Archive | Afghanistan

Drone Guidelines to Protect Civilians Do Not Apply to Afghanistan: White House Official

NOVANEWS

New Rolling Stone article provides more evidence that, despite public claims, U.S. war in Afghanistan is nowhere near over

The ISAF color guard marches during the ISAF Joint Command (IJC) and XVIII Airborne Corps colors casing ceremony, Dec 8, 2014 at North Kabul Afghanistan International Airport, Afghanistan. Despite public ceremonies like this one, marking the supposed conclusion of U.S.-led combat, the war continues. (Photo: ISAF/Public Domain)

The ISAF color guard marches during the ISAF Joint Command (IJC) and XVIII Airborne Corps colors casing ceremony, Dec 8, 2014 at North Kabul Afghanistan International Airport, Afghanistan. Despite public ceremonies like this one, marking the supposed conclusion of U.S.-led combat, the war continues. (Photo: ISAF/Public Domain)

Despite the December 28th “official” end of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, a new Rolling Stone article provides more proof that armed combat is nowhere near over: the Obama administration still considers the country to be an “area of active hostilities” and therefore does not impose more stringent standards aimed at limiting civilian deaths in drone strikes.

At issue are the Presidential Policy Guidelines (pdf), passed in May 2013 in response to widespread concerns about the killing and wounding of non-combatants by U.S. drone strikes. The new guidelines impose the requirement that “before lethal action may be taken,” U.S. forces are required to attain “near certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed.” It is impossible to verify the impact of this reform on civilian deaths and injuries, because U.S. drone attacks are shrouded in near total secrecy.

However, an unnamed senior administration official told Rolling Stone journalist John Knefel that the Presidential Policy Guidelines do not apply to Afghanistan. “Afghanistan will continue to be considered an ‘area of active hostilities’ in 2015,” said the official. “The PPG does not apply to areas of active hostilities.”

This is not the first time President Obama has played fast and loose with its own drone war reforms. In October 2014, it was revealed that the Obama administration holds that the reforms also do not apply to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Syria, because they are also deemed to be “areas of active hostilities.”

According to Knefel, “That perplexing distinction – that formal combat operations are over but that the U.S. still remains in an armed conflict – in many ways exemplifies the lasting legacy of Obama’s foreign policy. From Yemen to Pakistan to Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan, the administration has consistently downplayed its actions – some acknowledged and some covert – saying that the wars are (almost) over while retaining virtually all the powers of a country at war.”

Posted in Afghanistan, USA0 Comments

6 Killed in US Drone Strike‌ in Afghanistan, Main Victims‌ Civilians

NOVANEWS

6 Killed in US Drone Strike‌ in Afghanistan-Main Victims‌ Civilians
Washington carryies out continual drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Somalia, killing people. A US-led assassination drone strike has killed at least 6 people in Afghanistan’s eastern province of Nangarhar.

Three other people also sustained injuries in the latest drone attack in the province, Hazrat Hossein Mashraqiwal, the police spokesman for Nangarhar.

The spokesman further said that the drone strike took place in the provincial Lal Pur district on Wednesday.

A similar strike on Wednesday, reportedly killed at least 3 people in Afghanistan’s eastern province of Logar. The US-led terror drones also killed at least seven people in the neighboring province of Khost on Sunday.

The US carries out targeted killings through drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Somalia.

Washington claims the targets of the drone attacks are al-Qaeda militants, but local officials and witnesses maintain that civilians have been the main victims of the attacks over the past few years.

 

Posted in Afghanistan, USA0 Comments

US-Trained Afghan Army Behind Deadly Attack on Wedding Party

NOVANEWS

New Year’s Eve incident that killed as many as 26 sparks protest, investigation

U.S. military conducting training for Afghan National Army Soldiers in 2010. (Photo: isafmedia/flickr/cc)

The U.S.-trained Afghan army was responsible for a New Year’s Eve attack on a wedding party that killed as many as two dozen people including women and children, local officials have said.

The incident took place in Sagin district in the southern province of Helmand, and was first reported on by the Associated Press.

Witnesses said the house where the wedding was taking place was hit after guests firedcelebratory shots into the air.

The incident sparked hundreds of people to travel from Sagin to the home of the governor in the provincial capital to demand justice, AP reports.

“What we know so far is that our soldiers fired mortar rounds from three outposts but we do not know whether it was intentional,” General Mahmoud, the deputy Commander of the Afghan 215 corps in Helmand province, told Reuters.

“We have launched our investigation and will punish those who did this,” he said.

The exact toll from the attack is still unclear; Agence-France Presse‘s latest reporting indicates that 17 people, all women and children were killed, and that 49 others were wounded in the shelling. Reuters reported Thursday that 26 people were killed and 41 others wounded.

According to reporting by AP on Friday, two soldiers have already been arrested, and eight more are under investigation.  Mahmoud told AP that there was “still a possibility of more arrests.”

In a statement issued Thursday, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the attack and urged the Afghan government to conduct a full investigation of the incident.

The deadly fire came at the end of what was the deadliest year for Afghan civilians, and just hours before Afghanistan formally took over security operations for the country, even as the U.S. is continuing its military role there for at least another year.

“I want to congratulate my people today that Afghan forces are now able to take full security responsibility in protecting their country’s soil and sovereignty,” Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani said in a speech Thursday marking the transition.

Posted in Afghanistan, USA0 Comments

‘End’ of Afghanistan occupation a lie

NOVANEWS
‘End’ of Afghanistan occupation a lie

Taking a break from his Christmas vacation in Hawaii, President Obama gave a speech at a Marine base claiming that “Next week, we will be ending our combat mission in Afghanistan.” This is not true. Nominal control over military bases may have been handed over to the Afghan government, but the U.S. government is set to continue its occupation indefinitely with nearly 11,000 troops. They will be joined by thousands of soldiers from other NATO member countries.

The term “combat mission” is used in a highly misleading way by generals and politicians to sell their strategy to a U.S. public that has largely turned against the war. U.S./NATO forces in Afghanistan have been gradually withdrawing from the country, but by the end of 2014 this process will end. It will be immediately followed by a mission with an indefinite mandate that will supposedly focus on training and “advising” the soldiers of the pro-imperialist Afghan government.

Operating under the mandate of a Bilateral Security Agreement signed by the United States and the Afghan government, the stay-behind mission was initially supposed to involve 9,800 troops. However, after intensification in the fighting, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that an additional 1,000 soldiers would remain deployed, and emphasized the flexibility they will have to engage in combat if their commanders decide it is necessary.

Imperialism fails to stabilize the situation in its favor

On Dec. 28, a ceremony was held to mark the formal end of the occupation. This event, however, was held in secret for fear that it would be attacked. The supposed end of the combat mission in Afghanistan is by no means a clean victory for the coalition of imperialist and imperialist-aligned governments that invaded the country in 2001.

For the first 13 years of the U.S.-led occupation, the leader of the internationally recognized Afghan authorities was Hamid Karzai. Although he was hand-picked by imperialism for the job, towards the end of his presidency Karzai became an increasingly vocal critic of U.S./NATO atrocities committed against Afghan civilians, a sign not of his principled support for independence but the inability of the United States and others to defeat the forces resisting the occupation.

However, presidential elections were held in April and June, ending Karzai’s term. His replacement is U.S.-educated former World Bank official Ashraf Ghani. However, Ghani was only able to take office after a tense standoff over electoral fraud that threatened to turn into a major crisis for the puppet authorities.

After three months of threats and negotiations, which caused the inauguration ceremony for the new president to be delayed for weeks, an agreement was finally reached between Ghani and his opponent Abdullah Abdullah. Abdullah would recognize Ghani’s victory in the election, and in return a new post—called Chief Executive Officer—would be granted to Abdullah. The crisis has been defused, but it remains very much in question whether these two bitter rivals can work together in government. The government still has not named a cabinet despite being in office for three months.

Meanwhile, the people refuse to accept the occupation or the Afghan authorities installed by it. As they take over the bulk of responsibilities in the war, record numbers of Afghan government soldiers are dying as the fighting sharpens—approximately 5,000 were killed this year alone. Over the same period, the United Nations estimates over 3,100 civilians have been killed.

While the resistance forces are composed of many organizations with a range of ideological orientations—not exclusively the Taliban, as media in the United States portray it—there is always an intensification of the conflict in the “summer fighting season.” With a much smaller contingent of foreign troops present, there are concerns that the government will suffer serious defeats next summer.

Regardless of the proclamations made by the managers of this system, the occupation of Afghanistan continues, and so should opposition to this injustice. During the current period of increasing struggle inside the United States, progressive organizations and individuals can show solidarity with our sisters and brothers in Afghanistan and point out that freedom and self-determination need to be respected everywhere.

Posted in Afghanistan0 Comments

Taliban claim Nato ‘defeat’ in 13-year Afghan war

NOVANEWS
US, Nato ceremonially end Afghan combat mission after 13 years. — AP/File
US, Nato ceremonially end Afghan combat mission after 13 years. — AP/File

KABUL: The Taliban responded scornfully Monday to the formal end of Nato’s war in Afghanistan, describing the US-led mission as a “fire of barbarism and cruelty” that had drowned the country “in a pool of blood”.

The insurgent group issued the statement in English a day after Nato marked the closure of its combat mission with a low-key ceremony in Kabul, arranged in secret due to the threat of Taliban attack.

“We consider this step a clear indication of their defeat and disappointment,” the Taliban said. “America, its invading allies … along with all international arrogant organisations have been handed a clear-cut defeat in this lopsided war.”

The Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, have fought a resilient insurgency against Nato and Afghan forces for 13 years, with violence now at record levels nationwide.

The United Nations said civilian casualties hit a new high this year with about 10,000 non-combatants killed or wounded — 75 per cent of them by the Taliban.

On January 1 Nato’s International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) combat mission will be replaced by a “training and support” mission. About 12,500 Nato troops will stay on in Afghanistan.

The Taliban statement said the group would fight on “for the establishment of a pure Islamic system by expelling the remaining invading forces unconditionally”.

President Ashraf Ghani has said he is open to peace talks, but the Taliban said it would “continue its Jihad and struggle so long as a single foreigner remains in Afghanistan in a military uniform”.

Posted in Afghanistan0 Comments

TALIBAN USING JIHADIST TEXTBOOKS…SUPPLIED BY THE U.S.

NOVANEWS

 

THE NEXT GENERATION OF RADICAL MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS IN AFGHANISTAN IS LEARNING HOW TO HATE THE UNITED STATES THROUGH TEXTBOOKS MADE BY THE UNITED STATES.

This story of shortsighted, unintended consequences begins in the 1980s after the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

As part of the U.S. campaign to undermine Soviet control over the country, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) oversaw the creation of school books in local Afghan languages that taught children how to become jihadists. The books, such as The Alphabet for Jihad Literacy, were produced for USAID by the University of Nebraska Omaha (which, years later, was apparently paid $6.5 million for a similar book contract, according to First Lady Laura Bush during her appearance with Afghan leader Hamid Karzai in 2002). The books were reportedly smuggled into Afghanistan with the help of the CIA and the ISI, the Pakistani military intelligence organization.

The Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan in 1988.

The USAID textbooks, however, are still being used, only now by the Taliban as it seeks to recruit new warriors to attack, among others, American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. Duplicated copies of the U.S. textbooks have also surfaced in Pakistan.

The books are “filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines,” according to The Washington Post.One sample entry states that the letter “T” is for “topak” (gun). An example of word usage follows: “My uncle has a gun. He does jihad with the gun.”

The school books “have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum,” the Post’s Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway reported back in 2002.

That year, UNICEF managed to destroy at least half a million of the made-in-USA books. However, not only did many of the books survive, but—according to a recent Post article—the Taliban is reprinting the books to continue the unforeseen legacy of American tax dollars going to help those who want to destroy the U.S.

Posted in Afghanistan, USA0 Comments

Afghan Taliban condemn Peshawar school attack

NOVANEWS
— Reuters/File

KABUL: The Afghan Taliban have condemned a raid on a school in Peshawar that left 141 dead in the country’s bloodiest ever terror attack, saying killing innocent children was against Islam.

Survivors said militants gunned down children as young as 12 during the eight-hour onslaught in Peshawar, which the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) said was revenge for the ongoing North Waziristan operation.

“The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has always condemned the killing of children and innocent people at every juncture,” the Afghan Taliban, which often target civilians, said in a statement released late Tuesday.

“The intentional killing of innocent people, women and children goes against the principles of Islam and every Islamic government and movement must adhere to this fundamental essence.”

“The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the official name of the Taliban) expresses its condolences over the incident and mourns with the families of killed children.”

The Afghan Taliban are a jihadist group loosely affiliated to the Pakistan Taliban, with both pledging allegiance to Mullah Omar.

The Afghan Taliban often distance themselves from attacks that kill many civilians, but they also deliberately target non-combatants.

Last week they claimed responsibility for a suicide attack at a theatre show in the French cultural centre in Kabul that killed one person and injured 15.

The United Nations says the majority of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are caused by the Taliban and other armed groups.

Posted in Afghanistan, Pakistan & Kashmir0 Comments

Drone strike in Afghanistan kills 4 Pakistani Taliban, 7 others

NOVANEWS
A drone can be seen firing a missile in this photo. — AFP/File
A drone can be seen firing a missile in this photo. — AFP/File

KABUL: A US drone strike in eastern Afghanistan killed four Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militants and seven other insurgents, a district official said Wednesday.

The drone’s missiles killed the militants on Tuesday afternoon as members of the TTP were attacking a school in the city of Peshawar, near the Afghan border, said Mahlem Mashuq, the governor of Sherzad district in Nangarhar province.

“Based on our findings, 11 insurgents, four of them Pakistani Taliban, were travelling in a pickup truck that was hit by a drone strike, killing all of them,” Mashuq said.

The Pakistani and Afghan branches of the hard-line Islamist Taliban are loosely allied and operate across the porous border between the countries.

Both are dedicated to overthrowing their countries’ governments and establishing rule by their strict interpretation of Islamic law.

The Afghan Taliban, however, issued a statement condemning Tuesday’s Pakistani Taliban attack on the school in Peshawar that killed 141 people.

Posted in Afghanistan, Pakistan & Kashmir0 Comments

NATO Symbolically Lowers Flag in Afghanistan, But US War To March On

NOVANEWS

Public declaration that combat is ending belies Obama administration’s quiet expansion of war

The ISAF color guard marches during the ISAF Joint Command (IJC) and XVIII Airborne Corps colors casing ceremony, Dec 8, 2014 at North Kabul Afghanistan International Airport, Afghanistan. (Photo: ISAF/Public Domain)

At a flag-lowering ceremony in Kabul on Monday, U.S. and NATO military commanders publicly declared that combat operations in Afghanistan are coming to a close.

While major media outlets quickly picked up and parroted this message, one problem remains: the U.S.-led war is not, in fact, ending.

Announcing the formal closure of joint U.S. and NATO headquarters for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), General John Campbell, U.S. Army General and commander of ISAF, claimed on Monday that the joint command “will be subsumed into a coalition that is soon downsizing to about 3,000 personnel.” Campbell added, “You’ve done your job well so well that you’ve worked yourself out of a job.”

“ISAF is transitioning to the NATO-led Resolute Support (RS) mission which will focus on training, advising and assisting Afghan Security Institutions and ANSF at the ministerial, institutional, and operational levels,” reads a statement from ISAF about Monday’s ceremony. “The RS mission begins January 1st, 2015.”

The public display, however, comes as the Obama administration quietly moves to continue, and in some aspects expand, the war.

In November, President Obama signed a secret order authorizing a more expansive military mission in Afghanistan through 2015, the New York Times revealed late last month. The measure green-lights U.S. deployment of ground troops for military operations targeting the Taliban and other armed groups, as well as use of jets, bombers, and drones.

Furthermore, outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Saturday that, into 2015, the United States will keep up to 1,000 more U.S. soldiers than the numbers previously outline in Obama’s May pledge to cut troop levels. This would bring the total number of U.S. troops to as many as 10,800 into next year, and the total number of foreign troops to 13,000, when the thousands of remaining NATO soldiers are taken into account. Troops that remain will engage in “combat enabler” roles, Hagel stated.

And then there is the Bilateral Security Agreement between the U.S. and Afghan governments, which was signed in September and locks in at least another decade of U.S. troops in the country, as well as training, funding, and arming of the Afghan military. The agreement also secures immunity for U.S. service members under Afghan law—a measure that is highly controversial in a country that has suffered massacres of civilians.

Furthermore, in late November, U.S.-backed Afghan president Ashraf Ghani removed the ban on unpopular night raids by special forces. Special Forces units from the Afghan Army are already preparing to resume the raids, in some cases with the participation of U.S. Special Operations.

People in Afghanistan, who live with the impacts of these policies, may shudder at the claim that ISAF “did its job well.”

report released in July by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan notes that Afghan civilian deaths and wounds as a result of the fighting have steadily risen since 2012 and are overall higher than they were in 2009. Furthermore, a report released in November by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs finds that 7,965 civilians were killed and wounded by conflict between January and September 2014—22 percent of them children. During this time period, approximately 105,800 people were forced to flee their homes.

As recently as Saturday, ISAF troops killed two civilians in Southern Kandahar when they opened fire into their car, according to journalist Bashir Ahmad Naadem.

Critics charge that the real outcome of the U.S.-led war is death, social destabilization, poverty, and political dependency and corruption.

“In the past thirteen years, the U.S. and its allies have wasted tens of billions of dollars and turned this country into the center of global surveillance and mafia gangs and left it poor, corrupt, insecure, hungry, and crippled with tribal, linguistic, and sectarian divisions,” declared the Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan in a statement released on the 13th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion.

“Our people, tired of war, have been burning in the fire of oppression and plunder set by the occupiers and their stooges.”

Posted in Afghanistan, USA0 Comments

The Impending Failure in Afghanistan

NOVANEWS

America’s neocon-driven foreign policy is more about political one-ups-man-ship in Official Washington than the realities on the ground in countries like Afghanistan where the U.S. military is then expected to do more than is possible, leading to failure after failure, as Independent Institute’s Ivan Eland describes.

By Ivan Eland

As U.S. forces withdraw from parts of Afghanistan, the Taliban is making gains in several areas of the country. The Afghan police and army are slowly giving way, despite the United States spending 13 years and tens of billions of dollars training those forces.

When the United States completes its withdrawal from ground combat at the end of this year, this unfavorable trend will undoubtedly accelerate — that is, if the Afghan security forces don’t collapse altogether, as did similarly U.S. trained Iraqi forces in that country. Thus, in the longest war in American history, the U.S. military has failed to pacify Afghanistan — as had the mighty British Empire three times in the 19th and early 20th centuries and the Soviet superpower more recently in the 1980s. In fact, an outside force has not pacified Afghanistan since Cyrus the Great of Persia did it in ancient times.

Seen through a night-vision device, U.S. Marines conduct a combat logistics patrol in Helmand province, Afghanistan, April 21, 2013. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Anthony L. Ortiz)

Seen through a night-vision device, U.S. Marines conduct a combat logistics patrol in Helmand province, Afghanistan, April 21, 2013. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Anthony L. Ortiz)

Why did the United States have the hubris to think it could succeed in taming Afghanistan, when all of these other strenuous efforts had failed? Because many in the American foreign policy elite, media and citizenry believe in “American exceptionalism.” As propounded by politicians of both parties — for example, Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright in the Democratic Party and people such as John McCain and his sidekick Lindsay Graham in the Republican Party — America is the “indispensable nation” to a world that cannot do without its solving most major problems using military power.

Yet despite the current public fawning over military personnel and veterans of American wars, the U.S. military has been fairly incompetent in most major engagements since World War II that required significant ground forces — with only Desert Storm in 1991 being an unvarnished success in recent years. The U.S. armed forces are probably more powerful than any other military in world history, both absolutely and relative to other countries, yet their battlefield performance has not been that great, especially against irregular guerrilla forces in the developing world.

In the post-World War II era, the U.S. military managed to fight the then-poor nation of China to only a draw in the Korean War (1950-1953); lost the Vietnam War (1965-1973) to ragtag Viet Cong guerrillas and North Vietnamese; and made the same mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq and Afghanistan — initially using excessive firepower and alienating the population, the allegiance of which is key to fighting guerrillas.

Even in lesser ground operations against small weak foes, the U.S. military has not performed all that well. Although successful, the invasions of Grenada and Panama exhibited embarrassing snafus, such as friendly fire casualties caused by the inability of U.S. services to adequately communicate and coordinate and the wanton destruction of civilian areas and excessive casualties in what was supposed to have been a surgical operation, respectively.

The hostage rescue mission conducted in Iran in 1980 had to be aborted. Finally, U.S. interventions in Lebanon and Somalia under the Reagan and the George H.W. Bush/Clinton administrations, respectively, led to ignominious cutting and running from those countries after successful enemy attacks — inspiring Osama bin Laden to believe he could compel U.S. withdrawal from overseas interventions by launching terrorist attacks against U.S. military forces (the U.S.S. Cole) and facilities overseas and even American territory.

Whenever the U.S. military has a setback, it usually hints around that the civilian leadership of the country was more to blame. And civilian leaders are partly to blame in most of these instances, but the military should not escape public scrutiny for these disasters — which it largely has. The problem is that the American public feels guilty for the alleged abuse of returning Vietnam-era veterans and for the fact with an all-volunteer Army, it doesn’t have to sacrifice much during all these American military adventures overseas.

Of course, if the public really wanted to do something to support American service personnel, it should put a stop to them fighting and dying in faraway developing nations to allegedly combat much exaggerated threats to the United States. However, sufficient public outrage needed to end the conflicts was not evident for either Afghanistan or Iraq.

But what exactly went wrong in Afghanistan? As in Vietnam and Iraq, the U.S. military has not been fighting conventional armies, such as Iraqi forces during Desert Storm, which it is best at. Instead, in all three places, it was conducting what amounts to military social work. U.S. armed forces are fighting guerrillas that melt back into an all-important supportive indigenous civilian population. In Vietnam, initially, U.S. forces used excessive firepower, which alienated civilians; in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. military, forgetting the lessons of Vietnam, did the same thing.

But American citizens ask, “Aren’t our forces more benevolent than the brutal Taliban? Why does the Taliban still get so much support in Afghanistan?” The answer: because they are Afghans. As my book, The Failure of Counterinsurgency: Why Hearts and Minds Are Seldom Won, notes, when fighting indigenous insurgents, the foreign invader never gets the benefit of the doubt.

This central point makes it difficult for great powers to win wars against insurgents, no matter how nice they try to be to the civilian populace. And the U.S. military is usually fairly unfamiliar with the language and culture of distant lands in which they intervene, thus making it difficult to get good information about who is a guerrilla and who is not.

Often the only way to win a counterinsurgency is to annihilate the entire country with indiscriminate and potent violence; yet the Soviets used such scorched-earth policies in Afghanistan and didn’t win. Furthermore, the U.S. military would have difficulty selling such a morally bankrupt policy, which amounts to “destroying a country in order to save it,” in a republic.

America is exceptional, however in a way the nation’s Founders realized but has long been forgotten. Being far away from the centers of world conflict, the United States has probably the best intrinsic security of any great power in world history. Thus, the Founders had the luxury of being suspicious of standing armies in a republic.

Furthermore, as in any other public bureaucracy, when people are spending other people’s money, things often go awry. Thus, sending the military to war should only be done in the most dire cases of national security. Military restraint was the Founders’ vision, but we have drifted far from it into a militaristic society in constant war.

Posted in Afghanistan, USA0 Comments

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

Shoah’s pages

Join our mailing list

* = required field
April 2015
M T W T F S S
« Mar    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930