............Chinese investment in Africa over the past ten years has been building up African industry and infrastructure in a way that may begin to seriously tackle the continent's poverty. In China, these policies have brought about unprecedented reductions in poverty and have helped to lift the country into the position it will shortly hold as the world’s leading economic power. If Africa follows this model, or anything like it, the West’s five hundred year plunder of Africa’s wealth may be nearing a close.
To prevent this ‘threat of African development’, the Europeans and the USA have responded in the only way they know how -- militarily. Four years ago, the U.S. set up a new “command and control centre” for the military subjugation of the Africa, called AFRICOM. The problem for the U.S. was that no African country wanted to host them; indeed, until very recently, Africa was unique in being the only continent in the world without a U.S. military base. And this fact is in no small part, thanks to the efforts of the Libyan government.
Before Gaddafi’s revolution deposed the British-backed King Idris in 1969, Libya had hosted one of the world’s biggest U.S. airbases, the Wheelus Air Base; but within a year of the revolution, it had been closed down and all foreign military personnel expelled.
More recently, Gaddafi had been actively working to scupper AFRICOM. African governments that were offered money by the U.S. to host a base were typically offered double by Gaddafi to refuse it, and in 2008 this ad-hoc opposition crystallized into a formal rejection of AFRICOM by the African Union.
Perhaps even more worrying for U.S. and European domination of the continent were the huge resources that Gaddafi was channeling into African development. The Libyan government was by far the largest investor in Africa’s first ever satellite, launched in 2007, which freed Africa from $500million per year in payments to European satellite companies. Even worse for the colonial powers, Libya had allocated $30 billion for the African Union's three big financial projects, aimed at ending African dependence on Western finance. The African Investment Bank -- with its headquarters in Libya -- was to invest in African development at no interest, which would have seriously threatened the International Monetary Fund’s domination of Africa -- a crucial pillar for keeping Africa in its impoverished position. And Gaddafi was leading the AU's development of a new gold-backed African currency, which would have cut yet another of the strings that keep Africa at the mercy of the West, with $42 billion already allocated to this project -- again, much of it by Libya.
NATO’s war is aimed at ending Libya’s trajectory as a socialist, anti-imperialist, pan-Africanist nation in the forefront of moves to strengthen African unity and independence. The rebels have made clear their virulent racism from the very start of their insurrection, rounding up or executing thousands of black African workers and students (7). All the African development funds for the projects described above have been ‘frozen’ by the NATO countries and are to be handed over to their hand-picked buddies in the NTC to spend instead on weapons to facilitate their war.
For Africa, the war is far from over. The African continent must recognize that NATO's lashing out is a sign of desperation, of impotence, of its inability to stop the inevitable rise of Africa on the world stage. Africa must learn the lessons from Libya, continue the drive towards pan-African unity, and continue to resist AFRICOM. Plenty of Libyans will still be with them when they do so.
Libyagate: Globalists confess, “We conned you all”
By clothcap
Attn. al Qaeda and terrorist – racist insurgents, you’re next on the Bilderberg Nazi’s kill sheet, NATO (rent-a-massacre) is using you as justification for an occupation force. Photos are being fabricated as evidence.
LIBYA: R2P has now become “Right 2 Plunder” by Pepe Escobar
The white man’s burden doesn’t allow asking Africans what they think about the current Western/monarchical Arab onslaught on the northern shores of their continent. At least some are not beating around the bush.
Over 200 African leaders and intellectuals released a letter in Johannesburg, South Africa, stressing the “misuse of the United Nations Security Council to engage in militarized diplomacy to effect regime change in Libya”, as well as the “marginalization of the African Union”.
As for the Western “winners” in Libya, they are not even playing smoke and mirrors anymore. Richard Haass, president of that Gotha of the US establishment that is the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote a Financial Times op-ed blatantly stating, “The ‘humanitarian’ intervention introduced to save lives believed to be threatened was in fact a political intervention introduced to bring about regime change.”
As for those lowly bit part local actors – Libyans from Cyrenaica – Haass already dispatched them to the dustbin of history: “Libyans will not be able to manage the situation about to emerge on their own”, and with “two million barrels of oil a day” at stake, the only solution is an “international force”. Translation: occupation army – as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Welcome to neo-colonialism 2.0. Payback time
So the US establishment is now as brazen as the wealthy right-wing nut jobs of the Donald “that thing on his head” Trump variety. Trump told Fox News, “We are NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]. We back NATO in terms of money and weapons. What do we get out of it? Why won’t we take the oil?”
In geopolitical Groundhog Day mode, it’s indeed Afghanistan and Iraq all over again – an orgy of looting, statue-smashing, eye-catching TV reality show segments, even street banners cheerleading NATO (imagine Americans thanking the Chinese for “liberating” New York by bombing).
Not to mention prime corporate media idiocy. CNN has moved Tripoli east – to the eastern Mediterranean, somewhere near Lebanon. The BBC showed a Tripoli Green Square “rebel” celebration set in … India, with Indian flags. Hail the total integration of NATO and Western/GCC media; GCC is the Gulf Cooperation Council, the six wealthy fundamentalist satrapies also known as the Gulf Counter-revolution Club.
Considering that the GCC virtually orders the Arab League what to do, no wonder the league has recognized the dodgy, “rebel” Transitional National Council (TNC) as the country’s legitimate government, even though it only represents Cyrenaica and even though The Big G Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is already at large, with a bounty of US$1.6 million on his head. Let’s assume this is payback for Gaddafi calling Saudi King Abdullah “stupid” in the run-up towards the war on Iraq.
It’s also as if Libya now is only an Arab emirate-to-be, and has nothing to do with Africa anymore. The GCC financed and armed the “rebels”. The African Union was almost universally against the NATO/GCC war. Ergo, as far as NATO/GCC are concerned, screw Africa; the only thing that will really matter – strategically – is an Africom/NATO military/naval base in Libya......
S Africans mobilizing support against NATO's bombardment of Libya
Africans are demanding an immediate end to NATO's bombing campaign on Libya, saying the claims of wanting to save civilians, is merely a pretext for their own selfish goals.
The South Africans for peace in Africa initiative marched to the embassy of the United States and the British High commission here to handover their list of demands. They say academics across the continent, such as Professor Mahmoud Mamdani have also voiced their support for the campaign.
One of the main calls is for the African Union's roadmap on Libya to be implemented and for Africans to be allowed to solve the Libyan conflict. Some say Nato's intervention has just prolonged the war …
Protestors argue one key means of avoiding further bloodshed globally is to hold guilty leaders accountable.
The South Africans for Peace in Africa initiative says they are now working with civil groups in others parts of Africa, to launch a continent-wide campaign against Nato attacks on Libya. But they say it is also important that people in countries like the United States and other Nato member states stand up against their governments.
Surveying the Libyan wasteland out of a cozy room crammed with wafer-thin LCDs in a Pyongyang palace, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, must have been stunned as he contemplated Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's predicament.
"What a fool," the Dear Leader predictably murmurs. No wonder. He knows how The Big G virtually signed his death sentence that day in 2003 when he accepted the suggestion of his irrepressibly nasty offspring - all infatuated with Europe - to dump his weapons of mass destruction program and place the future of the regime in the hands of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Granted, Saif al-Islam, Mutassim, Khamis and the rest of the Gaddafi clan still couldn't tell the difference between partying hard in St Tropez and getting bombed by Mirages and Rafales. But Big G, wherever he is, in Sirte, in the central desert or in a silent caravan to Algeria, must be cursing them to eternity.
He thought he was a NATO partner. Now NATO wants to blow his head off. What kind of partnership is this?
The Sunni monarchical dictator in Bahrain stays; no "humanitarian" bombs over Manama, no price on his head. The House of Saud club of dictators stays; no "humanitarian" bombs over Riyadh, Dubai or Doha - no price on their Western-loving gilded heads. Even the Syrian dictator is getting a break - so far.
So the question, asked by many an Asia Times Online reader, is inevitable: what was the crucial red line crossed by Gaddafi that got him a red card?
'Revolution' made in France There are enough red lines crossed by The Big G - and enough red cards - to turn this whole computer screen blood red.
Let's start with the basics. The Frogs did it. It's always worth repeating; this is a French war. The Americans don't even call it a war; it's a "kinetic action" or something. The "rebel" Transitional National Council" (TNC) is a French invention.
And yes - this is above all neo-Napoleonic President Nicolas Sarkozy's war. He's the George Clooney character in the movie (poor Clooney). Everybody else, from David of Arabia Cameron to Nobel Peace Prize winner and multiple war developer Barack Obama, are supporting actors.
As already reported by Asia Times Online, this war started in October 2010 when Gaddafi's chief of protocol, Nuri Mesmari, defected to Paris, was approached by French intelligence and for all practical purposes a military coup d'etat was concocted, involving defectors in Cyrenaica.
Sarko had a bag full of motives to exact revenge on The Big G.
French banks had told him that Gaddafi was about to transfer his billions of euros to Chinese banks. Thus Gaddafi could not by any means become an example to other Arab nations or sovereign funds.
French corporations told Sarko that Gaddafi had decided not to buy Rafale fighters anymore, and not to hire the French to build a nuclear plant; he was more concerned in investing in social services.
Energy giant Total wanted a much bigger piece of the Libyan energy cake - which was being largely eaten, on the European side, by Italy's ENI, especially because Premier Silvio "bunga bunga" Berlusconi, a certified Big G fan, had clinched a complex deal with Gaddafi.
Thus the military coup was perfected in Paris until December; the first popular demonstrations in Cyrenaica in February - largely instigated by the plotters - were hijacked. The self-promoting philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy flew his white shirt over an open torso to Benghazi to meet the "rebels" and phone Sarkozy, virtually ordering him to recognize them in early March as legitimate (not that Sarko needed any encouragement).
The TNC was invented in Paris, but the United Nations also duly gobbled it up as the "legitimate" government of Libya - just as NATO did not have a UN mandate to go from a no-fly zone to indiscriminate "humanitarian" bombing, culminating with the current siege of Sirte.
The French and the British redacted what would become UN Resolution 1973. Washington merrily joined the party. The US State Department brokered a deal with the House of Saud through which the Saudis would guarantee an Arab League vote as a prelude for the UN resolution, and in exchange would be left alone to repress any pro-democracy protests in the Persian Gulf, as they did, savagely, in Bahrain.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC - then transmuted into Gulf Counter-Revolution Club) also had tons of reasons to get rid of Gaddafi. The Saudis would love to accommodate a friendly emirate in northern Africa, especially by getting rid of the ultra-bad blood between Gaddafi and King Abdullah. The Emirates wanted a new place to invest and "develop". Qatar, very cozy with Sarko, wanted to make money - as in handling the new oil sales of the "legitimate" rebels.
United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be very cozy with the House of Saud or the murderous al-Khalifas in Bahrain. But the State Department heavily blasted Gaddafi for his "increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector"; and also for "Libyanizing" the economy.
The Big G, a wily player, should have seen the writing on the wall. Since prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh was deposed essentially by the Central Intelligence Agency in Iran in 1953, the rule is that you don't antagonize globalized Big Oil. Not to mention the international financial/banking system - promoting subversive ideas such as turning your economy to the benefit of your local population.
If you're pro-your country you are automatically against those who rule - Western banks, mega-corporations, shady "investors" out to profit from whatever your country produces.
Gaddafi not only crossed all these red lines but he also tried to sneak out of the petrodollar; he tried to sell to Africa the idea of a unified currency, the gold dinar (most African countries supported it); he invested in a multibillion dollar project - the Great Man-Made River, a network of pipelines pumping fresh water from the desert to the Mediterranean coast - without genuflecting at the alter of the World Bank; he invested in social programs in poor, sub-Saharan countries; he financed the African Bank, thus allowing scores of nations to bypass, once again, the World Bank and especially the International Monetary Fund; he financed an African-wide telecom system that bypassed Western networks; he raised living standards in Libya. The list is endless.
Why didn't I call Pyongyang And then there's the crucial Pentagon/Africom/NATO military angle. No one in Africa wanted to host an Africom base; Africom was invented during the George W Bush administration as a means to coerce and control Africa on the spot, and to covertly fight China's commercial advances.
So Africom was forced to settle in that most African of places; Stuttgart, Germany.
The ink on UN Resolution 1973 was barely settled when Africom, for all practical purposes, started the bombing of Libya with over 150 Tomahawks - before command was transferred to NATO. That was Africom's first African war, and a prelude of thing to come. Setting up a permanent base in Libya will be practically a done deal - part of a neo-colonial militarization of not only northern Africa but the whole continent.
NATO's agenda of dominating the whole Mediterranean as a NATO lake is as bold as Africom's agenda of becoming Africa's Robocop. The only trouble spots were Libya, Syria and Lebanon - the three countries not NATO members or linked with NATO via myriad "partnerships".
To understand NATO's global Robocop role - legitimized by the UN - one just has to pay attention to the horse's mouth, NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen. As Tripoli was still being bombed, he said, "If you're not able to deploy troops beyond your borders, then you can't exert influence internationally, and then that gap will be filled by emerging powers that don't necessarily share your values and thinking."
So there it is, out in the open. NATO is a Western high-tech militia to defend American and European interests, to isolate the interests of the emerging BRICS countries and others, and to keep the "natives", be they Africans or Asians, down. The whole lot much easier to accomplish as the scam is disguised by R2P - "responsibility to protect", not civilians, but the subsequent plunder.
Against all these odds, no wonder The Big G was bound for a red card, and to be banned from the game forever.
Only a few hours before The Big G had to start fighting for his life, the Dear Leader was drinking Russian champagne with President Dmitry Medvedev, talking about an upcoming Pipelineistan gambit and casually evoking his willingness to talk about his still active nuclear arsenal.
That sums up why the Dear Leader is going up while The Big G is going down.
WOW....something us americans will never read about in our media. And it is just further proof that obama, like the presidents that came before him, are part of the corrupt global system where OIL and THE BANKING SYSTEMS rule.............even if you have to go to war for it!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
they cant keep up with the fast media conversation happening world wide.....however,,,,,the tower of Babel is going up pretty fast.....and then the 'fall'....
dont read into this as a biblical thing.....it is just a mirror of human nature....it's what we do....over and over and over and over........
imagine the 'evil' of the printing press....the system managed to control that....then the 'evil' of TV....the system managed to control that...
now, presently here we are....click click click....ring ring ring......it's there, it's there and it's there.......the bottle and the bottler have to be big quick and smart to combat the masses from melting down their golden calf....
JMHO
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
OK. just to be clear, the source of this story is Tehran... Tehran Iran. The heart of the Islamic Revolution... THAT Tehran.
I'm not condemning Cicero in any way... he's free to source FoxSnooze, NBC CBS PBS etc... He can source from Russia, China, The heart of socialist North Korea if he cares to.
The "about" section of the Tehran Times lists this as part of their bio:
~ "After the victory of the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979, there was a need for an international media outlet to export the ideas of the revolution." ~
I guess I'm just a little surprised that Cicero is... how would you put it??? Aiding and abetting a Terrorist state, who's held US Hostages, started a nuclear program and vowed to kill the infidel's in the USA... I just never guessed that our own Cicero would be helping the Iranians "export the ideas of the Islamic revolution."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
It is clear, therefore, that President Barack Obama has decided to follow the path marked out for AFRICOM by the Clinton and Bush administrations, based on the use of military force to ensure that America can satisfy its continuing addiction to oil and to deal with the threat posed by al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups, rather than to chart a new path passed on a partnership with the people of Africa and other countries that have a stake on the continent (including China) to promote sustainable economic development, democracy and human rights in Africa and a global energy order based on the use of clean, safe and renewable resources.
This is the consequence of two factors. To begin with, President Obama genuinely believes in the strategy of the global 'War on Terror' and thinks that Africa must be a central battlefield in America's military campaign against al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups. Many analysts believe that terrorism does not constitute a significant threat to America's national security interests and that it would be far more effective to treat terrorism as a crime and to reduce the threat of terrorism by employing traditional law enforcement techniques. But, as demonstrated by the president's decision to escalate US military operations in Afghanistan, Somalia and Mali, the Obama administration is determined to use military force instead, despite the fact that - as US military analysts argue - this only helps to strengthen terrorist groups and jeopardises other US security interests.
And with regard to America's growing dependence on African oil supplies, President Obama understands the danger of relying upon the importation of a vital resource from unstable countries ruled by repressive, undemocratic regimes and the necessity of reducing America's reliance on the use of oil and other non-renewable sources of energy. But, for understandable reasons, he has concluded that there is simply very little that he can do to achieve this goal during the limited time that he will be in office. He knows that it will take at least several decades to make the radical changes that will be necessary to develop alternative sources of energy, particularly to fuel cars and other means of transportation (if this is even technically feasible). And he knows that - in the meantime - public support for his presidency and for his party depends on the continued supply of reliable and relatively inexpensive supplies of gas and other petroleum-based energy to the American people, more than any other single factor. In the event of a substantial disruption in the supply of oil from Nigeria or any other major African supplier, he realises that he will be under irresistible political pressure to employ the only instrument that he has at his disposal - US military forces - to try to keep Africa's oil flowing.
Professional military officers also know that the repressive, undemocratic regimes upon which the United States relies to maintain oil production are likely to fail and that they are almost certain to find themselves sent into combat in Africa - whether they like it or not - if this leads to a major disruption of oil exports, and are already working on plans for direct military intervention in Africa. Thus, in May 2008, the Army Training and Doctrine Command, the Special Operations Command, and the Joint Forces Command conducted a war game scenario for Nigeria during war game exercise that it conducts each year at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
The scenario - set in the hypothetical year 2013 - was designed to test the ability of the United States to respond to a crisis in Nigeria in which the Nigerian government fragments and rival factions within the Nigerian military begin fighting for control of the Niger Delta, creating so much violence and chaos that it would be impossible to continue oil production. The participants concluded that there was little the United States could do to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict and that, in the end, they would probably be ordered to send up to 20,000 American troops into the Niger Delta in what the participants clearly recognised would be a futile attempt to get the oil flowing again. The fact that the participants in the Nigerian war games decided to go public with this information suggests that they believe that this scenario is likely to become a reality in the near future and that their only hope of avoiding this is to tell the public in the hope that this will prevent the order from being issued.
But the professional military officers who would actually have to lead their troops into Africa are not the only people who understand that America's reliance on the military to solve the energy dilemma and the threat of terrorism is a dangerous mistake. Members of the US Congress are also increasingly sceptical about this strategy and are beginning to give AFRICOM the critical scrutiny it deserves. Moreover, a number of concerned organisations and individuals in the United States and in Africa came together in August 2006 to create the Resist AFRICOM campaign in order to educate the American people about AFRICOM and to mobilise public and congressional opposition to the new command. The Resist AFRICOM campaign will continue to press the Obama administration to abandon its plan for AFRICOM and to pursue a policy toward Africa based on a genuine partnership with the people of Africa, international cooperation, democracy, human rights and sustainable economic development.
But no one is disputing the validity. What a marvelous revolution we empowered and paid for! Maybe we can revive the SS and have them take over Bermuda next so we can keep Obama's change going. Nice going Hillary and fellow travelers at State.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
I guess I'm just a little surprised that Cicero is... how would you put it??? Aiding and abetting a Terrorist state, who's held US Hostages, started a nuclear program and vowed to kill the infidel's in the USA... I just never guessed that our own Cicero would be helping the Iranians "export the ideas of the Islamic revolution."
Hey, you can interpret the information anyway you wish...I've provided MULTIPLE articles relating to the issue of Africom from MULTIPLE sources. From Asian news outlets to African news outlets, to English news outlets. All on the same topic. Do you categorically dismiss ALL the opinions because it didn't come from your choice of propagandists? You are a simpleton Box, you still believe NATO and the U.S. toppled Gaddafi because he was a terrorist and is was a "humanitarian" mission, while we sat idly by while the Syrian government violently cracks down on their "rebellion".
Box has time and time again proven that if the information doesn't fit his ideological beliefs and his predetermined conclusion, it is illegitimate...And he says he's a "progressive" and "open minded".
But no one is disputing the validity. What a marvelous revolution we empowered and paid for! Maybe we can revive the SS and have them take over Bermuda next so we can keep Obama's change going. Nice going Hillary and fellow travelers at State.
Exactly! There is media all over the world who view our country through THEIR eyes and ears. Again..........it is just further proof that obama is just playing in the same global corrupt OILY sandbox that all the other administrations did for decades.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Hey, you can interpret the information anyway you wish...I've provided MULTIPLE articles relating to the issue of Africom from MULTIPLE sources. From Asian news outlets to African news outlets, to English news outlets. All on the same topic. Do you categorically dismiss ALL the opinions because it didn't come from your choice of propagandists? You are a simpleton Box, you still believe NATO and the U.S. toppled Gaddafi because he was a terrorist and is was a "humanitarian" mission, while we sat idly by while the Syrian government violently cracks down on their "rebellion".
Box has time and time again proven that if the information doesn't fit his ideological beliefs and his predetermined conclusion, it is illegitimate...And he says he's a "progressive" and "open minded".
Cicero is soooo sensitive! Poor boy! I never commented on your story... only on the source. I often read opposition press to find out what the other side is reading (Fixed News for example) but I seldom quote official government sources in countries where even the locals don't quote the official government press.
As I posted:I'm not condemning Cicero in any way... he's free to source FoxSnooze, NBC CBS PBS etc... He can source from Russia, China, The heart of socialist North Korea if he cares to.
I just never guessed that our own Cicero would be helping the Iranians "export the ideas of the Islamic revolution."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cicero is soooo sensitive! Poor boy! I never commented on your story... only on the source. I often read opposition press to find out what the other side is reading (Fixed News for example) but I seldom quote official government sources in countries where even the locals don't quote the official government press.
As I posted:I'm not condemning Cicero in any way... he's free to source FoxSnooze, NBC CBS PBS etc... He can source from Russia, China, The heart of socialist North Korea if he cares to.
I just never guessed that our own Cicero would be helping the Iranians "export the ideas of the Islamic revolution."
Yes, you got me...I'm a closet islamist spreading the revolution on a forum in Upstate NY...What better place to plant the seed for an Islamic Revolution in America. You can be the Iatola Boxmani.
Are you going to post on the topic or just the source in the information?
Some folks will just find it hard to swallow that obama is part of this global corruption.....that this country is broken and broke!!! And all because of decade of this global government OILY corruption.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Yes, you got me...I'm a closet islamist spreading the revolution on a forum in Upstate NY...What better place to plant the seed for an Islamic Revolution in America. You can be the Iatola Boxmani.
Are you going to post on the topic or just the source in the information?
I have no information about the topic other than your Islamic Posts... so I didn't post on the topic... just on the source... (not your typical source from a Conservative Islamophobe.)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
