FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


"Innocent: My 5 Years in Guantanamo"





quex
I just read this, and I have a copy of the book coming in Thursday.

In the USA, I believe about the most damning things we've been told thus far through what one would call "main stream" media regarding mistakes that sent certain men to Guantanamo is that a few of those already released were originally accused and turned in by personal enemies looking to settle a score. Never how far those errors were allowed to go. From the article:

Quote:
After two and a half years at Guantanamo, in 2004, I was brought before what officials called a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, at which a military officer said I was an "enemy combatant" because a German friend had engaged in a suicide bombing in 2003 -- after I was already at Guantanamo.

I couldn't believe my friend had done anything so crazy but, if he had, I didn't know anything about it.

A couple of weeks later, I was told I had a visit from a lawyer. They took me to a special cell, and in walked an American law professor, Baher Azmy. He did not believe the evidence against me and quickly discovered that my "suicide bomber" friend was, in fact, alive and well in Germany.

Azmy, my mother and my German lawyer helped pressure the German government to secure my release. Recently, Azmy made public American and German intelligence documents from 2002 to 2004 that showed both countries suspected I was innocent.


That blows my mind. Even with evidence and suspicions to the contrary, they kept him for another 2 and a half years. They lied to him and to lawyers to justify themselves. It took the intervention of a foreign allied government to release a free man from the clutches of America.

Jesus freakin' CHRIST.
ocalhoun
Good thing Obama's going to shut Guantanamo down though... Right?
...
...
...
Right?
...
...
Maybe? ... Someday?
menino
That is sad, that an innocent person's life was in Guantanamo, behind bars for 5 years.
I thought Saudi Arabia and some parts of the middle east were terrible, where they sometimes put you behind bars only on suspicion.

Even if they do shut down guantanamo, they'll open up other's, similar jails, no?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Good thing Obama's going to shut Guantanamo down though... Right?
...
...
...
Right?
...
...
Maybe? ... Someday?
I'd say that there has to be a need for the place for the very reason that Obama has not shut it down yet. It probably is in much better shape also because of all of the media exposure it received particularly around the time when Bush's reign had come to an end. It is also much safer to conduct hearings and investigations there than inside the United States, where the cost of security would probably be very expensive and construction of infrastructure not to the same high security standards as at Guantanamo.

Since Obama was so outspokenly determined during his previous presidential campaign to get rid of the place, I'd be able to trust that he is doing the right thing by not closing it. His advisers would probably have had to come up with VERY convincing arguments to get him to keep it going.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I'd say that there has to be a need for the place for the very reason that Obama has not shut it down yet. It probably is in much better shape also because of all of the media exposure it received particularly around the time when Bush's reign had come to an end. It is also much safer to conduct hearings and investigations there than inside the United States, where the cost of security would probably be very expensive and construction of infrastructure not to the same high security standards as at Guantanamo.

Since Obama was so outspokenly determined during his previous presidential campaign to get rid of the place, I'd be able to trust that he is doing the right thing by not closing it. His advisers would probably have had to come up with VERY convincing arguments to get him to keep it going.

You're being very trusting there.

I, for one, very much doubt that meaningful changes have been made, and also doubt that the reasons it is still open are as innocent as that.
menino
I believe that the Guantanamo bay facility had a part to play in finding the location of Osama bin Laden.
Some of the detainees there had given the information to Osama's protege, which eventually got Osama tracked down and killed.
.
Quote:
Detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the courier’s pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/02reconstruct-capture-osama-bin-laden.html?_r=1

I guess that is one of the places they use for intelligence gathering than just a prison facility; and they are probably getting some things wrong, which is blowing up in their faces
deanhills
menino wrote:
I believe that the Guantanamo bay facility had a part to play in finding the location of Osama bin Laden.
Some of the detainees there had given the information to Osama's protege, which eventually got Osama tracked down and killed.
.
Quote:
Detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the courier’s pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/02reconstruct-capture-osama-bin-laden.html?_r=1

I guess that is one of the places they use for intelligence gathering than just a prison facility; and they are probably getting some things wrong, which is blowing up in their faces
I haven't put that together and I'd definitely agree with you Menino as it would make great sense.
ocalhoun
menino wrote:
I believe that the Guantanamo bay facility had a part to play in finding the location of Osama bin Laden.

Does that justify it?
busman
quex wrote:
I just read this, and I have a copy of the book coming in Thursday.

In the USA, I believe about the most damning things we've been told thus far through what one would call "main stream" media regarding mistakes that sent certain men to Guantanamo is that a few of those already released were originally accused and turned in by personal enemies looking to settle a score. Never how far those errors were allowed to go. From the article:

Quote:
After two and a half years at Guantanamo, in 2004, I was brought before what officials called a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, at which a military officer said I was an "enemy combatant" because a German friend had engaged in a suicide bombing in 2003 -- after I was already at Guantanamo.

I couldn't believe my friend had done anything so crazy but, if he had, I didn't know anything about it.

A couple of weeks later, I was told I had a visit from a lawyer. They took me to a special cell, and in walked an American law professor, Baher Azmy. He did not believe the evidence against me and quickly discovered that my "suicide bomber" friend was, in fact, alive and well in Germany.

Azmy, my mother and my German lawyer helped pressure the German government to secure my release. Recently, Azmy made public American and German intelligence documents from 2002 to 2004 that showed both countries suspected I was innocent.


That blows my mind. Even with evidence and suspicions to the contrary, they kept him for another 2 and a half years. They lied to him and to lawyers to justify themselves. It took the intervention of a foreign allied government to release a free man from the clutches of America.

Jesus freakin' CHRIST.


Believe it guy... its sad but the USA is an empire now. We definitly act as such, strpping freedoms away from citizens and now having no rights of thee accused... Ya were definitly an Evil Empire. Not the people the government BTW
quex
busman wrote:

Believe it guy... its sad but the USA is an empire now. We definitly act as such, strpping freedoms away from citizens and now having no rights of thee accused... Ya were definitly an Evil Empire. Not the people the government BTW


First of all, girl. Second of all, yes, the USA has been really playing the empire part for a long time, and the argument could be made that it's getting worse in recent years... but WAIT A MINUTE, "not the people, the government"? This IS a democracy, we DO have the right to change our government to suit our combined will. There is no fault to be placed on the government that is not also partly shared by the people. None of us are innocent if we don't even try...

We need to get mad about things like this, then DO SOMETHING. Not just say "oh, our gov't is evil, but we're still good people." The "indifference of the innocent" and all.
deanhills
quex wrote:
We need to get mad about things like this, then DO SOMETHING. Not just say "oh, our gov't is evil, but we're still good people." The "indifference of the innocent" and all.
I like this! Walk the talk. Must be the media reporting system that has made us passive participants in politics. I.e. sitting in our arm-chairs, discussing politics as though it's a TV series instead of taking responsibility for our own participation through doing more than whining about every thing.
ocalhoun
quex wrote:
This IS a democracy, we DO have the right to change our government to suit our combined will.


Yep! We get to choose between the guy who's going to keep gitmo open and the other guy who's going to keep gitmo open! Totally our fault for choosing the guy who's going to keep gitmo open.

The US government only gives lip service to the will of the people.
(And frighteningly, even that has been slipping... I've seen local candidates blatantly campaigning as 'pro business'... shouting it out like it's a good thing that they give the wealthy corporations whatever they want.)
The will if the rich is what matters.

It still (barely) would be possible to turn the country around by using the democratic systems in place... but it would require a practically impossible consensus among the voters... practically impossible because the rich also exercise a great amount of control over the media, as well as general apathy and hopelessness about the subject, combined with a healthy dose of willful ignorance.

In summary, I would be greatly surprised if the USA's imperial tendencies get curbed by anything short of a revolution, collapse, or hostile takeover... Collapse being the likeliest cause, if current funding issues continue unchecked, the other two being only distant possibilities.
capricornis
that will be the day, when guantanamo is not only shut down as a prison but the entire territory is returned to Cuba
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
menino wrote:
I believe that the Guantanamo bay facility had a part to play in finding the location of Osama bin Laden.

Does that justify it?
No it didn't and no it doesn't.
deanhills
Just wonder what the alternative is? After all of the concerns, there have been so many changes made to Guantanamo, for the better. To close it, they probably would have to find an alternative in the US, which would cost loads of money, not only for the prison, but also for upgraded security. And I guess every State would resist having a Guantanamo on their soil.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Just wonder what the alternative is?

Interrogate (not using torture, or 'enhanced methods' thank you) captured enemy combatants for two weeks. Any interrogation after that is unlikely to give any information, and even less likely to give any relevant, non-outdated information.

After two weeks, give them a fair and speedy trial by a jury of their peers, like every human has a right to.
Then, release or execute the sentence, whichever the trial decides.


That's the alternative.


This was once a country where it was thought better to let a guilty man go free than to punish an innocent man.
It would be nice to see that ideal reinstated.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Just wonder what the alternative is?

Interrogate (not using torture, or 'enhanced methods' thank you) captured enemy combatants for two weeks. Any interrogation after that is unlikely to give any information, and even less likely to give any relevant, non-outdated information.
You misunderstood my question. I meant alternative detention centre for alleged terrorists, and was not referring to the techniques that were being used. I.e., if the Guantánamo detention centre were to be closed, what would the alternative be for housing high security risk political prisoners that none of the States really want to house in their prisons because there aren't prisons in the States that are equipped like the one in Guantanamo from a top security point of view.

I can't believe that after all of the bad press and improvement to the facilities at Guantánamo towards the end of 2008 that the US is still torturing prisoners at Guantánamo. Guantánamo has become too high profile and visible from a media point of view.
manfer
ocalhoun wrote:

Good thing Obama's going to shut Guantanamo down though... Right?


deanhills wrote:

I'd say that there has to be a need for the place for the very reason that Obama has not shut it down yet.


menino wrote:

I believe that the Guantanamo bay facility had a part to play in finding the location of Osama bin Laden.


busman wrote:

Believe it guy... its sad but the USA is an empire now. We definitly act as such, strpping freedoms away from citizens and now having no rights of thee accused... Ya were definitly an Evil Empire. Not the people the government BTW

Wow, are americans opening eyes? I don't think so. You can continue kissing a piece of fabric and call it proudly the flag of my country and singing your hymn proudly while your country (no matter how much you call it your government) do nasty things in the name of...., in the name of.... just its benefit.

Hey, but it is not american people fault, it is government fault, Question Question Question Whattttt????

This is what really is sad, in actual system people take a step back and easily point someone else as guilty.

ocalhoun wrote:

Yep! We get to choose between the guy who's going to keep gitmo open and the other guy who's going to keep gitmo open! Totally our fault for choosing the guy who's going to keep gitmo open.

If millions of people do nothing when hundreds of people do something wrong on their name, sorry but it is still those millions people fault.

deanhills wrote:

Just wonder what the alternative is? After all of the concerns, there have been so many changes made to Guantanamo, for the better. To close it, they probably would have to find an alternative in the US, which would cost loads of money, not only for the prison, but also for upgraded security. And I guess every State would resist having a Guantanamo on their soil.

Alternative???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Hey man, you know, yesterday there was a man that got on my nervs, but badly. I couldn't do anything but smashing his head in, which was my alternative by the way??????????????

This is just an example, never happened.

It is just to point out there are some kind of acts that never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never will have a justification. They shouldn't ever happened.

deanhills wrote:

I can't believe that after all of the bad press and improvement to the facilities at Guantánamo towards the end of 2008 that the US is still torturing prisoners at Guantánamo. Guantánamo has become too high profile and visible from a media point of view.

Really??????? I can't understand how it is possible that still any honest american can think Guantanamo has any justification.

With your words you are saying Guantanamo is fine, only we can't handle it inside our country and we need to have, from a security perspective, it builded outside. But you justify it man because now they should not be torturing anyone after its bad press, so now it is fine, isn't it?

Do you really believe on presumption of innocence, do you people think your constitution has any value or it only has value when some people think it worths to give it any value??????????

US people had totally lose their way and their guts and they are too easily tampered, just my opinion.
manfer
ocalhoun wrote:

Yep! We get to choose between the guy who's going to keep gitmo open and the other guy who's going to keep gitmo open! Totally our fault for choosing the guy who's going to keep gitmo open.


Really I had to quote this again because it is incredibleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

You are men (and women), aren't you?

So if they ask you to choose between shit and shit... you just choose shit and become pigs??????

Is that what you are saying??????????????

Would be better if people stop chosing shit and ask for (force if neccessary) something different.

I don't think of such an amount of ignorance on USA to take it as a justification or something. And anyway if you really want to take that as a justification, sad reality on your country then!!!!!!!!!
deanhills
manfer wrote:
deanhills wrote:

I can't believe that after all of the bad press and improvement to the facilities at Guantánamo towards the end of 2008 that the US is still torturing prisoners at Guantánamo. Guantánamo has become too high profile and visible from a media point of view.

Really??????? I can't understand how it is possible that still any honest american can think Guantanamo has any justification.

With your words you are saying Guantanamo is fine, only we can't handle it inside our country and we need to have, from a security perspective, it builded outside. But you justify it man because now they should not be torturing anyone after its bad press, so now it is fine, isn't it?

Do you really believe on presumption of innocence, do you people think your constitution has any value or it only has value when some people think it worths to give it any value??????????

US people had totally lose their way and their guts and they are too easily tampered, just my opinion.
@Manfer. I think you must have missed my post above where I explained what I meant by alternative. (a) I said I was not referring to any techniques (b) I said that I don't believe that any torturing is happening right now after all of the media hoopla about Guantanamo towards the end of 2008. Any torturing there would bring all of the world into an uproar. If I may ask you, how do you suggest that the US deal with its political prisoners? Keep them at Guantanamo where they are equipped to deal with high security risk political prisoners, or bring them into the United States, where they would have to build copies of Guantanamo standard of security prisons at tremendous cost to deal with these prisoners. Or maybe just offer them to prisons in the rest of the world. Or let them free? That is exactly what I meant by alternative, as you can't just argue away the political prisoners. How would you like the US to deal with them?
manfer
The only alternative for Guantánamo is to close it. Guantánamo should never happened, just that. You can't have a place where you are breaching all sorts of Human Rights, a place where you imprison people without any real chance to defense on a court and where you even torture them and with not real evidence of any crime in a lot of cases.

Quote:

In 2010, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a former aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell, stated in an affidavit that top U.S. officials, including President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, had known that the majority of the detainees initially sent to Guantánamo were innocent, but that the detainees had been kept there for reasons of political expedience. Wilkerson's statement was submitted in connection with a lawsuit filed in federal district court by former detainee Adel Hassan Hamad against the United States government and several individual officials.


In the meanwhile no US personnel is facing any torture charges, that has not only happened in Guantánamo. That's how USA works.
deanhills
manfer wrote:
The only alternative for Guantánamo is to close it. Guantánamo should never happened, just that. You can't have a place where you are breaching all sorts of Human Rights, a place where you imprison people without any real chance to defense on a court and where you even torture them and with not real evidence of any crime in a lot of cases.
Obama wanted to do that too and was pretty vocal about this undertaking during his first election campaign. Until he came face to face with having to figure out what the US was going to do with the present inmates of Guantánamo. Can you advise Obama what to do with the inmates? As long as the US is a target of terrorists, it will need a high-security prison for terrorists . So if Guantánamo closes, it is logical for me that it would have to be replaced by something similar somewhere else. Where will it be?
manfer
deanhills wrote:
manfer wrote:
The only alternative for Guantánamo is to close it. Guantánamo should never happened, just that. You can't have a place where you are breaching all sorts of Human Rights, a place where you imprison people without any real chance to defense on a court and where you even torture them and with not real evidence of any crime in a lot of cases.
Obama wanted to do that too and was pretty vocal about this undertaking during his first election campaign. Until he came face to face with having to figure out what the US was going to do with the present inmates of Guantánamo. Can you advise Obama what to do with the inmates? As long as the US is a target of terrorists, it will need a high-security prison for terrorists . So if Guantánamo closes, it is logical for me that it would have to be replaced by something similar somewhere else. Where will it be?


  • Any inmate which is still in there without any proof should be released or do the same as with the ones of next point at least.
  • Any other in there should be taken into a court -if not yet-, a civil court, not a military court, giving them the oportunity to defend themselves and if they are found guilty take them to whatever prison you think is better. Is your business.
  • Close Guantánamo.
  • Return Guantánamo Bay to their rightful owners, Cuban people.
deanhills
manfer wrote:
deanhills wrote:
manfer wrote:
The only alternative for Guantánamo is to close it. Guantánamo should never happened, just that. You can't have a place where you are breaching all sorts of Human Rights, a place where you imprison people without any real chance to defense on a court and where you even torture them and with not real evidence of any crime in a lot of cases.
Obama wanted to do that too and was pretty vocal about this undertaking during his first election campaign. Until he came face to face with having to figure out what the US was going to do with the present inmates of Guantánamo. Can you advise Obama what to do with the inmates? As long as the US is a target of terrorists, it will need a high-security prison for terrorists . So if Guantánamo closes, it is logical for me that it would have to be replaced by something similar somewhere else. Where will it be?


  • Any inmate which is still in there without any proof should be released or do the same as with the ones of next point at least.
  • Any other in there should be taken into a court -if not yet-, a civil court, not a military court, giving them the oportunity to defend themselves and if they are found guilty take them to whatever prison you think is better. Is your business.
  • Close Guantánamo.
  • Return Bay to their rightful owners, Cuban people.
I'm sure Obama's response would have been - if all of this could be that simple ..... If it were that simple, guaranteed there wouldn't have been a Guantánamo detention center in existence any longer. Obama's pretty focused on winning votes and the support of his own Party. So for me, logically, there has to be a good reason why it hasn't been closed yet, if it had been that simple, he'd have moved every one out of the center in the same month that he announced the closure of Guantánamo, i.e. January 2009. That was one of the first things he did when he took office as President. He must have come to certain knowledge that perhaps isn't available to every one and as President had to move in a direction away from his own party line. I may be wrong, as I don't know what it is, I'm guessing it would have something to do with the safety and security of people in the United States. But it makes sense to me that it would have been more to his benefit to do as you suggested than delay the closure of Guantánamo. So there has to be a special reason why he hasn't that perhaps neither I or you have knowledge off.
manfer
deanhills wrote:

...So for me, logically, there has to be a good reason why it hasn't been closed yet, if it had been that simple, he'd have moved every one out of the center in the same month that he announced the closure of Guantánamo, i.e. January 2009...


Politicians not fulfilling their promises happens constantly. It happens so so much that is very difficult, at least for me, to take any politician seriously.

And though I don't know which were Obama's campaign promises because I'm not from USA so I have not so much interest on knowing that, I bet that promise is not the only promise he had not fulfilled.

Politics campaigns are just marketing with a clear aim, win. Once they do it is not so important anymore to fulfill their promises.

Politicians doesn't do their supposed job, which is represent the people that elected them. They are just puppets in the hands of money.

About being targets of terrorism -at least in their country territory- tell me how many terrorist attacks has USA suffered in their country?

Examples of real targets of terrorism had been England by IRA, Spain by ETA or Israel by Palestinians, ..., some middle east and african countries, like egypt, had suffer lots of terrorist attacks on their territory too. Not to mention the terrorist done by USA with their wars, imaging yourself being a civilian in those countries. Or the current attacks into Pakistan with drones. That's terror.

So, come on, American people open your eyes. You should meditate seriously. Are your government acts making things better, or worst? IMHO those acts are no more than expanding antipathy to USA in much of the world.

And about my last point in the previous list were I say USA to return Guantánamo territory to Cuban people I doubt they'll do that in a near future even if they closed the camp.
deanhills
manfer wrote:

About being targets of terrorism -at least in their country territory- tell me how many terrorist attacks has USA suffered in their country?
Do you count all of their embassies out of the country also as USA territory, as that technically is US territory? As apart from what happened in New York twice on an enormous scale, there have been plenty of attacks at some of their Embassies in the Middle East and Africa. The point being of course too that the US Government is doing everything in their power to keep the terrorists OUT of the US.

manfer wrote:
And about my last point in the previous list were I say USA to return Guantánamo territory to Cuban people I doubt they'll do that in a near future even if they closed the camp.
I'm all for it. Maybe they will develop it into some mega real estate ventures, including some nice spas and holiday resorts. Where they would provide Cubans with employment and where your well do do Cubans will go for their very expensive holidays, since it would probably be preferred over Cuba's own down run resorts. So indirectly making a very real contribution to Cuba's economy. Angel
manfer
deanhills wrote:
Do you count all of their embassies out of the country also as USA territory, as that technically is US territory?

No I'm talking IN USA. Very few. Two in NY in how many years???

But the more important question is. Are US government acts making things better, or worst? IMHO those acts are no more than expanding antipathy to USA in much of the world.

You don't combat terrorism with terrorism. Not to mention it is clear that most of the acts by US government -in which they are killing people, many of them civilians- has very little to do with fighting terrorrism but with an economic interest. They have killed by far a huge, huge, huge more amount of civilians than in all terrorist attacks they have suffer, embassies included. But that doesn't seem to be very important to US people, and they bear with their government actions.

deanhills wrote:

The point being of course too that the US Government is doing everything in their power to keep the terrorists OUT of the US.

Let's hope they don't continue using that excuse to take away from US people more and more and more rights and that US people don't regret it in a near future after they realize how many rights they have lost.

deanhills wrote:

I'm all for it. Maybe they will develop it into some mega real estate ventures, including some nice spas and holiday resorts. Where they would provide Cubans with employment and where your well do do Cubans will go for their very expensive holidays, since it would probably be preferred over Cuba's own down run resorts. So indirectly making a very real contribution to Cuba's economy.

I hope they return the land to their owners. About what to do with it, let Cuban people decide by themselves what to do with their land. If US wanted to contribute to Cuban economy and standard of living shouldn't they start by removing the embargo?
deanhills
manfer wrote:
If US wanted to contribute to Cuban economy and standard of living shouldn't they start by removing the embargo?
Agreed. If it is worth their while to do. I'm hoping they will, as probably one of the first things that would happen is that the Mega Hotel Corporations would get stuck in to spruce up hotels and tourist accommodation in Cuba. Probably buy up Cuba. Not sure whether that is a really good thing, but at least it will provide more jobs for Cubans.
ocalhoun
manfer wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

Yep! We get to choose between the guy who's going to keep gitmo open and the other guy who's going to keep gitmo open! Totally our fault for choosing the guy who's going to keep gitmo open.


Really I had to quote this again because it is incredibleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

You are men (and women), aren't you?

So if they ask you to choose between shit and shit... you just choose shit and become pigs??????

Is that what you are saying??????????????

Would be better if people stop chosing shit and ask for (force if neccessary) something different.

I've been asking for something different for years.
Nothing changes.

I vote for third parties, but they don't get elected because of the rigged voting system.
I speak out for change, but with precious little results.

What do you want me to do? Lead a one-man armed revolt against the government?
Quote:

I don't think of such an amount of ignorance on USA to take it as a justification or something. And anyway if you really want to take that as a justification, sad reality on your country then!!!!!!!!!

It isn't justification.
It's a reason for 'don't blame me personally'. I've done what I can to make it stop.
Related topics
Where do you see yourself 5 years from now ?
American Man Shoots Boy For Walking on His Lawn!
5 years today
9/11: 5 Years On...
America is you, no matter who you are
Intel Pledges 80 Cores In Five Years
missile defence shield
The Future of Internet????
It's just a question of when.
Conditions at Guantanamo not as bad as most assume.
HTML 5
Closing the Military Prison at Guantanamo
Hey, look! Somebody being reasonable about healthcare reform
5 years of Frihost!
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.