Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Collateral Murder

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 9:03pm
CJCSI 3121.01A, Standing Rules of Engagement of the US military

Quote Once a force is declared hostile by
appropriate authority, US units need not observe a hostile act or a
demonstration of hostile intent before engaging that force.



So sure, I can't tell you for a fact what makes someone hostile to command.

What I can say with unquestionable certainty is that the crew deemed them questionable being in the location of a recent firefight and helping someone that command deemed a hostile, asked for permission, and command agreed that they were hostile or had hostile intent and allowed the attack.

Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 9:05pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Within the news media, reporters and writers are your Army folks. Photographers are your Marines. ...And copy editors are your Air Force, but that is a different story.
heh

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 9:11pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

CJCSI 3121.01A, Standing Rules of Engagement of the US military

Quote Once a force is declared hostile by
appropriate authority, US units need not observe a hostile act or a
demonstration of hostile intent before engaging that force.



So sure, I can't tell you for a fact what makes someone hostile to command.

What I can say with unquestionable certainty is that the crew deemed them questionable being in the location of a recent firefight and helping someone that command deemed a hostile, asked for permission, and command agreed that they were hostile or had hostile intent and allowed the attack.

I suppose it remains to be determined if two or three unarmed dudes in a civilian van constitute 'a force' under any accepted definition. I personally would hold that they do not, but I'm not with the JAG corps. I would suggest, however, that that ROE stipulation is formulated for conventional warfare, and is not appropriate to counterinsurgency situations. If that particular ROE was relied on in this particular engagement then I think it ought to be revisited, if it has not been since then. One might also challenge what level of authority ought to be able to authorize engagement of unarmed targets engaged in medical evacuation, but I think that in this case this is the weaker of the two arguments I present.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 9:13pm
Quote i. Hostile Force. Any civilian, paramilitary, or military force or
terrorist(s), with or without national designation, that has committed a
hostile act, exhibited hostile intent, or has been declared hostile by
appropriate US authority.


My bad meant to include the definition of hostile force in with the other one.


We don't know who the "appropriate authority" was in this situation. Could have been a Colonel in the nearby base, could have been a General in Baghdad or could have been the Joint Chiefs (doubt it but still)

Edited by Linus - 05 April 2010 at 9:15pm

Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 9:26pm
Also, can the people who are deeming this threat hostile or not even see them, or is this done over the radio by descriptions given by those in the air?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 9:42pm
The triad communications in use is pretty confussing. Identify, classify, determine, the level of threat makes the front line trooper subject to command indecesion more times than not in the current combat enviornment. From the front line trooper first ID'ing the target to a command directed fire order can and does result in several issues. Situational change, movement of non-combatants into fire zone, and then it is the front line trooper in jeopardy, while the command types just check off a listing. And heaven forbid the trooper in the field uses command descretion anymore, the paperwork alone on a free fire incident is just huge, and it is the trooper in the field that literally takes the hit, either way the decesion goes. There is no way to fight a PC war with a Nintendo style electronic maze that the trooper has to pass through to cover his fourth point of contact. The surerent rules of engagement fluctuate almost daily as the polititians try to minimalize the repurcussions that can result, they are more than willing to cover thier butts, with the bodies of young troopers. War by design is you kill and break things at a higher rate than your enemy, to the point where your enemy no longer has the desire to fight. Any other definition of war is idiotic.
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 9:43pm
Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

Also, can the people who are deeming this threat hostile or not even see them, or is this done over the radio by descriptions given by those in the air?

It would have been based on the situation description by the Apache pilots.

I'm not suggesting the Apache crews operated outside their ROEs are military policy; this situation just has me questioning what has gone wrong that what we witnessed in this video can be officially sanctioned. In the context of a counterinsurgency I would have thought logic would dictate erring on the side of caution and not engaging the van.

I recently wrote a paper for my strategic thought and international security class where my basic thesis is that the conventional warfighting/peacekeeping paradigm we brought out of the Cold War has ill served us in our current conflicts. I didn't get into much depth regarding the profligacy of use of lethal force, but I did touch on it, and I think there's merit to my assertion that the current generation of middle level and senior leadership were all brought up under a military system specifically formulated for the highly effective destruction of an enemy, and that consequently the entire military culture is still perhaps a bit too eager to try to kill their way out of the challenges of counterinsurgency...

This is a crappy situation, but honestly I'm glad it's come out if it will help to further inform the debate on use of armed force in counterinsurgency operations.

EDIT TO ADD:

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

War by design is you kill and break things at a higher rate than your enemy, to the point where your enemy no longer has the desire to fight. Any other definition of war is idiotic.

PERFECT example of exactly what I'm talking about. There is still a dominant mindset that attempts to fight a counterinsurgency as a war. Unfortuantely, collateral damage in this case has a strategic impact that is unprecedented in American military experience. Tactical victories lead to strategic defeats.


Edited by brihard - 05 April 2010 at 9:45pm
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 9:45pm
So if the person who deems a situation threatening or not, and gives the go ahead on whether or not you can kill someone cant even see the situation first hand, what system if any is in place to prevent situations like this. I mean what keeps a gunner with an itchy finger from just saying "yep, thats a gun, for sure" when theres nothing?

Not saying it happens, I honestly have no idea, but that seems like a HUGE flaw in the system.
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 9:47pm
Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

So if the person who deems a situation threatening or not, and gives the go ahead on whether or not you can kill someone cant even see the situation first hand, what system if any is in place to prevent situations like this. I mean what keeps a gunner with an itchy finger from just saying "yep, thats a gun, for sure" when theres nothing?

Not saying it happens, I honestly have no idea, but that seems like a HUGE flaw in the system.

Yup, and OS is right to point this flaw out.

Determining how free the troops can be on the trigger is one of the greatest challenges in modern conflicts. Western nations are extremely casualty adverse, and the troops on the ground obviously don't want to come home in a box, so the instinct is to apply the ROEs liberally when in any doubt. Strategically, though, accepting a slightly higher rate of friendly casualties may be necessary to mitigate the harm done to the very civilian population that ultimate success depends on. We have the same problems in Afghanistan.

Tough call.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 9:55pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

 
Yup, and OS is right to point this flaw out.

Determining how free the troops can be on the trigger is one of the greatest challenges in modern conflicts. Western nations are extremely casualty adverse, and the troops on the ground obviously don't want to come home in a box, so the instinct is to apply the ROEs liberally when in any doubt. Strategically, though, accepting a slightly higher rate of friendly casualties may be necessary to mitigate the harm done to the very civilian population that ultimate success depends on. We have the same problems in Afghanistan.

Tough call.


Exactly this.

The reality is that the cost of a political victory in both our current Middle East wars is a higher human and material cost for our troops.

I think it is incredibly tough, as a soldier on the ground, to say "I will not engage because I'm not sure".  Once they've assessed the threat, if they think there is any chance it can hurt them, everything in their training and their psyche is telling them "Do my best to take this target down". Unfortunately, whether it's a car speeding toward a convoy or just civilians who are behaving somewhat suspiciously, that shot you take can mean another person becoming insurgent, or another person giving money to the insurgents, or just another person unwilling to give important information to the coalition.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 10:01pm
We were the insurgents in 1776, and Britian decided to maintain rather than to crush us militarily, and look what happened. Insurgencies as well as 'police actions' are difficult to tap dance through. Isreal is a perfect example, they use a sledge hammer and take the consequence to maintain thier security, and no power in the area dares to engage in a full scale conventional war with them. Read Mao and Giap and understand the how and why of an insurgent war, and thier fears, a full power war by the opposition, no guerilla or insurgent force can sustain logistically in that enviorment. Not pretty but it worked in Malasia with the Brits, Chad with the French, Russians in Cheznia(sp) but we are too affraid of the political ramifacations. Giap writes that if the US sustained at the Tet Offensive counter level the communist movement would have failed miserably, only our let up and resumption of pre Tet operations lead him to believe he could win, not on the battlefield, but in the American Living Room, and College Campusus.
Another study is the attempt in the late 70's early 80's to start a communist insurection in western europe with all the "Red" factions, The Germans were relentless and ruthless in dealing with them and the movements failed, and a lot of these military actions were under the radar of international media.
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 10:06pm
Military action alone will not solve this issue.  It will result in another 9/11 even if it succeeds it impressing our will upon the Middle East.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 10:15pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

We were the insurgents in 1776, and Britian decided to maintain rather than to crush us militarily, and look what happened. Insurgencies as well as 'police actions' are difficult to tap dance through. Isreal is a perfect example, they use a sledge hammer and take the consequence to maintain thier security, and no power in the area dares to engage in a full scale conventional war with them. Read Mao and Giap and understand the how and why of an insurgent war, and thier fears, a full power war by the opposition, no guerilla or insurgent force can sustain logistically in that enviorment. Not pretty but it worked in Malasia with the Brits, Chad with the French, Russians in Cheznia(sp) but we are too affraid of the political ramifacations. Giap writes that if the US sustained at the Tet Offensive counter level the communist movement would have failed miserably, only our let up and resumption of pre Tet operations lead him to believe he could win, not on the battlefield, but in the American Living Room, and College Campusus.
Another study is the attempt in the late 70's early 80's to start a communist insurection in western europe with all the "Red" factions, The Germans were relentless and ruthless in dealing with them and the movements failed, and a lot of these military actions were under the radar of international media.

Insurgencies are, by definition, in and of a civilian population. If you simply fight the insrugency, you fight the population itself, and you push more of them into the insurgents' arms. Experiences since 2001 have shown that this is ultimately self defeating. If you kill a five man insurgent cell, great, but if you also kill five civilians, those five combatants will be replaced and then some. 'collateral damage' as an operational concept simply cannot and must not be thought of the same way in a counterinsurgency as it is in a conventional war. A successful counterinsurgency must build more than it destroys, else the situation will simply continue to deteriorate. There is only a certain amount of building that can be done (of civil infrastructure and institutions), and only a certain amount of accidental destruction can be 'written off' by the positive efforts it seeks to enable. I would point to the end of the Irish Troubles as an example of a successful resolution of an insurgency.

Israel can maintain the status quo because they have a perpetual necessary presence in the conflict zone simply by virtue of the fact that it's on their own soil, or launched from immediate neighbours. Not comparable to Iraq or Afghanistan. The Israeli population will continue to support heavy handed operations in Gaza and the occupied territories simply because pulling out of the conflict in its entirety is not and never will be a viable option.

It is simply incorrect to claim that the brute force counterinsurgency 'worked' in Chechnya. as we've seen in this weeks news, that conflict is still ongoing. To this I would add the notable Russian failure in Afghanistan.

In an expeditionary operation that has taken on the characteristics of a counterinsurgency the lviing rooms and college campuses of Americans can be no more discounter than those of the civilian populations in the conflict zones. Variables cannot be isolated from each other in real conflicts. Political dissent may not be strategic convenient, and may make a good scapegoat for failings, but that does not decrease its relevance or the reality of its impact. Vietnam was also a combination of a conventional war and a counterinsurgency. The enemy was a true nation state in every sense of the word. This is not the case in Iraq or Afghanistan.

One of the better archetypes for ongoing counterinsurgencies is actually Algeria. The French attempted to use military force - fairly liberally - to crush an ideological insurgency that had strategically significant popular support from the population. They won in a tactical sense, but they lost strategically. They forced the insurgency under, for a while, but it came back with a vengeance and kicked them out.

Your thinking on this is the exact approach that was tried early in both of the ongoing conflicts, and it has been proven unsuccessful. Fighting is part and parcel of a counterinsurgency, by necessity, but it requires a whole of government approach with civil strategic objectives to ultimately be successful. 


"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 10:28pm
Back to the original video, I've reviewed it- at 3:59, one individual VERY CLEARLY has a weapon. The situation was different from how I saw it first time through.  It remains illustrative of how a situation can go quickly to <poopy> in COIN ops, but I no longer have any doubt that the initial engagement was justified.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 11:07pm
Rule 1: Do not carry a weapon in a combat zone, unless you are willing to accept all the incoming you deserve, and a little more just in case you are lucky with the first few rounds.

Rule 2; Do not flash a weapon at a passing attack helicopter, unless you are sure you can outrun it.

Rule 3: Do not fire a RPG at a M1 Abrams unless your personal armor is greater than his.

Rule 4; Do not gather in large groups, and flash weapons when a US Artillery unit in the area has not fired thier big guns for awhile.

Rule 5: Do not have an insurgent house party when the local BUFF (B-52)has not released its bomb load yet, and do not smile and point things at the circling drone.

Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 11:33pm
Here's something else I think a lot of people aren't considering when viewing this material. As Bri said, you have to watch it without any preconceptions. This was happening right then and there for the pilots, and as they say, hindsight is always 20/20. As civilian, we get to enjoy the fact that we can second-guess actions all day long in our day-to-day lives, and in the end, we're probably going to be making it home alive to sleep in our warm beds rather than lying on a cold morgue slab in a body bag. If anything, my vast library of war history has taught me that there is no room what-so-ever in combat to second guess.

Now, about the van. If you listened, US ground forces were heading to the position to investigate the situation and clear the area. The van showing up meant possible hostiles and thus a threat to the safety of the ground forces who were closing in on that position as it rolled up. You've got two sets of Apache pilots that already were fearing for their safety because they fired on people that they deemed were hostiles, and now you've got what appear to be friendlies of the hostiles rolling up which would put the ground forces in danger.

Is it sad that this happened like it did? Of course, but war is always filled with sadness. We cannot ask our soldiers to second guess their instincts on the battlefield. If we do, then a whole lot more of them are going to be coming home in body bags.
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 11:41pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Back to the original video, I've reviewed it- at 3:59, one individual VERY CLEARLY has a weapon. The situation was different from how I saw it first time through.  It remains illustrative of how a situation can go quickly to <poopy> in COIN ops, but I no longer have any doubt that the initial engagement was justified.


Add on top of that, at ~3:44, the second guy from the left in the middle of the screen clearly has an RPG when he turns around.


You are now leaving the realm of "1 AK-47 and 1 magazine for defense" and going in to at least him having more dangerous intentions.




EDIT: I think you and I are looking at the same guy.

Edited by Linus - 05 April 2010 at 11:43pm

Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 11:46pm
Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

Is it sad that this happened like it did? Of course, but war is always filled with sadness. We cannot ask our soldiers to second guess their instincts on the battlefield. If we do, then a whole lot more of them are going to be coming home in body bags.


I think the question is whether we are willing to have that happen.

Last year 80 Afghan civilians were killed by gunners in convoys obeying the ROE, and exactly zero were found to have represented an actual threat after analysis.

There is simply no way to know if a car speeding towards your convoy is filled with explosives or not.  We can't expect soldiers to be able to distinguish the difference between a suicide bomber and civilian who doesn't realize they are coming too close to the convoy.  Do we tell our soldiers "Don't shoot at cars coming near you"?  That, I'm sure, is the wrong answer, but finding the right answer should be a priority, and I can guarantee it will be difficult, and probably cost lives.

We need the Afghan people to respect us, and want our presence more than the Taliban.  If they're still killing civilians and we're not, people will have a strong incentive to support us.  Right now, many Afghans are stuck in between a rock and a hard place: side with the Americans and face serious economic and possible life or death repercussions (from both sides), or side with the Taliban and only run the risk of being blown up by the Americans.

If we cannot get into the heads, and eventually the hearts of Afghans, we have no chance of creating a stable, supportive government in Afghanistan, which means a future of Islamic extremism, and at this rate, probably a return to the frequency of terror attacks during the '70s.

The reality is that the military may very well have to bear a heavier cost in terms of lives in order for us to win this conflict.  Firepower will not solve all the issues, but neither will talking or spending money, whether it be on bombs or building projects.  Boots on the ground will have to be willing to engage in conversation as much, if not more, than in combat.  I really believe that our strategy has to be sharpened and refined to truly win this war.  We may not be fighting another Vietnam, but we may well be fighting another Korea, and too many men and women have died for it to be reasonable for us to just forget this war.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 April 2010 at 12:13am
I find it interesting how the gunner used the cannon instead of missiles. 1 missile could have taken the whole group out, but I guess it was a bit more economical to use bullets. :)
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 April 2010 at 12:42am
I think the biggest issue I have with the video isn't the fact that the reporters were killed, its how the soldiers conducted themselves. They blatantly drove over the body of one of the men, and acted like the entire thing was a video game. I have a lot of respect for soldiers, but not for these boys.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.