|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On June 14 2014 20:44 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 20:23 sgtnoobkilla wrote:On June 14 2014 19:22 zeo wrote:
The Russians are useless? If it wasn't for Assad the whole territory from Israel to Iran would be a black hole now. Assad and the people of Syria have been fighting these 'freedom fighters' for two years now, and if it wasn't for Putin calling Obama out on the insanity of supporting terrorists in Syria there would be no one to protect the people of Syria. Before Al-Nusra, ISIS and rest of the warlord-ish groups took over, the first moderate groups back in 2011 weren't "terrorists", but average citizens (read: students and public workers) who did want more freedom and less corruption. Even after the crackdown, things were still stable enough for them to drive out the radicals and have a less oppressive government at the same time. The real terrorists began popping up when the moderates were left to rot, thanks to extensive Russian lobbying of course. After all you wouldn't want one of your main customers to not have a reason to buy more weapons from you, nicht wahr?. But your 'liberals' with guns were never going to have over 25% approval rating, not even at the beginning of the conflict. So Assad falls what then? You have huge parts of Syria who would never ever submit to NATO funded rebels so the whole country would be easy pickings for ISIS ect. I find it hard to believe State Department didn't know sparking any kind of armed instability would lead to a collapse of Syria like this. This was always going to be the outcome of the rebellion all along, it was ether stalemate or become a black-hole like Libya. Obama foreign policy has eclipsed even Bush with sheer stupidness.
The state department didn't spark any instability, the root cause of the instability is having a brutal dictator in charge who decided to use tanks on a legitimate protest movement. Then again, all you do on these forums is celebrate Putin, Russia and their autocratic government like its the last vestige of humanity in the world, while they're the ones supplying the bullets and grenades killing so many innocent syrians.
|
On June 14 2014 21:00 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 20:44 zeo wrote:On June 14 2014 20:23 sgtnoobkilla wrote:On June 14 2014 19:22 zeo wrote:
The Russians are useless? If it wasn't for Assad the whole territory from Israel to Iran would be a black hole now. Assad and the people of Syria have been fighting these 'freedom fighters' for two years now, and if it wasn't for Putin calling Obama out on the insanity of supporting terrorists in Syria there would be no one to protect the people of Syria. Before Al-Nusra, ISIS and rest of the warlord-ish groups took over, the first moderate groups back in 2011 weren't "terrorists", but average citizens (read: students and public workers) who did want more freedom and less corruption. Even after the crackdown, things were still stable enough for them to drive out the radicals and have a less oppressive government at the same time. The real terrorists began popping up when the moderates were left to rot, thanks to extensive Russian lobbying of course. After all you wouldn't want one of your main customers to not have a reason to buy more weapons from you, nicht wahr?. But your 'liberals' with guns were never going to have over 25% approval rating, not even at the beginning of the conflict. So Assad falls what then? You have huge parts of Syria who would never ever submit to NATO funded rebels so the whole country would be easy pickings for ISIS ect. I find it hard to believe State Department didn't know sparking any kind of armed instability would lead to a collapse of Syria like this. This was always going to be the outcome of the rebellion all along, it was ether stalemate or become a black-hole like Libya. Obama foreign policy has eclipsed even Bush with sheer stupidness. The state department didn't spark any instability, the root cause of the instability is having a brutal dictator in charge who decided to use tanks on a legitimate protest movement. Then again, all you do on these forums is celebrate Putin, Russia and their autocratic government like its the last vestige of humanity in the world, while they're the ones supplying the bullets and grenades killing so many innocent syrians.
Say's who? The same people that said Iraq had WMD's?
One hundred and fifty thousand people are dead. For what? Please tell all those peoples families they died because CNN said 'evul dicktator', tell them that people in Libya live better now under Sharia law, and that they can live like that too. The ones arming the people killing Syrians are the ones that funded the rebellion.
|
They are dead because there is a civil war waging in their country and apparently noone knows how to deal with that, or wants to deal with it. One of the reasons for that is that they had a brutal dictatorship beforehand, and people got fed up with that. Another reason is that internationally, noone really wants to commit too much to stopping that war, and some people like Putin REALLY prefer it turning into a disaster.
Your analysis of situations is pretty onedimensional. If something goes wrong, anywhere in the world, it is the US at fault. And their evil media conspiracy that makes any country that agrees with them at any point basically the same, even if they disagree in some other respect. Because the american media is so powerful it can basically mindcontrol everyone in the world except zeo and Putin, who is the great saviour of mankind leading the grand russian nation to its destiny among the stars while opposing the evil american CIA CNN conspiracies that everyone else falls victim to all over the world.
|
On June 14 2014 21:26 Simberto wrote:
They are dead because there is a civil war waging in their country and apparently noone knows how to deal with that, or wants to deal with it. One of the reasons for that is that they had a brutal dictatorship beforehand, and people got fed up with that. Another reason is that internationally, noone really wants to commit too much to stopping that war, and some people like Putin REALLY prefer it turning into a disaster.
Your analysis of situations is pretty onedimensional. If something goes wrong, anywhere in the world, it is the US at fault. And their evil media conspiracy that makes any country that agrees with them at any point basically the same, even if they disagree in some other respect. Because the american media is so powerful it can basically mindcontrol everyone in the world except zeo and Putin, who is the great saviour of mankind leading the grand russian nation to its destiny among the stars while opposing the evil american CIA CNN conspiracies that everyone else falls victim to all over the world.
You claim my analysis is one dimensional yet have no problem putting all the blame on Assad and Russia and shower praise on our messiah, Obama. If Putin had backed down Syria would have gone from a second world country to a sub-Saharan Africa level. That is just what the situation is.
Time and time again we have seen that these 'revolutions' against governments that don't want to bow down and lick NATO boots. And guess what, they bring nothing but despair and death. Where is the revolution in Saudi Arabia? Bahrain? You can put at least 80% of the blame for the ISIS situation in Iraq and Libya on the Saudi's, why don't activist groups go into SA and start a revolution?
Or are the men in SA perfectly content with getting put in jail for drinking beer and the women love acid in their face.
edit: Al-Sisi won 96.1% of the votes in the Egyptian election, but hey, its not like a new Mubarak is coming into town, this guy is more willing to play ball. What a joke
|
On June 14 2014 20:44 zeo wrote:
But your 'liberals' with guns were never going to have over 25% approval rating, not even at the beginning of the conflict.
Did your polls also take into account the opinion of every single Syrian from Damascus to Al Hasakah?
By the way, those moderates started arming themselves when the government thought it was a good idea to start using them for daily target practice. Those 'liberals with guns' weren't demanding to split the country into their own republic (unlike a certain Eastern European country) or have it ruled under some Islamic banner.
On June 14 2014 20:44 zeo wrote:
So Assad falls what then? You have huge parts of Syria who would never ever submit to NATO funded rebels so the whole country would be easy pickings for ISIS ect.
"Huge parts"? Name them.
Also, Assad is still in power right now. Yet I see those same extremist groups controlling large parts of the country and have even spilled their fundamentalist rubbish over into another. Looks more like "Putin calling out on Obama" was the catalyst for this to continue.
On June 14 2014 20:44 zeo wrote:
This was always going to be the outcome of the rebellion all along, it was ether stalemate or become a black-hole like Libya.
And you know this how...?
No alternatives were explored thus far in the entire conflict, so how would you know that this was going to be it?
As I said before, the "terrorists" only showed up when those moderates were crushed by the government and forced the remnants to turn to other methods of help. They sure as hell couldn't turn to the international community after being hung out to dry like that.
Unlike Libya, Syria was not some country with deep ethnic hatreds or filled with "terrorists" going up against the government as you characterised it, but smart intellectuals who were only asking for some reforms. They would have been able to drive out the then-minor group of religious fanatics in no time with help from both America and even *gasp* Russia. But Putin's greed is far more important to stopping extremists of course, so we'll never find out if that was possible now.
On June 14 2014 20:44 zeo wrote:
Obama foreign policy has eclipsed even Bush with sheer stupidness.
On that we can both agree on at least.
Red lines with no action but plenty of empty words; Eisenhower would be rolling in his grave if he saw how quickly Obama was bending over to Putin.
|
On June 14 2014 21:52 sgtnoobkilla wrote:
As I said before, the "terrorists" only showed up when those moderates were crushed by the government and forced the remnants to turn to other methods of help. They sure as hell couldn't turn to the international community after being hung out to dry like that.
This is completely wrong. FSA has fought alongside terrorist from the very beginning.
Al-Nusra Front has been a great help to Syrian rebels in the Battle of Aleppo. One rebel said that members of the group "rush to the rescue of rebel lines that come under pressure and hold them [...] They know what they are doing and are very disciplined. They are like the special forces of Aleppo".[49] After the US designated Al-Nusra Front as an AlQaeda linked terrorist group, several rebel groups defied the US classification and rallied behind Al-Nusra Front declaring "We are all Jabhat Al Nusra".[85] A Free Syrian Army (FSA) leader in Aleppo berated the move and a FSA spokesman in Aleppo said "We might not share the same beliefs as Jabhat al-Nusra, but we are fighting the same enemy".[86]
While some FSA leader are worried by Al Nusra Front's theocratic ideology and plans for Syria's future, they see foreign extremists as a welcomed boost to the fight against the Assad regime, bringing experience from Iraq and Afghanistan.[36][49] Whilst FSA has consistently state their disapproval al-Nusra Front's use of suicide bombs, they have also thanked them for some suicide operations with strategic benefit, such as the attack on Menagh Airbase.[49][87] Some disgruntled voices within the FSA accuse al-Nusra Front and others of "hijacking a revolution that began as an uprising to demand a democratic system".[36] The leader of a rebel group in Idlib Province said "We are not fighting Bashar al-Assad to go from living in an autocratic to a religious prison".[36] A "senior political official" of the FSA said "Their presence is reducing the popular support that we desperately need in areas where we operate [...] I appreciate their motives for coming to Syria. We cannot deny Muslims their right to jihad, but we want them to leave".[49] In some parts of Syria, "Jihadist and secular rebel groups watch each other's military bases warily, unclasping the safety catches on their guns as they pass".[36] Some members of the FSA believe that, after the Assad government has been overthrown, the next war will be between the FSA and the Islamists.[36]
The leader of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, Moaz al-Khatib, called on the US to reconsider its decision to list the al-Nusra Front as a foreign terrorist organization; al-Khatib has stated that all rebel forces whose main goal is "the fall of the regime" should be left alone.[88] After the listing of al-Nusra as a terrorist organisation by the US in December 2012, a group of 29 opposition groups, including both fighting units and civilian organisations signed an online petition calling for demonstrations in its support.[89] On 14 December 2012 thousands of Syrians protested against the US move, under the slogan of "There is no terrorism in Syria except that of Assad."[90]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front
"Huge parts"? Name them.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2843Y4g.png)
Everything in red
|
On June 14 2014 22:11 zeo wrote:
This is completely wrong. FSA has fought alongside terrorist from the very beginning.
The ALF were present during the protests in 2011?
From your snippet:
On June 14 2014 22:11 zeo wrote:
A Free Syrian Army (FSA) leader in Aleppo berated the move and a FSA spokesman in Aleppo said "We might not share the same beliefs as Jabhat al-Nusra, but we are fighting the same enemy".
Notice how at around this time the FSA were taking regular beatings from the government. Again when things get desperate, you turn to other means of survival. Could have been avoidable but that's just how things turned out.
You also missed these parts:
On June 14 2014 22:11 zeo wrote:
Some disgruntled voices within the FSA accuse al-Nusra Front and others of "hijacking a revolution that began as an uprising to demand a democratic system".[36] The leader of a rebel group in Idlib Province said "We are not fighting Bashar al-Assad to go from living in an autocratic to a religious prison".[36] A "senior political official" of the FSA said "Their presence is reducing the popular support that we desperately need in areas where we operate [...] I appreciate their motives for coming to Syria. We cannot deny Muslims their right to jihad, but we want them to leave".[49] In some parts of Syria, "Jihadist and secular rebel groups watch each other's military bases warily, unclasping the safety catches on their guns as they pass".[36] Some members of the FSA believe that, after the Assad government has been overthrown, the next war will be between the FSA and the Islamists.[36]
Which again brings my point up that this could have all been avoided if not for Putin and Obama playing real-life Risk.
On June 14 2014 22:11 zeo wrote:Everything in red
A source for that map would be nice.
Don't forget that half of that red zone has a very low population density because its mostly desert to the east. Not to mention it does not show the individual break up of each of the towns in the coloured zones either. So in reality your supposed "huge" anti-West bloc isn't that big at all but equal to the other regions...
|
|
|
So that map had basically nothing to do with whether the population in those areas would "submit to NATO funded rebels" at all in the event that the rebels had overthrown Assad...?
You have huge parts of Syria who would never ever submit to NATO funded rebels so the whole country would be easy pickings for ISIS ect.
|
On June 14 2014 23:13 sgtnoobkilla wrote:So that map had basically nothing to do with whether the population in those areas would " submit to NATO funded rebels" at all in the event that the rebels had overthrown Assad...? Show nested quote +You have huge parts of Syria who would never ever submit to NATO funded rebels so the whole country would be easy pickings for ISIS ect.
Of course they wouldn't, if a large part of the country didn't want Assad from the beginning he wouldn't be in power. Countries are not all black and white, foreign powers coming in and imposing governments with barely any legitimacy causes problems. You mention an Eastern European country earlier, same thing happened there. Countries and people are not toys.
|
|
|
|
|
On June 14 2014 19:22 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 07:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Flame me for this but I'm absolutely flustered. One of the few times in the last 50 years that the US has the opportunity to do something remotely good in the Mideast and be seen as something not akin to Mongol Khans, and we refuse. The terrorists have spread their operations to Iraq and to half-Christian Lebanon. Of course, fighting terrorists is not in the interest of the West. Fighting to maintain our political, strategic, and economic interests is, even if it sometimes means directly supporting Islamic terrorists or states that back Islamic terrorism. The damned Russians are just as useless, and this is very close to their territory. Before we know it, like Lysol kills 99.9% of germs, Iraq will become 99.9% Muslim at this rate. Already, the Christian population has been reduced by 80% since 2003 (1.5 million to 300,000). As for the Iranians, obviously they're going to oppose Sunni extremists, so that Shiite extremists can gain more leverage. Iran is the most cunning and worst of the bunch in the Mideast, and that's saying something. Sadly, I'm almost embarrassed to admit that my once unparalleled tolerance of Islam is steadily waning  On June 13 2014 14:08 zatic wrote:On June 13 2014 08:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
^ Actually, the literal translation is "The Islamic State in Iraq and Sham". The name in English letters is literally al dawlat al islamiya [the Islamic state] fil [in] Iraq wa Sham [Iraq and Sham]. Sham is the region of the eastern Mediterranean mostly comprising Syria or the rest of the Levant as it's called. Where did you get "North" from? :s I wanted to know what the deal with ISIL is and found this in a German magazine. Could be wrong of course. Wikipedia says that the literal translation is something like "land of left hand", while Yemen would be "land of right hand" - maybe that is where the confusion with North and South (from Arabia) comes from. Heh, that is kind of strange. Could be a mistake :s. All I am aware of is what Wikipedia says is the name in transliterated Arabic, and it literally says "Iraq and Sham". The Russians are useless? If it wasn't for Assad the whole territory from Israel to Iran would be a black hole now. Assad and the people of Syria have been fighting these 'freedom fighters' for two years now, and if it wasn't for Putin calling Obama out on the insanity of supporting terrorists in Syria there would be no one to protect the people of Syria. Libya is a black hole now, Egypt is still on the edge of the abyss. Imagine what sub-Saharan Africa paradise Syria would be now if another US foreign policy 'victory' had been achieved. Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 05:32 zeo wrote:So according to NATO, the approval rating of Assad is still around 70% and has been stable for over a year while only around 10% support the rebels. Of course its been like this from the beginning but as we all know someone had an interest in destroying every single stable country in the region. The only safe place in the country is the Alawite coast which is securely in the hands of the Syrian people, Damascus is getting back to normal but I would say it will be as safe as Mogadishu for a long time to come while Aleppo is still a bitter warzone. The Kurds will most likely want to break off from the country if they can, they are used to standing their ground against the jihad rebel hordes so they should be seen as more of an ally to Syria for now. The original "western backed" rebels are dead, the handful of anti-Assad liberals left are trying to fight off hordes of Islamists imported from the Gulf who want to impose Wahabbi fundamentalist Sharia law in Syria. Most cities where the armed rebellions started (Homs/Hama) are literally uninhabitable wastelands, WWII levels of destruction. Things like electricity and water seem like a pipe dream. Syrian economy and civilian infrastructure is absolutely fucked, it will take 50 years for it to get even near the second-world levels it used to be at again. Absolutely disgusting how the media circus around the arab spring brought so much pain and suffering to these countries. B-b-but CNN told me evul dick-tator! Fuck off. Blindly funding the global jihad for 'humanitarian reasons' is why those planes hit the twin towers in the first place. Video related + Show Spoiler + A post I made half a year ago
Assad fought the Iranian jihad in the 80s? No, he pussied out. That's the only situation where the Middle East was at risk of becoming a "black hole". He deserves commendation for nothing. As for the Russians, a few words in the political scene is still being useless. If Putin wants to be a force for prosperity and stability, he'd be forceful with the situation in the Middle East rather than having penis swordfights with Poroshenko. I don't have statistics on this, but if history says anything, folks in the Mideast like the Russians a lot more than they like the US, They'd be a welcome help to secular governments against Islamic extremists.
However, Russia's a capitalist country now, just like America. If it isn't within their strategic, economic, or political interests to do something, they won't do it, just like America. Russians even use "humanitarian crisis" and "freedom" as justifications for ulterior motives, just like America. That is why I say the Russians are useless in this situation, just like America. The only difference is that Russia keeps their nose out of the Mideast, rather than working for the past half-century to turn stability into utter chaos. But regardless of anything, the Russians were particularly useless in the 90s, and that was a most critical decade. You are a victim of Russian uselessness. You should know that.
On June 14 2014 19:36 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 19:32 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, as opposed to how nice Syria is right now. Really, a wonderful victory of Putin, the great humanitarian.
There is a really small amount of possible results that are worse than "Continuous Civil War". So Syria ruled by Wahhabi fundamentalists that cut off people's heads on the street and eat the hearts of the people that they kill would have been a victory for America? The establishment of a Caliphate will bring peace and prosperity to all.. I'm sure. Anyone not involved in arming rebels and plunging the country into chaos in the first place is evul anti-democracy dicktator. This is what people actually believe? Sigh
It would be a HUGE victory for America. It means we won't have an independent-minded regime like Assad's in power in a very important strategic zone, and that's among the worst crimes a nation can commit against the US. However, he is a pretty piss-poor leader, but that's not what matters to Uncle Sam. Now I'm not here to argue who's the good guy because that's irrelevant in politics except for propaganda. What I will argue is what anyone's interests are here, and no advanced or powerful nation on this Earth have a vested interest in destroying the Islamic insurgency for the sake of destroying Islamic insurgency due to its inherent destabilizing and murderous character. Iraq used to, but the US cut off their limbs. They can't be the aegis anymore, and anyone else who is capable is a terrorist state themselves (see Iran, Saudi, etc.) or is not much liked by everyone else in the region (Turkey).
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be better at this point to let the Shiites in Syria and Iraq have their own country and the Sunnis to have one? It looks like at this point that's what's going to be the end result anyway. What's the point in prolonging this outcome in order to preserve national borders that were artificial in the first place.
|
Beacuse giveing terrorists exactly what they want will only encourage other groups to do the same thing to get what they want.
|
Syria pounds ISIS bases in coordination with IraqBEIRUT - Syria's army has been pounding for 24 hours major bases of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham in coordination with the Baghdad government, a monitor said Sunday. The strikes against ISIS -- which has spearheaded a week-long jihadist offensive in Iraq -- have been more intense than ever, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. "The regime air force has been pounding ISIS's bases, including those in the northern province of Raqa and Hasakeh in the northeast," which borders Iraq, said the Britain-based group. ..... In Raqa, the air force bombed the area surrounding ISIS's main headquarters in Syria, as well as the group's religious courts, said the Observatory, adding there were no reported casualties. Photographs sent by activists in Raqa that could not be independently verified showed craters in the ground and rubble in front of the main gates of the headquarters, a former town hall. On Saturday, the regime also bombarded ISIS's headquarters at Shaddadi in Hasakeh, home to a frontier crossing from Iraq that is under the jihadists' control. Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman said the strikes were the regime's most "intense" against ISIS, and that they were being carried out "in coordination with the Iraqi authorities.” ..... Source
The enemy of my enemy of my friend of my enemy is my...friend? The politiks are getting more confusing by the day...
|
On June 16 2014 12:59 Sermokala wrote:
Beacuse giveing terrorists exactly what they want will only encourage other groups to do the same thing to get what they want.
It is not necessary to give the Sunni part to ISIS, it could have been done long time ago or push the ISIS back and then create the Sunni (and Kurdish) state.
|
Caravan of jihadists coming from Afghanistan to liberate Kashmir: Al-QaidaLONDON: A chilling new video from the al-Qaida has asked Muslims in Kashmir to emulate "brothers" in Syria and Iraq and wage a violent jihad against India. The video, which includes a statement read by Maulana Asim Umar, a senior leader of al-Qaida's Pakistan cell will definitely have India's security officers worried. The video promises a "caravan of jihadists coming from Afghanistan to liberate Kashmir". The video, titled, "The War Continues: A Statement on Kashmir's Muslims," features an audio sermon by Umar. The video runs footages dating back to 2010 of protests on the roads of Srinagar in which civilians were killed during a standoff with India's security forces. Interestingly, the video addresses Muslims on both sides of the line of control — both on the Indian and Pakistani side as well as to the broader Muslim populations of both countries. In the video, Kashmiri Muslims are urged to join the global jihadi movement. It says "Now Muslims all over the world have picked up arms, are marching in the field of jihad. Even those who rejected armed jihad are now joining this path after being disillusioned with democratic ways of peaceful protests". The video mentions Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Algeria and other parts of the world where Islamic extremism has been rife. The video also calls for attacks in Europe and for a repeat of the Lee Rigby incident in London last year. The soldier was almost beheaded by two men of Nigerian origin in broad daylight outside a military barrack. ..... The fresh video cites "new Afghanistan being created in Syria" as inspiration and is the first to specifically target Kashmir. Source
Quite an ambitious statement for ISIS and co.
Iraq may be one thing, but attacking Indian and Pakistani soil? Those extremists won't even see the can of ass-whooping hit them.
|
On June 17 2014 00:13 sgtnoobkilla wrote:Show nested quote +Caravan of jihadists coming from Afghanistan to liberate Kashmir: Al-QaidaLONDON: A chilling new video from the al-Qaida has asked Muslims in Kashmir to emulate "brothers" in Syria and Iraq and wage a violent jihad against India. The video, which includes a statement read by Maulana Asim Umar, a senior leader of al-Qaida's Pakistan cell will definitely have India's security officers worried. The video promises a "caravan of jihadists coming from Afghanistan to liberate Kashmir". The video, titled, "The War Continues: A Statement on Kashmir's Muslims," features an audio sermon by Umar. The video runs footages dating back to 2010 of protests on the roads of Srinagar in which civilians were killed during a standoff with India's security forces. Interestingly, the video addresses Muslims on both sides of the line of control — both on the Indian and Pakistani side as well as to the broader Muslim populations of both countries. In the video, Kashmiri Muslims are urged to join the global jihadi movement. It says "Now Muslims all over the world have picked up arms, are marching in the field of jihad. Even those who rejected armed jihad are now joining this path after being disillusioned with democratic ways of peaceful protests". The video mentions Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Algeria and other parts of the world where Islamic extremism has been rife. The video also calls for attacks in Europe and for a repeat of the Lee Rigby incident in London last year. The soldier was almost beheaded by two men of Nigerian origin in broad daylight outside a military barrack. ..... The fresh video cites "new Afghanistan being created in Syria" as inspiration and is the first to specifically target Kashmir. Source Quite an ambitious statement for ISIS and co. Iraq may be one thing, but attacking Indian and Pakistani soil? Those extremists won't even see the can of ass-whooping hit them.
I wouldn't be so sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
