforum.pra...yria/?p=2738555


  • 0

#8 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 02:35 PM

Nato air strike kills at least 30 Afghan civilians, including children
 
 
 
 
 
3 November 2016.
 
 
 
 
 
 
A Nato air strike killed at least 30 Afghan civilians, including women and children, on Thursday (Nov 3) in the volatile northern province of Kunduz, officials said, after a Taleban assault there left two American soldiers dead.
 
The air strike, which occurred early on Thursday, triggered emotionally-charged protests in the provincial capital, with the victims' relatives rallying outside the governor's office while carrying the bodies of dead children.
 
The carnage underscores worsening insecurity after the Taleban last month overran Kunduz city for the second time in a year, as Nato-backed Afghan forces struggle to beat back the insurgents.
 
"Afghan forces and coalition troops conducted a joint operation against the Taleban insurgents," provincial spokesman Mahmood Danish said. "In the bombardment, 30 Afghan civilians were martyred and 25 others were wounded."
 
Police spokesman Mahmoodullah Akbari gave the same toll, adding that the dead included infants aged as young as three months and other children.
 
"They were asleep when their house came under attack by coalition troops," officer Akbari said.
 
In a brief statement on Twitter, Nato conceded it was behind the air strike.
 
"Air strikes were conducted in #Kunduz to defend friendly forces under fire. All civilian casualty claims will be investigated," it said.
 
The strike occurred on the outskirts of the city after a firefight killed two US soldiers and three Afghan special forces during an anti-Taleban operation in Kunduz.
 
It was not immediately clear if the two incidents were related.
 
The firefight occurred as American soldiers were assisting Afghan troops to clear a Taleban position and disrupt the group's operations in Kunduz, US forces said in a separate statement.
 
"On behalf of all of US Forces - Afghanistan, today's loss is heartbreaking and we offer our deepest condolences to the families and friends of our service members who lost their lives today," said Lieutenant General John Nicholson, the top US and Nato commander in Afghanistan.
 
"Despite today's tragic event, we are steadfast in our commitment to help our Afghan partners defend their nation," he added, without disclosing the names of the dead soldiers.
 
The killings come just days before the US presidential election.
 
During three lengthy debates between presidential candidates Mrs Hillary Clinton and Mr Donald Trump, Afghanistan got scarcely a passing mention - even though the situation there will be an urgent matter for the new president.
 
Either one of them will inherit America's longest war with no end in sight.
 
The US military, which leads a Nato mission to train and assist local forces after their combat mission ended in 2014, often gives upbeat assessments about Afghan military performance.
 
But as Afghan military forces near the end of a second year leading security operations without full Nato assistance, they are sustaining heavy casualties.
 
The Taleban's apparent strategic goal in 2016 is to seize another provincial capital like they briefly did in Kunduz last year, in a stinging blow to Afghan forces.
 
They have launched multiple assaults in recent months including in Kunduz, Lashkar Gar in poppy-growing Helmand province and Tarinkot, the capital of Uruzgan province.
 
The worsening conflict has prompted US forces to step up air strikes to support their struggling Afghan counterparts, fuelling the perception they are increasingly being drawn back into the conflict.
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#9 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 02:40 PM

Airstrike in Afghanistan causes civilian casualties
 
 
 
 
 
28 October 2016.
 
 
 
 
 
An airstrike in Afghanistan on Friday hit the home of a Taliban commander in the eastern province of Nangarhar and caused several civilian casualties, government and insurgent spokesmen said.
 
The strike targeted the home of Mawlawi Mohammad Alam, a Taliban commander in the Sherzad district, said Attaullah Khogyani, a spokesman for the provincial governor, adding that there were casualties but he could not confirm numbers.
 
A police official said the strike was carried out by an unmanned aircraft and killed four people inside the house.
 
A dozen wounded civilians, among them seven children and five women, were taken to the local hospital, said Najibullah Kamawal, the director of provincial health services, four of them in critical condition.
 
U.S. forces had carried out a strike in Sherzad on Friday in defence of "friendly forces", a spokesman for the NATO-led Resolute Support mission said in Kabul, the capital, but gave no details. Reports of civilian casualties would be investigated, he added.
 
"We take all allegations of civilian casualties seriously and will work with our Afghan partners to review all related material," Brigadier General Charles Cleveland said in an emailed statement.
 
In a statement, the Taliban said American and Afghan forces had carried out a ground attack on Mohammad Alam's home, followed by an airstrike, in which two civilians were killed and more than 30 wounded.
 
The United States has unleashed many raids against Islamic State and al Qaeda militants in eastern Afghanistan, most recently on Sunday, when officials said two al Qaeda leaders were killed in the neighbouring province of Kunar.
 
 

  • 0

#10 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 02:43 PM

UN Begins Investigation on US Airstrike Killed 32 Civilians in Afghanistan
 
 
 
 
 
7 November 2016.
 
 
 
 
 
The United Nations began an inquiry about a US airstrike that killed 32 civilians and injured 19 others in Northern Afghanistan on Thursday, said Tadamichi Yamamoto, head of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.
 
"The loss of civilian life is unacceptable and undermines efforts toward building peace and stability in Afghanistan," Yamamoto said in a statement, RT reported.
 
Thursday's airstrike was called in to support a Special Forces raid on suspected Taliban militants in the area. 
 
The Afghan Special Forces and their US advisers came under heavy fire in Buz Kandahari, with three Afghan troops and two Americans losing lives in the gunfight. 
 
On Saturday, the US military confirmed that it carried out the airstrike in which 32 civilians died, and promised to investigate the incident. 
 
"I deeply regret the loss of innocent lives, regardless of the circumstances," Gen. John W. Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, said in a statement.
 
"The loss of innocent life is a tragedy and our thoughts are with the families. We will work with our Afghan partners to investigate and determine the facts and we will work with the government of Afghanistan to provide assistance," he added.
 
The Kandahari tragedy adds to the increasing civilian death toll in Afghanistan, where 95 people were killed and 111 injured during the last seven days, according to UN data. 
 
The city of Kunduz already made headlines last year when a US airstrike on October 3, 2015 killed 42 people, including three children, at the Doctors Without Borders or Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) hospital.
 
The US carried out its own investigation into that incident, calling it an "honest mistake," apologizing to the aid group and providing cash to reconstruct the medical facility.
 
But MSF has called for an independent inquiry, saying that the American probe left too many questions unanswered and had failed to ensure that the tragedy wouldn't be repeated.
 
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Thursday said that while the 15-year history of the US-NATO operation in Afghanistan is "full of such examples" of civilians killed in airstrikes, no incident has seen anyone brought to justice following an investigation.
 
"No one bears any responsibility - neither at a personal level ... nor at the state level," Zakharova said.
 
 

  • 0

#11 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 02:47 PM

Good Deaths in Mosul, Bad Deaths in Aleppo
 
 
 
 
18 October 2016.
 
 
 
 
As the US-backed offensive in Mosul, Iraq, begins, the mainstream US media readies the American people to blame the terrorists for civilian casualties but the opposite rules apply to Syria's Aleppo, reports Robert Parry.
 
Note how differently The New York Times prepares the American public for civilian casualties from the new U.S.-backed Iraqi government assault on the city of Mosul to free it from the Islamic State, compared to the unrelenting condemnation of the Russian-backed Syrian government assault on neighborhoods of east Aleppo held by Al Qaeda.
 
In the case of Mosul, the million-plus residents are not portrayed as likely victims of American airstrikes and Iraqi government ground assaults, though surely many will die during the offensive. Instead, the civilians are said to be eagerly awaiting liberation from the Islamic State terroristsand their head-chopping brutality.
 
U.S.-backed Syrian 
 
U.S.-backed Syrian "moderate" rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot from the YouTube video]
 
"Mosul's residents are hoarding food and furtively scrawling resistance slogans on walls,"writesTimes' veteran war correspondent Rod Nordland about this week's launch of the U.S.-backed government offensive. "Those forces will fight to enter a city where for weeks the harsh authoritarian rule of the Islamic State … has sought to crack down on a population eager to either escape or rebel, according to interviews with roughly three dozen people from Mosul. …
 
"Just getting out of Mosul had become difficult and dangerous: Those who were caught faced million-dinar fines, unless they were former members of the Iraqi Army or police, in which case the punishment was beheading. … Graffiti and other displays of dissidence against the Islamic State were more common in recent weeks, as were executions when the vandals were caught."
 
The Times article continues: "Mosul residents chafed under social codes banning smoking and calling for splashing acid on body tattoos, summary executions of perceived opponents, whippings of those who missed prayers or trimmed their beards, and destroying 'un-Islamic' historical monuments."
 
So, the message is clear: if the inevitable happens and the U.S.-backed offensive kills a number of Mosul's civilians, including children, The New York Times' readers have been hardened to accept this "collateral damage" as necessary to free the city from blood-thirsty extremists. The fight to crush these crazies is worth it, even if there are significant numbers of civilians killed in the "cross-fire."
 
And we've seen similar mainstream mediatreatment of other U.S.-organized assaults on urban areas, such as the devastation of the Iraqi city, Fallujah, in 2004 when U.S. Marines routed Iraqi insurgents from the city while leveling or severely damaging most of the city's buildings and killing hundreds of civilians. Butthose victims were portrayed in the Western press as "human shields," shifting the blame for their deaths onto the Iraqi insurgents.
 
Despite the fact that U.S. forces invaded Iraq in defiance of international law - and thus all the thousands of civilian deaths across Iraq from the "shock and awe" U.S. firepower should be considered war crimes - there was virtually no such analysis allowed into the pages of The New York Times or the other mainstream U.S. media. Such talk was forced to the political fringes, as it continues to be today. War-crimes tribunals are only for the other guys.
 
Lust to Kill Children
 
By contrast, the Times routinely portrays the battle for east Aleppo as simply a case of barbaric Russian and Syrian leaders bombing innocent neighborhoods with no regard for the human cost, operating out of an apparent lust to kill children.
 
At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as 
 
At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as "shock and awe."
 
Rather than focusing on Al Qaeda's harsh rule of east Aleppo, the Times told its readers in late September how to perceive the Russian-Syrian offensive to drive out Al Qaeda and its allies. A Sept. 25articleby Anne Barnard and Somini Sengupta, entitled "Syria and Russia Appear Ready to Scorch Aleppo," began:
 
"Make life intolerable and death likely. Open an escape route, or offer a deal to those who leave or surrender. Let people trickle out. Kill whoever stays. Repeat until a deserted cityscape is yours. It is a strategy that both the Syrian government and its Russian allies have long embraced to subdue Syrian rebels, largely by crushing the civilian populations that support them.
 
"But in the past few days, as hopes for a revived cease-fire have disintegrated at the United Nations, the Syrians and Russians seem to be mobilizing to apply this kill-all-who-resist strategy to the most ambitious target yet: the rebel-held sections of the divided metropolis of Aleppo."
 
Again, note how the "rebels" are portrayed as local heroes, rather than a collection of jihadists from both inside and outside Syria fighting under the operational command of Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, which recently underwent a name change to the SyriaConquest Front. But the name change and the pretense about "moderate" rebels are just more deceptions.
 
As journalist/historian Gareth Porter haswritten: "Information from a wide range of sources, including some of those the United States has been explicitly supporting, makes it clear that every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces [of Idlib and Aleppo] is engaged in a military structure controlled by Nusra militants. All of these rebel groups fight alongside the Nusra Front and coordinate their military activities with it. …
 
"At least since 2014 the Obama administration has armed a number of Syrian rebel groups even though it knew the groups were coordinating closely with the Nusra Front, which was simultaneously getting arms from Turkey and Qatar. The strategy called for supplying TOW anti-tank missiles to the 'Syrian Revolutionaries Front' (SRF) as the core of a client Syrian army that would be independent of the Nusra Front.
 
"However, when a combined force of Nusra and non-jihadist brigades including the SRF captured the Syrian army base at Wadi al-Deif in December 2014, the truth began to emerge. The SRF and other groups to which the United States had supplied TOW missiles had fought under Nusra's command to capture the base."
 
Arming Al Qaeda
 
This reality - the fact that the U.S. government is indirectly supplying sophisticated weaponry to Al Qaeda - is rarelymentioned in the mainstream U.S. news media, though one might think it would make for a newsworthy story. But it would undercut the desired propaganda narrative of "good guy" rebels fighting "bad guy" government backed by "ultra-bad guy" Russians.
 
The second plane about to crash into the World Trade Center towers in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001.
 
The second plane about to crash into the World Trade Center towers in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001.
 
What if Americans understood that their tax money and U.S. weaponry were going to aid the terrorist group thatperpetratedthe 9/11 attacks? What if they understood the larger historical context that Washington helped midwife the modern jihadist movement - and Al Qaeda - through the U.S./Saudi support for the Afghan mujahedeen in the 1980s?
 
And what if Americans understood that Washington's supposed regional "allies," including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Israel, have sided with Al Qaeda in Syria because of their intense hatred of Shiite-ruled Iran, an ally of Syria's secular government?
 
These Al Qaeda sympathies have beenknown for several yearsbut never get reported in the mainstream U.S. press. In September 2013, Israel's Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored Syria's Sunni extremists over President Bashar al-Assad.
 
"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren told the Jerusalem Post inan interview. "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al Qaeda.
 
And, in June 2014, speaking as a former ambassador at an Aspen Institute conference, Oren expanded on his position,sayingIsrael would even prefer a victory by the brutal Islamic State over continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said.
 
But such cynical - and dangerous - realpolitik is kept from the American people. Instead, the Syrian conflict is presented as all about the children.
 
There is also little said about how Al Qaeda's Nusra Front and its allied jihadists keep the civilian population in east Aleppo essentially as "human shields." When "humanitarian corridors" have been opened to allow civilians to escape, they had been fired on by the jihadists determined to keep as many people under their control as possible.
 
Propaganda Fodder
 
By forcing the civilians to stay, Al Qaeda and its allies can exploit the injuries and deaths of civilians, especially the children, for propaganda advantages.
 
 
CONTINUED  >>>>>>>>>
 
 

  • 0

#12 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 02:51 PM

Is UN able to prosecute the U.S. for their actions in Afghanistan?
 
 
 
 
10 November 2016.
 
 
 
 
There is a storm of indignation all around the world because of US' airstrike on Kunduz hospital in the northern part of Afghanistan within the latest three days. From the very beginning it was clear that it was the US who had stricken a blow. It was also confirmed by various international humanitarian organizations.
 
The UN reacted immediately and declared to hold an investigation on mass casualties among civilians. According to the United Nations, at least 32 were killed and 19 were wounded in the tragedy. Addressing the audience, the Head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan Tadamichi Yamamoto said such civilian casualties are unacceptable and undermine efforts on strengthening peace and stability in the region.
 
The Clarification of the incident's circumstances is still going on. But the American command has already admitted their air strikes resulted in civilian casualties. It is really requires investigation. In this way the US President Barack Obama expressed condolences over civilians' deaths speaking with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani as if that'll help!
 
It should be mentioned that the US senior officials recently did not hesitate but admitted their mistakes and shortcomings. Such autocriticism becomes clear considering some facts.
 
First the US is acting on the basis of the aims and the experience of their own errors. State Department's analytics have analyzed numerous instances of civilian infrastructure's destruction and the losses of civilian lives, exposing a deep assessment of the international community's reaction to these incidents. They came to the simple conclusion that in a few days such events are practically forgotten in the background of many others and the United States realize their bloody ambitions in the end. Only this year Western coalition's Air Force stroke dozens of blows on civilian facilities, which were happily forgotten.
 
Let us remember some of the mistakes like the blows at the Doctors without borders' hospital near the town of Maarrat al-Nu'man in Syria killing at least 7 and wounding 10 people on February 15. Similarly coalition's planes attacked the city of Manbij on July 18 and 30, causing the losses of lives of more than 110 civilians, including 30 children. In addition, on July 28 it has destroyed the market in the village of Al-Ghandur in Aleppo province. There were 28 civilians killed there including seven children. The US Air Force's blow on September 17 at the city of Deir ez-Zor was also a mistake. However there were not any terrorists killed, but the Syrian army. It should be recalled that about 60 military were killed and over 100 wounded in the attack. No one had been brought to justice as a result of the investigation so far.
 
Second the Americans usually investigate incidents having a finger in the pie. Controlled by the US media provide active support defining a favorable background information. There is an interesting article on the problems with the information in the western media written by Glenn Greenwald from Intercept. He claims CNN and The New York Times support the interests of their owners and are often used to manipulate the public opinion and promote propaganda or questionable political projects. In addition, the major Western media are too corrupted.
 
This is the very scheme used in the case of the last air strike of the hospital in Kunduz. According to White House Press Secretary Josh Ernest, Barack Obama has already contacted with the Doctors without Borders' current international president Dr. Joanne Liu, and assured her the investigation of the incident would be 'comprehensive and objective'.
 
This confirms once again that the United States use all the administrative, military, political, financial and information resources available to promote their own interests. The Americans have developed an algorithm of actions, which they try to impose on the UN leadership for misrepresentation. Let us hope that the United Nations won't be led by the nose by the United States this time and not allow suppressing the facts. The investigation must be followed to its logical end and those responsible must be held accountable to the fullest extent of international law.
 
Mehmet Ersoy, a freelance journalist for Inside Syria Media Center.
 
The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
 
 

  • 0

#13 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 05:00 PM

Pentagon underreporting civilian deaths in Iraq, Syria
 
 
 
 
 
10 November 2016.
 
 
 
 
 
 
According to details released by the Pentagon yesterday, 119 civilians have been killed since 2014 as a result of US-led coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.
 
Commenting on the details released, the US Central Command's (CENTCOM) Major Josh Jacques was cited by the Guardian as saying that the latest release did not include casualties from coalition airstrikes in mid-July near Manbij, Syria.
 
Monitoring groups say the Manbij airstrikes killed dozens of civilians. According to Jacques, and investigation into the airstrikes was nearing completion.
 
According to US military data, the United States has conducted 12,354 airstrikes against Daesh since 2 November 2014, with 6,992 sorties in Iraq and 5,362 in Syria.
 
Given the scale of the bombing, monitoring groups are deeply sceptical of the Pentagon's figures and stress that it has dramatically underreported civilian deaths.
 
Yesterday alone, US-led coalition airstrikes killed 23 civilians in Raqqa in one day.
 
The US airstrikes against the city of Manbij and the surrounding area is also reported to have killed an estimated 200 civilians. At least 56 civilians were killed in one single incident, who at the time the US claimed they "mistook for [Daesh]."
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#14 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 05:04 PM

Barbarism of the USA's Imperial Wars is Unmatched
 
 
 
 
 
04 October 2016.
 
 
 
 
 
"What Russia is sponsoring and doing [in Syria] is not counter-terrorism it is barbarism" Samantha Power, US Representative to the United Nations 
 
The US representative to the United Nations, Ambassador 'Ranting Sam' Samantha Power, accused the Russian and Syrian governments of 'barbarism', claiming Moscow or Damascus had attacked an unarmed United Nations humanitarian convoy delivering aid to civilians in Aleppo.  No evidence was presented.  Rants and threats do not require facts or proof; they only require vehement emotional ejaculations and compliant mass propaganda organs.
 
'Barbarians', to be clear, evoke images of leaders and groups, which abjure all civilized norms and laws.  They only respond to armed force.
 
In the present context Power's charges of barbarism against Russia and Syria was used to justify the US aerial bombardment of a Syrian army outpost, which killed and maimed almost 200 government troops engaged in combating ISIS terrorists and jihadi invaders.
 
In other words, accusing Syrian soldiers of 'barbarism' was Ambassador Power's cynical way of dehumanizing the young victims of an earlier and deliberate US war crime.
 
Let's analyze the appropriate context for the use and abuse of the language of 'barbarism' - and its rightful application.
 
Barbarism:  the Deed
 
Over the past decade and a half, the US and its allies have invaded, occupied, killed, wounded and dispossessed over ten million people, in countries from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon.  Military and civilian officials have systematically destroyed entire economies, fostered ethno-religious wars, undermined ancient community and family ties and placed corrupt political puppets in power.
 
Promoted by the US, torture, arbitrary arrest and incarceration have become the norm creating lawless and chaotic societies, which had once been productive and stable.  The shredding of  social structures has provokes massive population flight, with millions of desperate refugees fleeing invasions, wars and total society breakdown.  The result of these deliberate imperial policy decisions has been emptied cities and neighborhoods, broken families, destroyed lives and futures for many millions of young Arabs and Muslims.
 
As the human toll mounts and Western Europe is flooded with the results of US aggressive wars, the imperialists have sharpened their shrill rhetoric, labeling all of their adversaries and critics as 'accomplices in war crimes', and 'barbarians'.
 
The greater and more sustained the policy of wanton imperial pillage, the more intense the frustration of its leaders over its ultimate failures, and the greater the recourse of its 'diplomats' to vituperative language.
 
Barbarism in Search of Barbarians:
 
The principal adversaries to US aggression, Russia, China and Iran, have not invaded any sovereign countries, nor have they provoked the desperate flight of millions of refugees.  Russia was invited to aid its Syrian government ally confronting an invasion of terrorist mercenaries who are intent on dividing the country.  Crimea peacefully re-joined Russia via elections.  Moscow rejected playing any military role in support of Western wars against Iraq, Yemen and Libya.  None of this rose to the level of US-EU barbarism.
 
In Asia, the West has invaded and devastated Viet Nam, the Philippines and Afghanistan.  Japan, now a US ally, had invaded China, Korea and Southeast Asia.  China for its part has not engaged in any imperial war of conquest for centuries.
 
Iran has not invaded any country in modern times.  On the contrary, Iraq invaded Tehran in the 1980's with US support and waged a decade-long war which caused millions of casualties.
 
In truth, if waging wars, staging invasions, destroying whole societies and causing millions of deaths are the measure of barbarism, then the US, Europe and Japan have been clearly barbaric.
 
To claim otherwise and follow the ranting script of Ambassador Samantha Power is to enter into a tunnel of hallucinations where the language of liberal values embellishes truly barbarian acts.
 
The entire language of politics has been perverted and converted into an artifice of self-delusion.  Terrorist militias are re-packaged as 'rebels' and 'moderates', spreading barbarism from the imperial Western center to the periphery.  The deliberate spread of terrorism is itself a barbaric deed, which degrades the status of Western powers.
 
Conclusion
 
In ancient Greece, the barbarians were those outside of the empire who did not speak the language of civilization.  They were savage invaders seeking to pillage the wealth and culture of the empire.  Today the barbarians emerge from inside the empire and spread outward.  The imperial leaders have engaged in serial wars of destruction and pillage, even as their own societies and economies wallow in ignorance, misery, debt, addiction and criminality.  Imperial barbarians devastate whole cultures, erasing the great historical legacy of ancient civilizations like Iraq and Syria, while imposing their culture of morons, drugs and electronic gadgets, which has already infantilized its own population.
 
The empire of barbarians is infested with moneychangers and corrupt speculators.  They have debased the entire legal system and legislative bodies.  The public space has become a private latrine for the elite, closed to any real public discourse and debate.
 
Electoral spectacles, rather than reasoned debates, undermine republican principles.  Imperial conquerors, enmeshed in a military metaphysic, cannot reconstruct a devastated society into a productive colony, nor can they learn or benefit from the best and brightest among its captives, as Rome did with Greece, because it has sown such destruction and salted the very soil under the feet of its conquered peoples.
 
The barbarian-imperial world order is constantly at war with 'others' and can never assimilate and learn from the precious human treasures it has so wantonly destroyed.  It rules by terror abroad and deceit at home.  As so crudely displayed by the imperial rants of Ambassador Samantha Power, its oratory at international forums reflect the hysteria of mediocre functionaries:  mindless barbarians raving among themselves in marbled echo chambers.
 
In the end, the imperial barbarians will be besieged by their own fleeing vassals and puppets.  When they finally confront their own decay and internal dissolution they have to decide whether to engage in a last global conflagration or dismantle the imperial barbaric order and choose justice, law and civilization.
 
 

  • 0

#15 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 22 September 2018 - 08:17 AM

https://engforum.pra...s/#entry2740067


  • 0

#16 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5313 posts

Posted 22 September 2018 - 03:21 PM

https://engforum.pra...where-it-wants/


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2018 Pravda.Ru