View Poll Results: Should we be scared of ISIS?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    5 7.25%
  • No

    64 92.75%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 145

Thread: Should we be scared of ISIS?

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    I saw an ISIS under my bed.
    My Dobermans would like to find ISIS under my bed.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by navy-vet View Post
    I just happened to be surfing and I heard a professor he had on talking about a mercenary army to go after ISIS so I stopped and lo and behold....

    Eric Prince was interviewed the other day. He said Blackwater/Xe/Acedemi could take out IS no problem. Despite my reservations about how they operate, I'm inclined to believe him.

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    They've been doing [practically] precisely that.

    What it's led to is random people who happen to look like a particular bountied man (who is often no more than a gnat in the scheme of things, regardless) being captured, tortured and executed in the street with the hopes of a payout. Simply to mention one of the horrors of the policy. (how many deck of cards do we need?)

    JSOC has rather normalized and established an assassination campaign the likes of which America had not seen before.
    It hasn't happened with proper Congressional Marque and Reprisal. Just like undeclared wars always go wrong in a hurry, so do undeclared marques and reprisals.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by navy-vet View Post
    “There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.”


    Lao Tzu

    ...unless of course maybe not even being aware that you have one.

    -me
    Wouldn't that actually be a form of underestimating your opponent?
    "Category zero - not an enemy" seems like underestimation in totality.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    It hasn't happened with proper Congressional Marque and Reprisal. Just like undeclared wars always go wrong in a hurry, so do undeclared marques and reprisals.
    What does it being 'proper' have to do with anything?

    As if the CIA and DIA etc. would suddenly get their HUMINT correct.

    As if you could just kill your way to peace.

    There are an estimated 30,000 ISIS fighters. More joining daily. Probably a third or less are dedicated but regardless, it is an unfeasible option. I am certain you aware of the deck of cards that never ended.

    For what, too? A couple of rather questionable beheadings of men? Men who knew the dangers of traveling to that region? To 'save' the Yazidi?

    I'm getting rather apathetic and tired of explaining time after time the issues with these foreign policy proposals. Your's is better than most for whatever that's worth. It "almost" worked in Afghanistan, as in, didn't $#@!ing work at all (whether it was officially titled and 'authorized' being irrelevant to the point of murdering people based on whimsical intelligence reports).

    I don't want to pay for it. That's just a minor inconvenience, I assume?
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    Eric Prince was interviewed the other day. He said Blackwater/Xe/Acedemi could take out IS no problem. Despite my reservations about how they operate, I'm inclined to believe him.
    I personally have no doubt that he could. I had a good friend who worked with them as a driver / medic in the division that moved VIP's around in Iraq. He died of cancer a couple years ago which he claimed he got from depleted uranium castings or something. Anyway, he told me the team he was on was incredibly efficient and brutal. They were all former special forces and CIA spooks. They were lightening fast and instilled shock and fear everywhere that they went. And they boasted that they never lost a client.

    If I'm not mistaken, they (Blackwater or Xe) are the same asshats who went in and disarmed the law abiding American citizens in N.O. during the Katrina fiasco. That's probably how the feds circumvented the second amendment I bet. My friend wasn't working with them here in the states as far as I know. At least he never mentioned it and I never thought to ask him.
    Last edited by navy-vet; 09-22-2014 at 09:07 PM.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    What does it being 'proper' have to do with anything?
    How about the difference between WW2 and Korea/Vietnam?

    As if the CIA and DIA etc. would suddenly get their HUMINT correct.
    If all of this were above ground and public, like, say if it had Congressional Letters, then the CIA would be a lot more conscious about frelling up because it won't get buried like when it's all kept secret.

    As if you could just kill your way to peace.
    All of the killing/torture crap that is going on, is going on because it is underground in the black market. Above ground in the sunlight there would be a lot less killing. Killing a potential intelligence asset makes no sense in any universe.

    There are an estimated 30,000 ISIS fighters. More joining daily. Probably a third or less are dedicated but regardless, it is an unfeasible option. I am certain you aware of the deck of cards that never ended.
    I totally disagree. 212 years ago, 14 Marines held down a city of 60,000 until they begged for mercy. Do it right we can eradicate ISIS in 10 weeks.

    For what, too? A couple of rather questionable beheadings of men?
    I'm not the one claiming that they are a threat. I merely state that if they WERE a threat, they could be addressed effectively and Constitutionally short of war. When asked, I explained how.

    Men who knew the dangers of traveling to that region? To 'save' the Yazidi?

    I'm getting rather apathetic and tired of explaining time after time the issues with these foreign policy proposals.
    Do you always assume that people discussing best strategies in the event of a presumed threat, are somehow automatically in favor of whatever screwball intervention-of-the-day this administration has cooked up?

    Your's is better than most for whatever that's worth. It "almost" worked in Afghanistan, as in, didn't $#@!ing work at all (whether it was officially titled and 'authorized' being irrelevant to the point of murdering people based on whimsical intelligence reports).
    The last time we did this was in 1803. In an area that would later become known as "Libya." I have heard of no Letters of Marque and Reprisal issued since then, and I have certainly heard of no Reprisal Task Forces being formed amongst the Marines. The primary reason there are killings and torture and such, is because they are not doing what I am suggesting.

    I don't want to pay for it. That's just a minor inconvenience, I assume?
    Paying for a billion in Marque, once, is one hell of a lot better than paying a trillion per war, three times in a row.

  10. #98
    I will respond when I get home from work. There are a couple things I'd disagree with.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    Eric Prince was interviewed the other day. He said Blackwater/Xe/Acedemi could take out IS no problem. Despite my reservations about how they operate, I'm inclined to believe him.
    $#@!,, they likely know some of them personally. (as in; trained them)
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post



    Paying for a billion in Marque, once, is one hell of a lot better than paying a trillion per war, three times in a row.
    Say what?
    Are you referring to Letters of Marque and Reprisal? (again)
    Do you even understand the concept?

    You do not pay anyone for letters of Marque.. The holder of the Letter may hire Mercs.. But not the Government that issues them.
    And it absolutely is not any military,, and money exchanged or there is absolutely no money paid by the Government.

    Letters of Marque are for a Private individual (that can prove a specific loss) and allows them to recoup that loss. (legalized piracy)

    There is a lot of confusion since RP mentioned this old Law of the Sea. And a lot of misunderstanding of what exactly it is (and is not).
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Say what?
    Are you referring to Letters of Marque and Reprisal? (again)
    Do you even understand the concept?

    You do not pay anyone for letters of Marque.. The holder of the Letter may hire Mercs.. But not the Government that issues them.
    And it absolutely is not any military,, and money exchanged or there is absolutely no money paid by the Government.

    Letters of Marque are for a Private individual (that can prove a specific loss) and allows them to recoup that loss. (legalized piracy)

    There is a lot of confusion since RP mentioned this old Law of the Sea. And a lot of misunderstanding of what exactly it is (and is not).
    Pretty sure I studied in pretty great depth Thomas Jefferson and the actions of the US Marines in the First Barbary War. Among other things, a Congressional liaison officer used marque funds to hire a local mercenary army to hold the Capitol city of Derna under siege. That's probably not what you were thinking of under 'Marque' either eh?

  14. #102
    I'm not afraid of them at all.

    They are not a physical threat to me. I give loved ones advice not to move to places like NYC or other heavily populated areas where a terrorist act is most likely to happen. Not following that advice might have some consequences. All crimes are more likely to happen in those places.

    They could possibly threaten the economy that I'm forced to participate in since the empire has interwoven us all together. But they don't pose as much of a threat to the economy when compared with the slavemasters in DC.

    If you want to live in an open and free society, then you must understand that $#@! can happen. It happens even more often in this unfree society we find ourselves in due to things like blowback.

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Pretty sure I studied in pretty great depth Thomas Jefferson and the actions of the US Marines in the First Barbary War. Among other things, a Congressional liaison officer used marque funds to hire a local mercenary army to hold the Capitol city of Derna under siege. That's probably not what you were thinking of under 'Marque' either eh?
    Not by international Laws of the Sea.

    And the legitimate use of the Navy is to protect shipping.. But that is under the Flag of the Nation.

    Marque and Reprisal is,, Piracy,, but piracy sanctioned by one Nation against others.

    Hunting Pirates is the job of the Navy. and though I agree with TJ's use against the Barbary Pirates,, he was walking a fine line,, and his Act of War was mitigated by diplomacy. (and yes,, the invasion was an act of War)
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucille View Post
    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.

    Thank you, Gunny. I think RPF is the only place mentioning it. It's Constitutional, and would be the smart way to go, so I guess it's a non-starter.
    And I, thank you both for the heads up here. I had heard of this years ago, but had forgotten, I now recall it as being an ancillary part of the "War Powers Clause", but I thought it had been amended out after the piracy troubles concluded back in the 19th century....



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    ISIS is ZERO threat to the U.S.

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Not by international Laws of the Sea.
    Our Constitution does not bind us to the international laws of the sea, it binds us to the Law of Nations.

    And the legitimate use of the Navy is to protect shipping.. But that is under the Flag of the Nation.

    Marque and Reprisal is,, Piracy,, but piracy sanctioned by one Nation against others.
    Marque and Reprisal is Constitutionally sanctioned martial action against non-state entities, whether they be pirates or terrorists is irrelevant.

    Hunting Pirates is the job of the Navy. and though I agree with TJ's use against the Barbary Pirates,, he was walking a fine line,, and his Act of War was mitigated by diplomacy. (and yes,, the invasion was an act of War)
    You can't commit war against anything but a nation. You can't go to war against a substance, a plant, a tactic, or even a group of people. There are other terms for that, like "attempted eradication," but they are not war. WAR is between two nations. IS, despite their delusion of grandeur name, is NOT a state, they are not a nation, so there cannot be 'war' with IS, not can war be declared.

    IS is a Non-State entity, against which the Framers created a specific defense in Marque and Reprisal.

    Rather than waxing mockingly how I don't comprehend the doctrine of Marque and Reprisal, you should spend the time coming up with jokes instead gaining a deeper understanding of the doctrine.

  20. #107
    How about the difference between WW2 and Korea/Vietnam?
    I agree with most of what you've said (and I can put my voluntarism aside long enough to work with the constitutional arguments) but I think this is just wrong. WWII was SIGNIFICANTLY worse than either Korea or Vietnam all the way around. Less pointless, yes, but far more dead.

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by navy-vet View Post
    On September 11th, 2001, a handful of individuals, without a country, brought the greatest empire the world had ever seen to it's knees, and initiating it's fall.
    Absolutely false. On September 11th, 2001, a handful of individual criminals destroyed two crappy old buildings and killed about as many people as die in car accidents in an average two months. Hardly the destruction of an empire. Our own government has put us on our knees and is destroying our liberty, and we were WELL on the way to that end long before 9/11. 9/11 was an excuse for the REAL enemy to tighten the noose.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post



    Marque and Reprisal is Constitutionally sanctioned martial action against non-state entities, whether they be pirates or terrorists is irrelevant.
    It is constitutionally sanctioned piracy.
    Marque and Reprisal is piracy.. just "legalized" piracy.

    http://thelawdictionary.org/marque-a...al-letters-of/
    These words, "marque" and "reprisal," are frequently used as synonymous, but, taken In their strict etymological sense, the latter signifies a "taking in return ;" the former, the passing the frontiers (marches) in order to such taking. Letters of marque and reprisal are grantable, by the law of nations, whenever the subjects of one state are oppressed and injured by those of another, and justice is denied by that state to which the oppressor belongs; and the party to whom these letters are granted may then seize the bodies or the goods of the subjects of the state to which the offender belongs, until satisfaction be made, wherever they happen to be found. Reprisals are to be granted only in case of a clear and open denial of justice. At the present day, in consequence partly of treaties and partly of the practice of nations, the making of reprisals is confined to the seizure of commercial property on the high seas by public cruisers, or by private cruisers specially authorized thereto.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
    The phrase referred to "a licen[c]e granted by a sovereign to a subject, authorizing him to make reprisals on the subjects of a hostile state for injuries alleged to have been done to him by the enemy's army."
    I first came across it,, while studying and researching in the prison Law library in the 80s. It is almost unheard of,, and has not been used since the War of 1812.
    I was surprised when Ron mentioned it,, because I had heard no one speak of this obscure law ever before.
    I had actually considered filing for it,, in a more mercenary time.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    It is constitutionally sanctioned piracy.
    Marque and Reprisal is piracy.. just "legalized" piracy.

    http://thelawdictionary.org/marque-a...al-letters-of/


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque


    I first came across it,, while studying and researching in the prison Law library in the 80s. It is almost unheard of,, and has not been used since the War of 1812.
    I was surprised when Ron mentioned it,, because I had heard no one speak of this obscure law ever before.
    I had actually considered filing for it,, in a more mercenary time.
    I'll take the actions of President Thomas Jefferson over the opinion of some dusty law student who spent too long getting indoctrinated. I suspect that President Thomas Jefferson knew more about how America is suppose to run than Junior Compiler for a law dictionary, but hey, that's just my opinion lol

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    I'll take the actions of President Thomas Jefferson over the opinion of some dusty law student who spent too long getting indoctrinated. I suspect that President Thomas Jefferson knew more about how America is suppose to run than Junior Compiler for a law dictionary, but hey, that's just my opinion lol
    TO my understanding Jefferson did stretch the constitution a few times while in office. I still like him but he wasn't perfect.

  25. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I agree with most of what you've said (and I can put my voluntarism aside long enough to work with the constitutional arguments) but I think this is just wrong. WWII was SIGNIFICANTLY worse than either Korea or Vietnam all the way around. Less pointless, yes, but far more dead.
    Well, there were a lot more dead for starters because our enemies were a lot more deadly. Of course, the US did our own share of Really Horrible Things (tm) in the war, but the point that will not be lost on most voters is that we won WW2.



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    Absolutely false. On September 11th, 2001, a handful of individual criminals destroyed two crappy old buildings and killed about as many people as die in car accidents in an average two months. Hardly the destruction of an empire. Our own government has put us on our knees and is destroying our liberty, and we were WELL on the way to that end long before 9/11. 9/11 was an excuse for the REAL enemy to tighten the noose.
    Whoa whoa whoa, have to disagree with you there, they were not crappy old buildings. 28 years isn't considered old in human standards and definitely not in building standards. I agree with your overall point though, this was not a destruction of an empire.
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    TO my understanding Jefferson did stretch the constitution a few times while in office. I still like him but he wasn't perfect.
    Sure, the Louisiana Purchase was not actually authorized by the Constitution. Jefferson had wanted to amend the Constitution first, but the deadline for the sale was approaching too quickly to make that practicable. Faced with the same situation I would have first gone to the state governors and legislatures and found out their willingness to amend the Constitution for the purchase, and if everything was overwhelmingly green, given there was not enough time to do the amendment first, do the purchase first and then finalize the Amendment. It would have been 'wrong' but less wrong than what Jefferson did with the Louisiana Purchase. His instincts were right, of course, that it was a good purchase. he should have found a better way that was less violative of the Constitution, however.

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Well, there were a lot more dead for starters because our enemies were a lot more deadly. Of course, the US did our own share of Really Horrible Things (tm) in the war, but the point that will not be lost on most voters is that we won WW2.
    Gunny just as a side question, may or may not pertain to your conversation, have you ever seen the movie "By the dawn's early light"?
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  30. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Well, there were a lot more dead for starters because our enemies were a lot more deadly. Of course, the US did our own share of Really Horrible Things (tm) in the war, but the point that will not be lost on most voters is that we won WW2.
    That's really my point. The war was evil vs evil, not good vs evil. I can understand using it for political reasons, but while we're among the philosophically like minded, there is no way that was a just war, at least not as it was fought.

  31. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    TO my understanding Jefferson did stretch the constitution a few times while in office. I still like him but he wasn't perfect.
    Jefferson had people complaining about Constitutional adherence WHILE he was instituting those policies. What's telling to me is that he had people complaining about the Constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase while it was impending, even though it was almost universally considered to be a beneficial purchase. However, there is almost nothing contemporary with his administration, regarding the Constitutionality of his application of M&R in the Barbary "war." A big part of my conclusion that the Jeffersonian Doctrine of Marque and Reprisal (as demonstrated against the Barbary Pirates) is in line with the original intent of the Framers, is the deafening silence whereby nobody ever managed to complain about it. During an era when the actual Framers still lived. If that was not Madison's intent when he drafted that section of the Constitution, then why didn't Madison step up and say "this is wrong?" They weren't afraid to call other stuff wrong, but not this one? I don't buy it.

    I believe that the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R is fully in line with original intent, as witnessed by the total acceptance of the originators themselves.

    Also, these other ideas (from elsewhere) that M&R is 'just' legalized piracy; that premise does not even remotely resemble the siege of Derna in Tripoli, which we have already established as a proper example of M&R. That fact simply does not fit the premise of "bounty only" systems. There is Marque, sure, but there is also Reprisal. M&R is way more than just bounties for heads.

    Another notion from elsewhere, that M&R is only fit to fight piracy... What do you think terrorism is? Terrorism IS piracy. Ideological piracy. It's the right tool for the job.

    Provided that 'the job' is not so much articulated myth and vapors, of course.

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by orenbus View Post
    Gunny just as a side question, may or may not pertain to your conversation, have you ever seen the movie "By the dawn's early light"?
    I had not, but I just read a pretty detailed synopsis.

  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Jefferson had people complaining about Constitutional adherence WHILE he was instituting those policies. What's telling to me is that he had people complaining about the Constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase while it was impending, even though it was almost universally considered to be a beneficial purchase. However, there is almost nothing contemporary with his administration, regarding the Constitutionality of his application of M&R in the Barbary "war." A big part of my conclusion that the Jeffersonian Doctrine of Marque and Reprisal (as demonstrated against the Barbary Pirates) is in line with the original intent of the Framers, is the deafening silence whereby nobody ever managed to complain about it. During an era when the actual Framers still lived. If that was not Madison's intent when he drafted that section of the Constitution, then why didn't Madison step up and say "this is wrong?" They weren't afraid to call other stuff wrong, but not this one? I don't buy it.

    I believe that the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R is fully in line with original intent, as witnessed by the total acceptance of the originators themselves.

    Also, these other ideas (from elsewhere) that M&R is 'just' legalized piracy; that premise does not even remotely resemble the siege of Derna in Tripoli, which we have already established as a proper example of M&R. That fact simply does not fit the premise of "bounty only" systems. There is Marque, sure, but there is also Reprisal. M&R is way more than just bounties for heads.

    Another notion from elsewhere, that M&R is only fit to fight piracy... What do you think terrorism is? Terrorism IS piracy. Ideological piracy. It's the right tool for the job.

    Provided that 'the job' is not so much articulated myth and vapors, of course.
    Oh, I totally agree. And I don't know enough about M & R and its history to really dig into it, but what you are saying sounds correct. My point was just that it isn't automatically constitutional just because Jefferson did it. That nobody complained is a stronger argument.

  34. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    That's really my point. The war was evil vs evil, not good vs evil. I can understand using it for political reasons, but while we're among the philosophically like minded, there is no way that was a just war, at least not as it was fought.
    One of the majormost purposes of this site, is to effect political change. That is the primary reason why I am here. I am here to change the way America does business, so that goal will govern my language and labors. I do understand that grows wearisome to some people.



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-26-2016, 12:14 AM
  2. Netanyahu advised US against attacking ISIS, wants violence between ISIS-Iran
    By enhanced_deficit in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-14-2015, 09:36 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-12-2015, 04:58 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-08-2014, 11:41 AM
  5. Netanyahu: Iran Worse Than ISIS, ISIS Equal to Hamas
    By twomp in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-03-2014, 11:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •