ISIS

William Haskins · Aug 29, 2014

i support president obama's pragmatism in dealing with ISIS and he has clearly demonstrated a willingness to strike in key situations and i believe he will do more as opportunity and circumstance allow.

i agree ISIS needs to be crushed, but saudi arabia, iran and most importantly turkey need to act in their own interests and deal with this largely as regional house-cleaning.

ISIS is a geopolitical threat with a lot more money and political ambition than they are getting credit for.

cornflake · Aug 29, 2014

c.e.lawson said:
ISIS has vowed to raise their flag over the White House. They butchered an innocent AMERICAN citizen in a most painful and horrific way after holding him hostage (and torturing him) for over a year and demanding 130 million dollars for his release. They have another two Americans hostage whom they have threatened to butcher as well. I think that qualifies as doing something to the U.S. You don't?

Based on this, I assume you demanded strategy and leadership from Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama on what they were going to do about among other things, North Korea, Abu Sayyaf, MEND, FARC, etc., etc., etc.

That there are groups that kidnap and demand ransom for people shouldn't be news to anyone - k&r has been a booming business for decades. The U.S. gov't won't ransom people, but other countries do, and companies and people certainly do. This is nearly as big a deal as making threats against the White House. I mean really, am I supposed to care even remotely about random rhetoric?

In short, no, I don't think they've done anything to the U.S., at least not anything lots of other groups haven't done that we don't seem to need a 'strategy,' for. Right-wing radio is insane, dude. They're not exactly one with reality or current events. I listen to it sometimes, because I find it amusing, but it's about as serious as the Muppet Show.

And I guess I still hold the idealistic view that America is a good country, with good values, which wants to do good in the world.

Where and when did you get that idea? When we armed Bin Laden? Invaded Iraq, told the people to rise up against Saddam and then ditched? When we armed Saddam with chemical weapons? When we put Noriega in place? When we arrested Noriega, the leader of a sovereign nation, on, what, drug charges? When we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan for dick-waving purposes? I guess I missed something.

And we do, on an ongoing basis. Thank goodness we have the means to. And if our allies are being slaughtered by the thousands (Kurds), and genocide is being carried out on people because of their religion, and if this ISIS movement continues to grow and threaten the scope of not just Middle East security but world security, then I believe it is only right that we do something to stop this. I believe the future threat to us is very, very real.

The Kurds are our allies when it suits us. When it didn't, we supplied someone with chemical weaponry to kill them en masse, remember?

The future threat to us was real if we didn't arm Bin Laden to the tune of, what, seven billion bucks worth of equipment, plus training? That one worked out well for us. Maybe we should stop trying to manipulate the world to work out in our favour and just chill, or actually try and do actual good, not good by means of this military victory vs. that one. Only my opinion.

cornflake · Aug 29, 2014

William Haskins said:
i support president obama's pragmatism in dealing with ISIS and he has clearly demonstrated a willingness to strike in key situations and i believe he will do more as opportunity and circumstance allow.

i agree ISIS needs to be crushed, but saudi arabia, iran and most importantly turkey need to act in their own interests and deal with this largely as regional house-cleaning.

ISIS is a geopolitical threat with a lot more money and political ambition than they are getting credit for.

I don't disagree with this. I don't like the implication that the U.S. government is somehow required to have a strategy for, or deal with, the specific newsworthy-at-the-moment, usually-Islamic 'threats' that exist all over the globe.

I don't like ISIS/L either, and they're doing terrible things - so are a lot of people, and this group is able to do a lot of the things they're doing because we deposed Saddam for shits and giggles to begin with.

I'm just kind of sick of the cycle of intervention to stop some supposed threat that inevitably leads to a worse supposed threat that requires intervention - cue the merry-go-round music.

William Haskins · Aug 29, 2014

well, they're chopping off the heads of americans, they're targeting americans and threatening americans in their propaganda, and they're committing genocide on a daily basis while openly planning more territorial expansion and terror.

so i think america, and every other country with influence and means, owes it to human history to stop ISIS.

clintl · Aug 29, 2014

William Haskins said:
i support president obama's pragmatism in dealing with ISIS and he has clearly demonstrated a willingness to strike in key situations and i believe he will do more as opportunity and circumstance allow.

i agree ISIS needs to be crushed, but saudi arabia, iran and most importantly turkey need to act in their own interests and deal with this largely as regional house-cleaning.

ISIS is a geopolitical threat with a lot more money and political ambition than they are getting credit for.

Yes on all counts. Obama is right that the US can't solve this by itself. ISIS is involved in a multi-sided conflict in Syria, and some of ISIS's enemies are also ours. It's a conflict a hell of a lot more complex than anything we've faced, and it's going to take some time to sort out one that has a chance of being successful. Everyone hates ISIS - the ideal situation would be for a regional alliance to form to take them on. I don't know how you build that when everyone in the region hates everyone else.

cornflake · Aug 29, 2014

William Haskins said:
well, they're chopping off the heads of americans, they're targeting americans and threatening americans in their propaganda, and they're committing genocide on a daily basis while openly planning more territorial expansion and terror.

so i think america, and every other country with influence and means, owes it to human history to stop ISIS.

Wait, do we owe it to human history to stop them because they're threatening, targeting, etc., *Americans*? That seems a little egocentric.

If it's because of the latter, well, frankly, why ISIS? There have been a lot more people guilty of that we've not stopped. Do we not owe it to human history to stop Assad (or the others I could go on listing for a page)?

William Haskins · Aug 29, 2014

you're conflating my points a little disingenuously, but i'll put it up to passion and move on.

actually, i was in support of deposing assad while the resistance was still made up of moderate syrians.

of course you're right that there are aggressors throughout the world, but ISIS distinguishes itself among some of the worst actors historically in that it is amassing money and territory at an alarming rate for a stateless movement of ideologues.

William Haskins · Aug 29, 2014

16% of French Citizens Support ISIS, Poll Finds

One in six French citizens sympathises with the Islamist militant group ISIS, also known as Islamic State, a poll released this week found.

The poll of European attitudes towards the group, carried out by ICM for Russian news agency Rossiya Segodnya, revealed that 16% of French citizens have a positive opinion of ISIS. This percentage increases among younger respondents, spiking at 27% for those aged 18-24.

...

The survey also tested attitudes in Britain and Germany and found that 7% of British citizens responded favourably to ISIS. However, UK polling showed an inverse demographic trend to that of France, with support for ISIS rising with age. 4% of 18-24-year-olds saying they either strongly or somewhat support ISIS, compared to 6% of 24-35-year-olds surveyed and 11% of 35-44-year-olds. Positive attitudes to ISIS in Germany showed less divergence, remaining between 3% and 4% for all age groups.

Newsweek’s France Correspondent, Anne-Elizabeth Moutet, was unsurprised by the news. “This is the ideology of young French Muslims from immigrant backgrounds,” she said, “unemployed to the tune of 40%, who’ve been deluged by satellite TV and internet propaganda.” She pointed to a correlation between support for ISIS and rising anti-Semitism in France, adding that “these are the same people who torch synagogues”.

http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795

kuwisdelu · Aug 29, 2014

William Haskins said:
One in six French citizens sympathises with the Islamist militant group ISIS, also known as Islamic State, a poll released this week found.

The poll of European attitudes towards the group, carried out by ICM for Russian news agency Rossiya Segodnya, revealed that 16% of French citizens have a positive opinion of ISIS. This percentage increases among younger respondents, spiking at 27% for those aged 18-24.

Those edgy YA.

Xelebes · Aug 29, 2014

William Haskins said:
i support president obama's pragmatism in dealing with ISIS and he has clearly demonstrated a willingness to strike in key situations and i believe he will do more as opportunity and circumstance allow.

i agree ISIS needs to be crushed, but saudi arabia, iran and most importantly turkey need to act in their own interests and deal with this largely as regional house-cleaning.

ISIS is a geopolitical threat with a lot more money and political ambition than they are getting credit for.

Agreed.

c.e.lawson · Aug 29, 2014

Well, now, it's starting to feel a little closer.

Online Posts Show ISIS Eyeing Mexican Border, Says Law Enforcement Bulletin

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/2...-mexican-border-says-law-enforcment-bulletin/

Social media chatter shows Islamic State militants are keenly aware of the porous U.S.-Mexico border, and are “expressing an increased interest” in crossing over to carry out a terrorist attack, according to a Texas law enforcement bulletin sent out this week.

“A review of ISIS social media messaging during the week ending August 26 shows that militants are expressing an increased interest in the notion that they could clandestinely infiltrate the southwest border of US, for terror attack,” warns the Texas Department of Public Safety "situational awareness" bulletin, obtained by FoxNews.com.

The three-page bulletin, entitled “ISIS Interest on the US Southwest Border” and dated Aug. 28 was released to law enforcement on Thursday.

clintl · Aug 29, 2014

Why would ISIS do that when they have Americans with passports fighting for them? Or Canadians, for that matter? Or Brits? They have easier ways (all of them legal) than crossing the Mexican border to get into the US. This sounds like some ideologically inspired fear mongering to me.

Magdalen · Aug 29, 2014

cornflake said:
Wait, . . . well, frankly, why ISIS? There have been a lot more people guilty of that we've not stopped. Do we not owe it to human history to stop Assad (or the others I could go on listing for a page)?

This gang (well-funded as william mentioned) apparently requires a very swift & strong response, IMHO, as they appear to me to be quite fucking crazy. They are definitely a perversion of power & means. Hoping cool & even cooler heads prevail or the writings on the wall again, it seems.

cornflake · Aug 29, 2014

c.e.lawson said:
Well, now, it's starting to feel a little closer.

Online Posts Show ISIS Eyeing Mexican Border, Says Law Enforcement Bulletin

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/2...-mexican-border-says-law-enforcment-bulletin/

LOL. I bet they'll send ISIS members infected with Ebola! <--- A thing I actually heard on right-wing radio, from a concerned caller.

Uhm, why would they do that? Wouldn't it be easier to just get on a damn plane? It's a loosely-formed organization, not a nation. There's no ISIS designation on passports. There are also thousands of British and hundreds of American citizens apparently currently in the Middle East with ISIS, so why not just send them?

GailD · Aug 30, 2014

William Haskins said:
i support president obama's pragmatism in dealing with ISIS and he has clearly demonstrated a willingness to strike in key situations and i believe he will do more as opportunity and circumstance allow.

i agree ISIS needs to be crushed, but saudi arabia, iran and most importantly turkey need to act in their own interests and deal with this largely as regional house-cleaning.

ISIS is a geopolitical threat with a lot more money and political ambition than they are getting credit for.

I totally agree with this ^. Given the 'mistakes' of supporting/funding/arming various groups in the past (see Cornflake's comments earlier) it's understandable that Pres. Obama is being cautious about who the U.S. teams up with against ISIS.

I watched Pres. Obama's speech on CNN very closely. When he stated that the U.S. doesn't have a strategy for dealing with ISIS, he was speaking specifically about ISIS in Syria. (This was clarified by a Whitehouse spokesperson shortly after that broadcast.) He went on to say that the U.S. requires a 'partner on the ground' with whom it can form an alliance. It seems to me, there could be some difficulty in choosing the right partner i.e. someone who won't become a potential enemy in the future. Tough choice in the middle east. However, should the U.S. find a suitable partner, then a strategy can be developed.

Personally, I don't believe for one minute that the U.S. government is in any doubt about the severity of the ISIS threat. Pres. Obama is being cautious about how this is handled, and rightly so. I think the opposition parties are simply making hay out of the 'we don't have a strategy' comment and trying to make it look like the president is dithering.

c.e.lawson · Aug 30, 2014

I'd like to post a little derail here with regard to cornflake's comment on conservative talk radio here:

Right-wing radio is insane, dude. They're not exactly one with reality or current events. I listen to it sometimes, because I find it amusing, but it's about as serious as the Muppet Show.

I listen to three conservative talk show hosts. These include,

Michael Medved (referenced in my comment above) who entered Yale at the age of sixteen and then graduated from Yale law school. He has an amazing resume, including political work.

Dennis Prager who, from Wikipedia, majored in Middle Eastern studies and history at Brooklyn College. Studied at the Russian Institute (now Harriman Institute) at Columbia University. He speaks and lectures in several foreign languages, including Russian and Hebrew. He taught Jewish and Russian Elana History at Brooklyn College, and was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, where he did his graduate work at the Russian Institute (now the Harriman Institute) and Middle East Institute from 1970 to 1972. He is a Media Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

And Hugh Hewitt who, (from Wikipedia) attended Harvard University, and graduated cum laude with a B.A. in government in 1978, worked as a ghostwriter for Richard Nixon in California and New York before studying at the University of Michigan Law School, received his J.D. degree in 1983, then moved to Washington D.C. to clerk for Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1983–84, and worked in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s.

None of these three are insane.

They are highly knowledgeable, give well-reasoned and articulate arguments, and all three can and do regularly take on high-level folks with opposing views. The sweeping generalization of conservative talk radio above is not only disingenuous, but straw man at best. That said, I'm not saying that ALL of the right-leaning talk show hosts fall into the above category. Not all all. I will give you that, cornflake.

I realize my political leanings are in the minority here, and I am grateful that for the most part (actually, by FAR) we can have polite and intelligent discussions about even highly controversial issues. And I've learned a lot from you all. But I would also hope that my quoting or referring to conservative opinion once in a while doesn't spark ridicule or condemnation of the person giving it, without reference to the specific argument at hand. A few weeks ago in another thread I mentioned Charles Krauthammer who referred to Hamas as a "cancer". He was excoriated in that thread, and his use of cancer as a metaphor was highly criticized. Yet our president just did the same thing a few days ago in reference to ISIS. So it's okay when Obama does, but not when a conservative pundit does?

Anyway, I want to end my derail by saying that I love this website (been here for over 7 years), and I love so many of the people here, and I am grateful that there is a place where I can come and see high level discussions of so many important issues, and even be a part of some of these discussions. And except for one tiny blip a while ago (in which a lovely mod stepped in almost immediately with the reminder to RYFW), I've never been personally attacked here. I just wanted to clarify, especially for those who aren't familiar with the folks I may quote once in a while, that all conservative pundits are not cut from the same cloth.

kuwisdelu · Aug 30, 2014

Intelligence, education, knowledge, and credentials do not preclude insanity.

Rather, they often seem to be co-morbid with it.

cornflake · Aug 30, 2014

Donald Trump went to Wharton.

Going to a good college, or graduate school, or being successful, or etc., doesn't preclude being, or becoming, batshit crazy, ignorant, or, frankly, dumb as a fencepost. I could give examples of that too, but I suspect you can guess at a couple.

If you (not you - the people we're discussing) talk crazy, repeatedly, in perpetuity, I will figure you're nuts. Could be in it for the paycheck, but that's kind of worse, imo, so I'd rather just go with bonkers.

rugcat · Aug 30, 2014

cornflake said:
Donald Trump went to Wharton.

Going to a good college, or graduate school, or being successful, or etc., doesn't preclude being, or becoming, batshit crazy, ignorant, or, frankly, dumb as a fencepost. I could give examples of that too, but I suspect you can guess at a couple.

If you (not you - the people we're discussing) talk crazy, repeatedly, in perpetuity, I will figure you're nuts. Could be in it for the paycheck, but that's kind of worse, imo, so I'd rather just go with bonkers.

And when people mention crazy right wing talk radio they're usually thinking about Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, the vile and despicable Michael Savage, or the crazy Alex Jones.

Maybe that's not fair, but they are the ones with the biggest audience. I don't like Michael Medved one bit, but he's certainly not stupid nor is he a crazy. But his influence is minor compared to the big boys.

Amadan · Aug 30, 2014

I read "dumb as a post" or "crazy," more often than not, as meaning "Expresses opinions I don't like."

That said, it's true that having a prestigious academic resume is not in itself proof of deep and sober thinking.

cornflake · Aug 30, 2014

Amadan said:
I read "dumb as a post" or "crazy," more often than not, as meaning "Expresses opinions I don't like."

That said, it's true that having a prestigious academic resume is not in itself proof of deep and sober thinking.

Read it however you like, but it's neither what I said nor, surprisingly, what I meant.

There are plenty of people with opinions I vehemently disagree with whom I don't think are nuts, or dumb. Then there are people like Savage, Limbaugh, that screamy guy, Levin?, etc., who are nuts and/or dumb, and also express opinions I don't like.

nighttimer · Aug 31, 2014

cornflake said:
Right-wing radio is insane, dude. They're not exactly one with reality or current events. I listen to it sometimes, because I find it amusing, but it's about as serious as the Muppet Show.

c.e.lawson said:
I'd like to post a little derail here with regard to cornflake's comment on conservative talk radio here:

I listen to three conservative talk show hosts. These include,

Michael Medved (referenced in my comment above) who entered Yale at the age of sixteen and then graduated from Yale law school. He has an amazing resume, including political work.

Dennis Prager who, from Wikipedia, majored in Middle Eastern studies and history at Brooklyn College. Studied at the Russian Institute (now Harriman Institute) at Columbia University. He speaks and lectures in several foreign languages, including Russian and Hebrew. He taught Jewish and Russian Elana History at Brooklyn College, and was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, where he did his graduate work at the Russian Institute (now the Harriman Institute) and Middle East Institute from 1970 to 1972. He is a Media Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

And Hugh Hewitt who, (from Wikipedia) attended Harvard University, and graduated cum laude with a B.A. in government in 1978, worked as a ghostwriter for Richard Nixon in California and New York before studying at the University of Michigan Law School, received his J.D. degree in 1983, then moved to Washington D.C. to clerk for Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1983–84, and worked in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s.

None of these three are insane. They are highly knowledgeable, give well-reasoned and articulate arguments, and all three can and do regularly take on high-level folks with opposing views. The sweeping generalization of conservative talk radio above is not only disingenuous, but straw man at best. That said, I'm not saying that ALL of the right-leaning talk show hosts fall into the above category. Not all all. I will give you that, cornflake.

I just wanted to clarify, especially for those who aren't familiar with the folks I may quote once in a while, that all conservative pundits are not cut from the same cloth.

When compared to some of the flame-throwers and knuckle-draggers breathing fire into the mic, the law firm of Medved, Prager and Hewitt may come off as relatively docile and urbane chaps compared to a Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage.

But I can't allow the claim they are "highly knowledgeable, give well-reasoned and articulate arguments, and all three can and do regularly take on high-level folks with opposing views" to stand without challenge.

Here's the not-insane Hugh Hewitt taking on MSNBC's Karen Finney with little in the way of well-reasoned and articulate arguments, but a considerable amount of blustering, bullying and sneering sarcasm.

Dennis Prager has had some Very Bad Days when something stupid he's said has come back to bite him in the tuchis.

"America is engaged in two wars for the survival of its civilization. The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war -- a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization. One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism. One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home."

"Judaism cannot make peace with homosexuality because homosexuality denies many of Judaism's most fundamental principles. It denies life, it denies God's expressed desire that men and women cohabit, and it denies the root structure that Judaism wishes for all mankind, the family."

"While the typical lesbian has had fewer than ten "lovers," the typical male homosexual in America has had over 500."

Click to expand...

What a bright and intelligent guy!

But it's Michael Medved who is the most repulsive of hacks. He found fame and fortune by creating The Golden Turkey Awards and being one of the opportunistic goobers who tried to fill Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert's seats in the original At the Movies until he made his way to his current status as a right-winger who occasionally reviews movies and pontificates as a social commentator.

He's not good at it. There are many reasons to support this with one being a 2008 column he wrote where he predicted doom and gloom if Barack Obama was elected.

"The conservative movement, and the survival of a viable small-government faction in American politics, depends upon a McCain victory in November. A triumph for Barack Obama, combined with Democratic gains in both House and Senate, could easily usher in a dark new era with decades of corrupt, welfare-state, bureaucratic leftist rule."

Ooooh...scary! :scared:

Medved also wrote a book predicting why Obama was a "likely loser" in 2012 so he sucks as much as political prognosticator as he did as a movie critic. Yet his true magnum opus was a piece of revisionist garbage defending the peculiar institution of American slavery called, "Six Inconvenient Truths About the U.S. and Slavery."

Fair usage and an easily nauseated stomach forbid me to go too deeply into this 20-car pile-up of hackery, but the subtitles of the six reasons speak volumes as to why Medved has nothing of value or even interest to say about politics or history. He's bad at both.

1. SLAVERY WAS AN ANCIENT AND UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION, NOT A DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN INNOVATION.

2. SLAVERY EXISTED ONLY BRIEFLY, AND IN LIMITED LOCALES, IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC – INVOLVING ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE ANCESTORS OF TODAY’S AMERICANS.

3. THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASN’T GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT.

4. IT’S NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES.

5. WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION.

6. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAY’S AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA.

Words fail me. :e2smack:

William Haskins · Aug 31, 2014

meanwhile, far away from the land of talk radio...

Several dozen Yazidi women kidnapped by Islamic State (IS) jihadists in Iraq have been taken to Syria, forced to convert and sold into marriage to militants, an activist group says.

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said it had confirmed that at least 27 Yazidi women had been sold for around $1,000 each to IS fighters.

The group said it was aware that some 300 Yazidi women had been kidnapped and transported to Syria by the jihadists, but it had so far documented the sale into marriage of 27.

"In recent weeks, some 300 women and girls of the Yazidi faith who were abducted in Iraq have been distributed as spoils of war to fighters from the Islamic State," a statement said.

The group said it had documented several cases in which the fighters then sold the women as brides for $1,000 each to other IS members after forcing them to convert to Islam.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-...o-marriage-by-islamic-state-says-sohr/5708226

c.e.lawson · Aug 31, 2014

William Haskins said:
Several dozen Yazidi women kidnapped by Islamic State (IS) jihadists in Iraq have been taken to Syria, forced to convert and sold into marriage to militants, an activist group says.

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said it had confirmed that at least 27 Yazidi women had been sold for around $1,000 each to IS fighters.

The group said it was aware that some 300 Yazidi women had been kidnapped and transported to Syria by the jihadists, but it had so far documented the sale into marriage of 27.

"In recent weeks, some 300 women and girls of the Yazidi faith who were abducted in Iraq have been distributed as spoils of war to fighters from the Islamic State," a statement said.

The group said it had documented several cases in which the fighters then sold the women as brides for $1,000 each to other IS members after forcing them to convert to Islam.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-...o-marriage-by-islamic-state-says-sohr/5708226

I'm heading out to lunch so can't quote the article, but I read yesterday that ISIS is doing this, in part, so that they will become more entrenched in the area, and it will be more difficult for its enemies to separate the terrorists from innocents during warfare. I will see if I can dig up the article later today.

William Haskins · Aug 31, 2014

that would certainly fit the historical model.

ISIS

poet

practical experience, FTW

practical experience, FTW

poet

Represent.

practical experience, FTW

poet

poet

Revolutionize the World

Delerium ex Ennui

Represent.

Petulantly Penitent

practical experience, FTW

Still chasing plot bunnies.

Revolutionize the World

practical experience, FTW

Lost in the Fog

practical experience, FTW

No Gods No Masters

poet

poet