UN Court Rules Serbia Did Not Commit Genocide

[BayCityProgressive]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070226/wl_nm/bosnia_serbia_srebrenica_dc

Well it's finally official. Yes, there were horrible things going on here and the world needed to do something, but can we finally admit now that we invaded Yugoslavia to break it up and install a market based economy? That's what it was really all about. First the West inflamed tensions between ethnic groups, then used it as an excuse to go in, break up the country and restructure their economies to favor the West.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. Yes.

They were doing much better with their human skull based economy.

[malaise]

2. Yep and then it was off to the Middle East

to kill some more.

Divide and rule - who cares about human life! :sarcasm:

[dogman]

3. Your summary is not accurate.

Genocide was committed but Serbia itself was not found guilty. Of course stopping Milosevic and friends before they could finalize their work may be a reason.

[BayCityProgressive]

4. Yes Genocide was committed

but not by the state.The UN should have demanded that it be stopped by the state and then sent the NATO in to stop the genocide by whoever was committing it. NATO always seems to think if they go anywhere for a peacekeeping mission They have the right to change the economy and politics of the country and force them to allow western capital in. Notice if a country already has an open economy like Sudan or Rwanda, The US has no interest in helping them.

[Kelly Rupert]

46. "The UN should have demanded that it be stopped by the state"?

The state was also found guilty of failing to stop it. Which is why NATO intervened.

[brentblack]

5. Hmmm....

....and where did all the bodies in the mass graves come from???

There was a genocidic (yup...probably making up words here) effort in place at the time. That the UN would say this, now after failing to act in the initial battles, seems like an ass-covering to me.

Had someone not stepped in...the killing could have rivaled Rwanda.

As with ANY WAR, there are economic considerations and groups with motives less than alturistic - but to say that there was no genocide occuring in Yugoslovia is just being politically blind and obtuse.


Of course....the UN refuses to recognize the Armenian Genocide (look that one up) in the early 1900's after WW1. Just because the UN does not want to get thier hands dirty, does not mean that they are right.

[BayCityProgressive]

6. did you read the article?

it didn't say there was no genocide...

[BayCityProgressive]

7. On Kosovo With Noam Chomsky

Max Boehnel: Let's decode some of the language we are hearing around this war. Can you comment on the use of the terms humanitarian crisis, genocide, and ethnic cleaning as they are being applied to Kosovo?

Noam Chomsky: Well for starters, the concept called "humanitarian crisis" has a technical meaning, which does not have much to do with what might reasonably be assumed to be the defining criteria of the term. The technical meaning of humanitarian crisis is a problem somewhere that threatens the interest of rich and powerful people. That is the essence of what makes it a crisis. Now, any disturbance in the Balkans does threaten the interest of rich and powerful people, namely, the elites of Europe and the US. So when there are humanitarian issues in the Balkans, they become a humanitarian crisis. On the other hand, if people slaughter each other in Sierra Leone or the Congo, it's not a humanitarian crisis. As a matter of fact, Clinton just refused to provide the relatively puny sum of $100,000 for a peace making force in the Republic of the Congo which might well have averted a huge massacre. But those deaths do not constitute a humanitarian crisis. Neither do the many other deaths and tragedies to which the U.S. directly contributes: the massacres in Colombia, for example, or the slaughters and expulsions of people in southeastern Turkey, which is being carried out with crucial support from Clinton. Those aren't humanitarian crises. But Kosovo is a crisis because it is in the Balkans.

Now the term genocide, as applied to Kosovo is an insult to the victims of Hitler. In fact, it's revisionist to an extreme. If this is genocide, then there is genocide going on all over the world. And Bill Clinton is decisively implementing a lot of it. If this is genocide, then what do you call what is happening in the southeast of Turkey? The number of refugees there is huge, it's already reached about half the level of Palestinians expelled from Palestine.

If it increases further, it may reach the number of refugees in Colombia, where the number of people killed every year by the army and paramilitary groups armed and trained by the United States is approximately the same as the number of people killed in Kosovo last year.

Ethnic cleansing, on the other hand, is real. Unfortunately, it's something that goes on and has been going on for a long time. It's no big innovation. How come I'm living where I am instead of the original people who lived here. Did they happily walk away?



MB: So human rights abuses in Kosovo are termed a "humanitarian crisis" by the world's most powerful state. But how did we get from that to all out war?

NC: Well, let's look at the situation from the US point of view: There's a crisis, what do we do about it? One possibility is to work through the United Nations, which is the agency responsible under treaty obligations and international law for dealing with such matters. But the U.S. made it clear a long time ago that it has total contempt for the institutions of world order -- the U.N., the World Court, and so on. In fact, the US has been very explicit about that. This was not always the case. In the early days of the UN, the majority of countries backed the US because of its overwhelming political power. But that began to change when decolonization was extended and the organization and distribution of world power shifted. Now the US can no longer count on the majority of countries to go along with its demands. The UN is no longer a pliant and therefore no longer a relevant, institution. This proposition became very explicit during the Reagan years and even more brazen during the Clinton years. So brazen that even right-wing analysts are worried about it. There is an interesting article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, an establishment journal, warning Washington that much of the world regards the US as a "rogue superpower" and the single greatest threat to their existence. In fact, the US has placed itself totally above the rule of international law and international institutions.

NATO at least has the advantage of being pretty much under US domination. Within NATO there are differences of opinion, so when there was a question last September of sending unarmed NATO monitors into Kosovo, every NATO country (with the possible exception of Britain) wanted the operation authorized by the UN Security Council as is required by treaty obligation. But the US flatly refused. It would not allow the use of the word "authorize." It insisted that the UN has no right to authorize any US action. When the issue moved on to negotiations and the use of force, the US and Britain, typically the two warrior states, were eager to use force and abandon negotiations. In fact, continental European diplomats were telling the press that they were annoyed by the saber-rattling mentality of Washington. So NATO as a whole was driven to the use of force, in part, reluctantly. In fact the reluctance increases as you get closer to the region. So England and US are quite enthusiastic, others quite reluctant, and some in between.



MB: Why was the US so eager to use force?

NC: The reason is obvious. When involved in a confrontation, you use your strong card and try to shift the confrontation to the arena in which you are most powerful. And the strong card of the United States is the use of force. That's perhaps the only realm of international relations where the US has a near monopoly. The consequences of using force in Yugoslavia were more or less anticipated. The NATO Commanding General Wesley Clark stated that it was entirely predictable that the bombing would sharply increase the level of atrocities and expulsion. As indeed it did. The NATO leadership could not have failed to know that the bombing would destroy the quite courageous and promising democracy movement in Serbia -- as indeed it did; and cause all sorts of turmoil in surrounding countries -- as indeed it has, though still not at the same level of crisis as Turkey or other places.

Nevertheless, it was necessary, as the Clinton foreign policy team kept stressing, to preserve the credibility of NATO. Now when they talk about credibility, they are not talking about the credibility of Denmark or France. The Clinton Administration doesn't care about those countries' credibility. What they care about is the credibility of the United States. Credibility means fear: what they are concerned with is maintaining fear of the global enforcer, namely, the US. And that's much more important than the fate of hundreds of thousands of Kosovars, or whatever other consequences are incurred. So the US and NATO have helped to create a humanitarian catastrophe by knowingly escalating an already serious crisis to catastrophic proportions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Did YOU read the article?

Because it was about Bosnia. But you're talking about Kosovo. Different places. Find a map.

[BayCityProgressive]

26. I am quite aware of that

however it was part of Yugolsavia and part of the unfolding drama.

[geardaddy]

30. The UN didn't recognize the Armenian genocide

because the UN wasn't in existence then.

[Spazito]

8. Serbia failed to prevent genocide, UN court rules

The United Nations' highest court ruled Monday that Serbia failed to use its influence with Bosnian Serbs to prevent the genocide of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica, but exonerated Serbia of direct responsibility for genocide during the 1992-95 war.

In a lengthy ruling, the International Court of Justice said the leaders of Serbia also failed to comply with its international obligation to punish those who carried out the 1995 massacre.

snip

Reading the decision, Judge Rosalyn Higgins said it was clear to leaders in Belgrade that there was a serious risk of a massive slaughter in Srebrenica, where some 7,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed. Yet Serbia "has not shown that it took any initiative to prevent what happened or any action on its part to avert the atrocities which were being committed.

snip

"The acts committed at Srebrenica … were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina as such, and accordingly … these were acts of genocide" committed by Bosnian Serb forces, the judgment said.

more

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/26/serbia-genocide.html

I prefer this headline as more factual as to the ruling.

[BayCityProgressive]

9. Yes that is a good headline

I was merely putting the headline Yahoo gave.

[Taxloss]

10. Those poor, innocent Serbs, so very unfairly maligned!

A true progressive cause to back! :sarcasm:

They killed indiscriminately, raped as a matter of military routine, and put the Bosnians through hell while the West twiddled its thumbs and dithered. The suffering they unleashed was appalling. I can't believe I'm reading this claptrap on DU.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. No, we can't "admit" that, because that's not what the article says at all

Serbia "violated its responsibility to prevent genocide" - so someone else had to prevent it from happening again. It was about stopping ongoing genocide - which Serbia was unable or unwilling to do.

If you think the West has benefitted financially from what went on in former Yugoslavia, and the state it's in now, then you haven't a clue. We'd benefit far more from a command economy that could be traded with, like China or Vietnam, than a hell hole with refugees unable to stand on its own. But a healthy command economy wasn't on offer - it was ethnic cleansing that too many people there were interested in.

[The Magistrate]

13. 'The West', Sir, Did Not 'Inflame Ethnic Tensions' In Yugoslavia

Particular local ethnic leaders, most noteably Milosevic and Trudjman, did that, as a means of augmenting and securing their local popularity.

Nothing about the process of disintigration there, or about its aftermath, has been of any particular economic benefit to anyone. Rather it was and remains a considerable bother all would prefer to have done without.

It is always best, Sir, to allow people the full dignity of their own moral autonomy, and recognize all are independent and quite capable of montrous evil all on their own....

"I say unto you, each man shall die for his own sin."

[BayCityProgressive]

14. First of all

the title and info from my original post came form the Yahoo article so if ytou have a problem with it, blame them not me. Secondly I am against all war and racism so to say because we disagree on an issue that I support genocide is a straw man and typical of DU. Check out this article as hsitory of the region:

http://www.pww.org/article/articleprint/10407/

[The Magistrate]

18. Where In My Comments, Sir, Do You See Mr Accusing You Of Supporting Genocide?

My comments were directed solely to your claim the events in the Balkans were created by an outside force for its own profit. That is not true, though you will doubtless be able to find some 'authorities' who believe it to be the case.

[BayCityProgressive]

23. I placed the post directly below yours

on accident. I was not referring to you. You have made your point in a polite and civil manner as always.

[The Magistrate]

24. Thank You, Sir. My Apologies For Any Misunderstanding

[PLF]

16. Bullshit, I am sitting here with an article that was long buried but I saved it after

finding it on microfilm.

It is titled "Doubts on Claims of Genocide, Little Evidence for NATO's Assertions"

This article was published prior to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

I will transcribe a little part of it:

Robert Hayden, director of the University Pittsburgh's Center for Russian and
East European Studies, the STate D3epartment reports of 100,000 to 500,000
unaccounted-for Albanian men "are just ludicrous."

"NATO is running a propaganda campaign, there's no question about that," Hayden said.
"There have been lots of discrepancies in the official story, but until now, there has been
amazingly little scrutiny of that story."

[The Magistrate]

19. People Say A Lot Of Things, Sir

And a lot of them are nonesense.

Though it is rather a sideline to this discussion, which at its root deals with Srebrenica, and the ruling genocide was committed there, though not by the Serbian state, there really is no room for doubt that Serbian state policy was the driving out of Kossovo of its Albanian populace. That policy long predated Milosevic, who essentially simply dusted off plans and practices dating to the period of the Serb-dominated Yugoslave monarchy in the period between the two world wars. That the thing was halted before its climactic stage was reached does not exonnerate those set upon the policy.

[PLF]

20. Yet you fail to demonstrate that what you disagree with is "nonsense"

but you choose to label it as such for reasons of convenience.

The efforts for the breakup of Yugoslavia began prior to the creation of a "new hitler" out of Milosevic for the sake of influencing public opinion in the west. These efforts are on the books and easily verifiable but it doesn't fit into a certain world view of many liberals so they are ignored.

[The Magistrate]

22. And You Fail To Demonstrate The Truth Of Your Assertions, Sir

The entire matter is a pointless side-line at this juncture, and persons committed to an ideological view of matters that are in fact a good deal more complex than the procrustean bed they are pleased to employ are not susceptible to correction through discussion.

"Say something once, why say it again?"

[PLF]

27. Yet, the efforts to break up Yugoslavia began long before you ever heard of Milosevic.

There is nothing pointless about discussing this issue unless you disagree with George Santayana's famous quote.

[The Magistrate]

33. Your Mistake, Sir, Is Treating The Place Like A Solid, Natural Country

It was broken up from its foundation, and only held together ever by force from the center. Every province was a seperate country on a map prior to the Great War, and this reflected profoundly different histories and often hostile relations over the previous centuries. The monarchy between the wars was marked by civil strife including assassination of prominent leaders and brutal police repression, the principal fault line being between Croatia and Serbia. With the German invasion the thing dissolved entirely, with army units comprising ethnic Croats engaging army units comprising ethnic Serbs without there being yet a German in sight for miles. Tito held the place together only by extraordinarily skillful juggling, backed by gerrymandered provincial borders and damned good secret police work, spiced by the occassional shot-over crowd. Anyone at all familiar with the place knew perfectly well the day he died it was all over, and that the only question was when the natural order of its fragmented character would re-assert itself. The mistake the European powers and the U.S. actually made was not encouraging the dissolution, but rather trying to postpone and head it off: much better to have recognized the inevitable and seen to it that it came off without bloodshed.

[PLF]

34. Apparently my mistake was to actually research the subject.

[The Magistrate]

64. If You Say So, Sir....

[rinsd]

43. LOL. Microfilm and transcribing?

You're cribbing it from this website which appears to be as dishonest as you are.

http://www.webwm.com/kosovo/h/gen.htm#exp

[Selatius]

15. Yugoslavia would likely still exist if the west did not impose neoliberal economic reforms.

The economic "shock therapy" instituted in the 1980s caused such widespread unemployment that it provided an opening for ethnic nationalists to exploits. Slobodan was one such nationalist.

[PLF]

17. There is no doubt that the actions there were to break up Yugoslavia.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html

That U.S. leaders have consciously sought to dismember Yugoslavia is not a matter of speculation but of public record. In November 1990, the Bush administration pressured Congress into passing the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, which provided that any part of Yugoslavia failing to declare independence within six months would lose U.S. financial support. The law demanded separate elections in each of the six Yugoslav republics, and mandated U.S. State Department approval of both election procedures and results as a condition for any future aid. Aid would go only to the separate republics, not to the Yugoslav government, and only to those forces whom Washington defined as "democratic," meaning right-wing, free-market, separatist parties.

Another goal of U.S. policy has been media monopoly and ideological control. In 1997, in what remained of Serbian Bosnia, the last radio station critical of NATO policy was forcibly shut down by NATO "peacekeepers." The story in the New York Times took elaborate pains to explain why silencing the only existing dissident Serbian station was necessary for advancing democratic pluralism. The Times used the term "hardline" eleven times to describe Bosnian Serb leaders who opposed the shutdown and who failed to see it as "a step toward bringing about responsible news coverage in Bosnia."2

Likewise, a portion of Yugoslav television remained in the hands of people who refused to view the world as do the U.S. State Department, the White House, and the corporate-owned U.S. news media, and this was not to be tolerated. The NATO bombings destroyed the two government TV channels and dozens of local radio and television stations, so that by the summer of 1999 the only TV one could see in Belgrade, when I visited that city, were the private channels along with CNN, German television, and various U.S. programs. Yugoslavia's sin was not that it had a media monopoly but that the publicly owned portion of its media deviated from the western media monopoly that blankets most of the world, including Yugoslavia itself.

[rinsd]

49. Michael Parenti? He is to Serbia what Newsmax is to the RW

Can't believe those dirty Muslim Albanain refugees....what a douche bag.

[rinsd]

61. Oh just one more thing to point out Parenti's lunacy

"Another goal of U.S. policy has been media monopoly and ideological control. In 1997, in what remained of Serbian Bosnia, the last radio station critical of NATO policy was forcibly shut down by NATO "peacekeepers." The story in the New York Times took elaborate pains to explain why silencing the only existing dissident Serbian station was necessary for advancing democratic pluralism. The Times used the term "hardline" eleven times to describe Bosnian Serb leaders who opposed the shutdown and who failed to see it as "a step toward bringing about responsible news coverage in Bosnia."

NATO took out a hate radio station. Some lessons were learned hard from Rwanda.

[PLF]

21. Certain people just don't want to see the actions in Yugo. for what they really were.

Perhaps it is due to Clinton's involvement or perhaps it is due to a last ditch effort to
hang on to the idea of American exceptionalism and the belief in the benevolence of Uncle Sam.
Whatever the reason, the real motivations are easily determined if one wants to dig through
all the facts, but that might destroy certain assumptions held dearly by some here on DU.


Toward accomplishing this goal, one year before the dissolution of the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia—specifically, on November 5, 1990—the Congress of the United States passed bill 101-513 concerning “appropriation of funds for operations abroad.” A paragraph in this bill specifically devoted to Yugoslavia initiated that country's dissolution. In a single order, completely without forewarning, the United States cut off all forms of credit and loans to Yugoslavia in the event that within six months separate elections did not take place in each state of the federation.

As a consequence, Yugoslavia—no longer able to conduct foreign trade—was condemned to commercial bankruptcy, which reinforced the divisive tendency of its states, especially that of the stronger. Another crucial reason for the split was a provision in the bill that states holding separate elections would receive direct economic aid (not channeled through the federation). A third provision stated that even if separate elections did not take place, the United States could (openly now, and in addition to actions of the CIA and other secret services) economically support “democratic” factions or movements by way of “emergency humanitarian aid and promotion of human rights.” Finally, a fourth provision obliged the American representatives in all international organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, etc., to use their vote and influence to have their organizations apply the particulars of the bill.

[BayCityProgressive]

25. Thank you

both for backing me up here. Some people just can't admit that Democrats coul do anything wrong. Of course American imperialism only happened under Bush and Raegan you know! Everyone should look at the list who contribute to major Republicans and Dems same businesses and rich people...usually leads to same outcomes. Sorry, sometimes the truth hurts.

[BayCityProgressive]

29. Another example would be Albania

The communist party held free elections in 1990 and won. Of course the opposition called for new elections and said the vote was unfair. New elections were held in 1992 and the western backed opposition won even though there were widespread reports of extreme fraud. The government immediately outlawed the communist party and privatized everything into pyramid schemes. in 97 it was revealed that most everyone lost their money due to this and it caused mass uprisings. People formed People's Assemblies like in Oaxaca and began taking over workplaces and government buildings..in effect attempting a return to socialism. In the Western press this was labeled as "chaos and anarchy" and NATO members such as Italy and germany launched a "peacekeeping" mission occupying and killing Albanians..the western press glowed with the fact that Germany was finally taking up arms again after World War 2. The entire region has been a mess.

[Taxloss]

32. Clinton wasn't involved in August 1992

during the worst Serbian excesses, and when reporters were allowed to see the Omarska and Trnopolje. I think you're the one guilty of American exceptionalism here: for a start you've missed the fact that Muriel and I are British, you appear to only see the world through the distorting lens of how America reacts to it. Yugoslavia had no future, regardless of what some morally illiterate nihilists on the fringes of the left might think.

[PLF]

35. Whatever makes you feel better.

Maybe doing some research instead of whining about it would help you.

[Taxloss]

37. Nothing substantive to add?

I thought as much.

[PLF]

39. I've added quite a bit to this thread already.

Including information about the intentional breakup of Yugoslavia and the genesis of this effort.

You are welcome the research the subject yourself.

[Taxloss]

41. You think that Yugoslavia would still exist today were it not for American meddling? n/t

[PLF]

42. There was an effort, as has been pointed out repeatedly, to inflame

internal divisions. This effort was lead by the U.S. state department.

Do you deny this?

I cannot answer your hypothetical question and I see no point in doing so.

[Taxloss]

48. The breakup was inevitable.

"Inflammation" suggests that the State Department encouraged civil war - it did not. The German recognition of Croatia had far more impact in hastening the breakup; Milosevic's refusal to face reality guaranteed the violence that was always a strong possibility. The mistake here was Europe's, specifically Britain's - US intervention is really a side issue.

[PLF]

51. Believe what you want to believe.

I've already posted enough information on this subject for anybody who actually wants to know the truth about it.

The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1991, Public Law 101-513.

[Taxloss]

52. You have been parroting propaganda, and cannot defend your case when called on it. n/t

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taxloss]

58. I have already said that was a sideshow.

And you have yet to defend your contention otherwise.

[PLF]

63. The Foreign Operations Act of 1991 was specifically written to break up Yugoslavia.

It required an economic boycott of those "all six of the individual Republics of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" to hold separate elections otherwise they would be subject of an economic boycott. This was in 1991.

Ask yourself why?

You don't really want to know because it doesn't fit your predetermined viewpoint but everybody else deserves a chance to hear about these things.

[rinsd]

40. Its Clinton's fault for what occured before his admistration?

I know the Governor's office of Arkansas is powerful but I don't think its that powerful.

The rest of the crap you put up is a bunch of IAC/WWP nonsense.

[PLF]

45. You are trying to put words in my mouth. No it wasn't Clinton's fault

that Bush Sr. was working to destory Yugoslavia prior to Clinton assuming the presidency.

However, Clinton was in office during the bombing of Sarajevo and he was involved.

Do you deny that?

[rinsd]

47. Is this my re-education? God I hate IACers.

"However, Clinton was in office during the bombing of Sarajevo and he was involved."

He was involved? How so?

"Do you deny that?"

Deny what? You claimed Clinton's involvement while citing somthing done under Bush's adminstration then accused me of putting words in your mouth.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rinsd]

54. Awww look the last angry poster....

"I have better things to do than listen to your retarded bullshit."

Which apparently center around nonsense claims about Clinton and the breakup of Yugoslavia.

[PLF]

57. You have yet to post any thing but name calling and whining about some group you hate.

Get back to me when you have something of substance to add.

[rinsd]

60. Copy & paste of Parenti is considered substance?

And I love the hypocritical bit about name calling for some who was rude to almost everyone in this thread.

Get back to that microfilm!

[PLF]

62. Get back to me when you have something of substance to add.

I've posted the name of the legislation that was written with the intent of creating divisions within Yugoslavia among other things and yet you can't even address the issue. Instead you whine and spew and spit ignorant horseshit and pretend you are engaging in discussion.

Like I said, if you have anything of substance to add please do so.

[originalpckelly]

28. Damn, you know those paleo-cons have been right at least twice now...

once on Iraq and now this. Even younger cons like Scarborough opposed Yugoslavia.

[BayCityProgressive]

31. Also,

if people supported this then it would also mean by that logic you would have supported attacking iraq, after all HE ACTUALLY GASED HIS OWN PEOPLE, you would support strikes on Apartheid South Africa, israel, Iran, Columbia, China, Sudan and others. I think a lot of this denial is just because of the fact that Clinton was involved.

[noonwitch]

36. My grandpa grew up terrified of the serbs

He was born in Austria in 1913-his village was given to Italy after WWI, so he is technically an italian immigrant, as his family came here in 1924.

He said that during the war, the serbs would ride through their village and kill and/or rape everyone in sight. He said they would hide in their cellar when they rode through.

[rinsd]

38. Screw that IAC nonsense and that rat bastard Ramsey Clark

Piece of shit makes a living defending genocidal maniacs.

[Kelly Rupert]

44. FTA: "the court concluded that the Srebrenica massacre did constitute genocide."

Thanks for playing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. I Find Your Complete Twisting Of The Article's Premise To Be Disgusting.

I find it so sad to even see twisted sentiments like this posted here. That's all I'm gonna say.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. And Yet The OP Has A Grander Odor...

There is nothing more disgraceful and disgusting than to twist such a serious premise solely to make it fit into a personal agenda. Sorry pal.