Bizarre Police Interrogation In Indonesia
November 13, 2002 4:40 PM Subscribe
"Those are the sorts of people that I wanted to kill." The chief suspect in the Bali bombing joked and laughed with Indonesia's police chief last night during a bizarre public interrogation in which he told of his "delight" at the carnage caused by his crime.
Big deal. US Military planners are similarly gleeful when they use a drone to blow up a guy or when they blow up their 'enemies'. It's all about the penises. I'm a man, but if women run the world things would run a lot smoother.
posted by letterneversent at 4:46 PM on November 13, 2002
posted by letterneversent at 4:46 PM on November 13, 2002
What gets me is that it's not just the bomber that seems to be having a good time. Everyone in tpoh's picture, including the police and media, seems absolutely giddy. Is it maybe an Indonesian cultural thing; do they possibly consider it de rigueur to smile for a camera?
posted by mr_roboto at 5:11 PM on November 13, 2002
posted by mr_roboto at 5:11 PM on November 13, 2002
"US Military planners are similarly gleeful when they use a drone to blow up a guy or when they blow up their 'enemies'."
but do you have pictures.
joked and laughed with Indonesia's police chief
so the police chief reciprocated these jokes?
nervous smile? did someone say cheese?
When Aldrich Ames was safely behind bars, he decided to hold press conferences. All the major networks sent their best female reporters, one being Connie Chung. After the interview Connie asked "rick" if she could hug him. The F.B.I. and C.I.A. officers present almost puked.
He finally agreed to have CNN do the interview.
"rick" has disappeared from sight. CoNNie has some work though.
Funny how things work out.
posted by clavdivs at 5:24 PM on November 13, 2002
but do you have pictures.
joked and laughed with Indonesia's police chief
so the police chief reciprocated these jokes?
nervous smile? did someone say cheese?
When Aldrich Ames was safely behind bars, he decided to hold press conferences. All the major networks sent their best female reporters, one being Connie Chung. After the interview Connie asked "rick" if she could hug him. The F.B.I. and C.I.A. officers present almost puked.
He finally agreed to have CNN do the interview.
"rick" has disappeared from sight. CoNNie has some work though.
Funny how things work out.
posted by clavdivs at 5:24 PM on November 13, 2002
Theirs lots of pressure on the Indonesian gov't to solve the crime. Doesn't this guy seem like a Oswaldian stooge ? Its too convenient, I mean, who ever heard of a public interrogation in front of the press??
posted by Fupped Duck at 5:26 PM on November 13, 2002
posted by Fupped Duck at 5:26 PM on November 13, 2002
That guy's fourty? He looks about fourteen. What's every one else in the photo, eighty five? What's in the water over there?
posted by HTuttle at 5:29 PM on November 13, 2002
posted by HTuttle at 5:29 PM on November 13, 2002
That guy's fourty? He looks about fourteen. What's every one else in the photo, eighty five? What's in the water over there?
Oriental Pearl Cream, baby.
As for the smiliness, methinks it's an East Asian politeness/cultural thing.
posted by donkeyschlong at 5:56 PM on November 13, 2002
Oriental Pearl Cream, baby.
As for the smiliness, methinks it's an East Asian politeness/cultural thing.
posted by donkeyschlong at 5:56 PM on November 13, 2002
"Big deal. US Military planners are similarly gleeful when they use a drone to blow up a guy or when they blow up their 'enemies'. It's all about the penises. I'm a man, but if women run the world things would run a lot smoother."
Frankly, I think this is a huge load of crap. I don't think women would necessarily run things that much differently from men. The issues at stake are more to do with culture than gender. And the powerful women I've seen in the worlds of business and politics are every bit the counterparts of the men who make it to those positions. Wasn't it Janet Reno who implied that the deaths of a few hundred thousand Iraqi children was "worth it"?
Another thing I can't stand is that your statement implies that somehow women don't bear equal responsibility for the state of world affairs. Guess what? Men do this kind of shit in a very large part because WOMEN WANT THEM TO! Humans are not very far removed from monkeys. And if the most attractive female mates of the species started to prefer the quiet, poor, idealistic, soulful, honest, hard-working, peace-loving, starving hippie artist stereotype to the shallow, loud, lying, exploitative, devious, rich, violent, powerful alpha male businessman... guess what? The whole world would literally change overnight! Men are all about doing whatever it takes to "get some" from women. And that's just what they do!
Just because our society is organized so that most men have more direct power than most women does not absolve women of equal responsibility for the problems of humanity. They are, after all, equals... in my opinion, anyway.
posted by muppetboy at 6:08 PM on November 13, 2002
Frankly, I think this is a huge load of crap. I don't think women would necessarily run things that much differently from men. The issues at stake are more to do with culture than gender. And the powerful women I've seen in the worlds of business and politics are every bit the counterparts of the men who make it to those positions. Wasn't it Janet Reno who implied that the deaths of a few hundred thousand Iraqi children was "worth it"?
Another thing I can't stand is that your statement implies that somehow women don't bear equal responsibility for the state of world affairs. Guess what? Men do this kind of shit in a very large part because WOMEN WANT THEM TO! Humans are not very far removed from monkeys. And if the most attractive female mates of the species started to prefer the quiet, poor, idealistic, soulful, honest, hard-working, peace-loving, starving hippie artist stereotype to the shallow, loud, lying, exploitative, devious, rich, violent, powerful alpha male businessman... guess what? The whole world would literally change overnight! Men are all about doing whatever it takes to "get some" from women. And that's just what they do!
Just because our society is organized so that most men have more direct power than most women does not absolve women of equal responsibility for the problems of humanity. They are, after all, equals... in my opinion, anyway.
posted by muppetboy at 6:08 PM on November 13, 2002
letterneversent: US Military planners are similarly gleeful when they use a drone to blow up a guy or when they blow up their 'enemies'.
bah. troll.
posted by eddydamascene at 6:09 PM on November 13, 2002
bah. troll.
posted by eddydamascene at 6:09 PM on November 13, 2002
"Big deal. US Military planners are similarly gleeful when they use a drone to blow up a guy or when they blow up their 'enemies'. "
Let's ignore the trolling and go to the heart of the matter
Pentagon = al-Qa'ida
Nope. Not even close. Civilized people accept that there are rules to warfare. Non-combatants are off limits. One should make reasonable effort to spare them harm. (We can argue over what is reasonable). There were no such rules in place 50 years ago, and people felt (sensibly) that should not happen again.
al-Qa'ida (and some other Islamist groups) do not recognize the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Indeed, they target non-combatants over combatants because stockbrokers, busboys, and tourists are soft targets. That is what makes them reprehensible.
Some would argue that the appropriate response to such outrages against "our" civilians is to erase the distinctions made between "their" combatants and non-combatants.
This is not the Pentagon's policy. Not by a long shot. You may not like the fact that those folks are in the business of killing, but you can't claim that they are no better than al-Qa'ida.
posted by ednopantz at 6:34 PM on November 13, 2002
Let's ignore the trolling and go to the heart of the matter
Pentagon = al-Qa'ida
Nope. Not even close. Civilized people accept that there are rules to warfare. Non-combatants are off limits. One should make reasonable effort to spare them harm. (We can argue over what is reasonable). There were no such rules in place 50 years ago, and people felt (sensibly) that should not happen again.
al-Qa'ida (and some other Islamist groups) do not recognize the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Indeed, they target non-combatants over combatants because stockbrokers, busboys, and tourists are soft targets. That is what makes them reprehensible.
Some would argue that the appropriate response to such outrages against "our" civilians is to erase the distinctions made between "their" combatants and non-combatants.
This is not the Pentagon's policy. Not by a long shot. You may not like the fact that those folks are in the business of killing, but you can't claim that they are no better than al-Qa'ida.
posted by ednopantz at 6:34 PM on November 13, 2002
uh, ednopantz, you forgot to ignore the trolling.
posted by eddydamascene at 6:52 PM on November 13, 2002
posted by eddydamascene at 6:52 PM on November 13, 2002
"US Military planners are similarly gleeful when they use a drone to blow up a guy or when they blow up their 'enemies'."
but do you have pictures.
No, but we do have the chortling going on in this thread, if that'll help....
Let's ignore the trolling and go to the heart of the matter
We'd like to be able to ignore the name-calling that, for most of us, went out of fashion in kindergarten. But allow me to really get to the heart of the matter:
This is not the Pentagon's policy. Not by a long shot. You may not like the fact that those folks are in the business of killing, but you can't claim that they are no better than al-Qa'ida.
Oh, you bet your ass we can. Go spout your bullshit drivel to the families of civilians killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a hundred other American targets. They are just as dead as those killed on 9/11. Let us know how much credence those bereaved families give your "Pentagon's policy". I'm completely sure those Pentagon bombs, missiles, and "sanctions", once launched, were as completely expert at differentiating "combatant" from child as the planes hitting the World Trade Towers.
From the link: "When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village.""
Right. And Al Qaeda no doubt thinks Americans and American businesses sympathize with the pursuit of "American interests" worldwide -- "interests" they perceive as putting their own "noncombatants" at risk. Hence their attacks on our "noncombatants." Hence our response that kills more of their "noncombatants." Hence more and more of this eternal, mindless fucking cycle of violence, a dance that sickens the souls of the few who actually still possess souls.
Violence begets violence. Forever. We solve nothing by the warfare we visit on others. We....WE....Taliban and Republican and Democrat Also Ran and American and Iraqi....are creating an absolutely nightmare world for our children....a world of adolescent bombers grinning over their latest slaughter....a world of back-slapping bomber pilots congratulating each other over another village sucessfully strafed. Complete banality. Complete waste. Complete evil.
When enough start understanding that each of us is precisely that laughing "chief suspect in the Bali bombing", the world will begin to change.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:56 PM on November 13, 2002
but do you have pictures.
No, but we do have the chortling going on in this thread, if that'll help....
Let's ignore the trolling and go to the heart of the matter
We'd like to be able to ignore the name-calling that, for most of us, went out of fashion in kindergarten. But allow me to really get to the heart of the matter:
This is not the Pentagon's policy. Not by a long shot. You may not like the fact that those folks are in the business of killing, but you can't claim that they are no better than al-Qa'ida.
Oh, you bet your ass we can. Go spout your bullshit drivel to the families of civilians killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a hundred other American targets. They are just as dead as those killed on 9/11. Let us know how much credence those bereaved families give your "Pentagon's policy". I'm completely sure those Pentagon bombs, missiles, and "sanctions", once launched, were as completely expert at differentiating "combatant" from child as the planes hitting the World Trade Towers.
From the link: "When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village.""
Right. And Al Qaeda no doubt thinks Americans and American businesses sympathize with the pursuit of "American interests" worldwide -- "interests" they perceive as putting their own "noncombatants" at risk. Hence their attacks on our "noncombatants." Hence our response that kills more of their "noncombatants." Hence more and more of this eternal, mindless fucking cycle of violence, a dance that sickens the souls of the few who actually still possess souls.
Violence begets violence. Forever. We solve nothing by the warfare we visit on others. We....WE....Taliban and Republican and Democrat Also Ran and American and Iraqi....are creating an absolutely nightmare world for our children....a world of adolescent bombers grinning over their latest slaughter....a world of back-slapping bomber pilots congratulating each other over another village sucessfully strafed. Complete banality. Complete waste. Complete evil.
When enough start understanding that each of us is precisely that laughing "chief suspect in the Bali bombing", the world will begin to change.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:56 PM on November 13, 2002
So I blew up a disco in Bali? I've never even been to Bali. I don't get it... Self defense is the same as murdering people enjoying themselves at a disco?
Oh, well...
*cue Kumbaya*
posted by sir walsingham at 8:03 PM on November 13, 2002
Oh, well...
*cue Kumbaya*
posted by sir walsingham at 8:03 PM on November 13, 2002
"name-calling that went out of fashion in kindergarten" -- Plank alert!
posted by shoos at 8:06 PM on November 13, 2002
posted by shoos at 8:06 PM on November 13, 2002
"US Military planners are similarly gleeful when they use a drone to blow up a guy or when they blow up their 'enemies'."
but do you have pictures.
No, but we do have the chortling going on in this thread, if that'll help....
Oh yeah, look at all the U.S. Military planners posting to Metafilter. I hear clavdivs is actually General Wesley Clark.
Let's ignore the trolling and go to the heart of the matter
We'd like to be able to ignore the name-calling that, for most of us, went out of fashion in kindergarten.
Followed by...
Go spout your bullshit drivel...
And this is different from calling a post trolling how, exactly?
To get back to the substance of this post, this seems like the weirdest interrogation I've ever heard of. To the best of my knowledge, police interrogators like to retain as much control over the interrogation as possible, with careful regulation of the environment, including control over who is in the room at any given time, and what they do there. The fact that at least 20 other people are in the room just milling about stretches credibility, but who knows how the Indonesian police work? (Besides other Indonesians, of course.)
It certainly seems that the patsy theory put up by Fupped Duck is not without merit, but Amrozi certainly seems like the happiest patsy in the world.
posted by Snyder at 9:02 PM on November 13, 2002
but do you have pictures.
No, but we do have the chortling going on in this thread, if that'll help....
Oh yeah, look at all the U.S. Military planners posting to Metafilter. I hear clavdivs is actually General Wesley Clark.
Let's ignore the trolling and go to the heart of the matter
We'd like to be able to ignore the name-calling that, for most of us, went out of fashion in kindergarten.
Followed by...
Go spout your bullshit drivel...
And this is different from calling a post trolling how, exactly?
To get back to the substance of this post, this seems like the weirdest interrogation I've ever heard of. To the best of my knowledge, police interrogators like to retain as much control over the interrogation as possible, with careful regulation of the environment, including control over who is in the room at any given time, and what they do there. The fact that at least 20 other people are in the room just milling about stretches credibility, but who knows how the Indonesian police work? (Besides other Indonesians, of course.)
It certainly seems that the patsy theory put up by Fupped Duck is not without merit, but Amrozi certainly seems like the happiest patsy in the world.
posted by Snyder at 9:02 PM on November 13, 2002
f+m: We'd like to be able to ignore the name-calling that, for most of us, went out of fashion in kindergarten.
If you'll notice, ednopantz called the statement a lame gender troll, not letterneversent.
Am I, by any stretch of metaphor, that laughing chief suspect in the Bali bombing? No. It makes for convenient rhetoric, but it's a hollow statement. You're ascribing a callous disregard for thousands of civilian deaths perpetrated by our military on your entire audience, which is delusional. Here you're yelling at Donald Rumsfeld, and here I am just wondering how to fire the bastard who championed the policy "and those that harbor them". You can educate people without spitting on them.
posted by eddydamascene at 9:17 PM on November 13, 2002
If you'll notice, ednopantz called the statement a lame gender troll, not letterneversent.
Am I, by any stretch of metaphor, that laughing chief suspect in the Bali bombing? No. It makes for convenient rhetoric, but it's a hollow statement. You're ascribing a callous disregard for thousands of civilian deaths perpetrated by our military on your entire audience, which is delusional. Here you're yelling at Donald Rumsfeld, and here I am just wondering how to fire the bastard who championed the policy "and those that harbor them". You can educate people without spitting on them.
posted by eddydamascene at 9:17 PM on November 13, 2002
What f&m said.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:05 PM on November 13, 2002
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:05 PM on November 13, 2002
I hear clavdivs is actually General Wesley Clark.
Hey clavdivs, great article!
posted by homunculus at 10:15 PM on November 13, 2002
Hey clavdivs, great article!
posted by homunculus at 10:15 PM on November 13, 2002
We solve nothing by the warfare we visit on others.
Except, well, you know, KILLING THEM SO THEY CAN'T FUCK WITH US ANYMORE.
posted by kindall at 10:48 PM on November 13, 2002
Except, well, you know, KILLING THEM SO THEY CAN'T FUCK WITH US ANYMORE.
posted by kindall at 10:48 PM on November 13, 2002
Except, well, you know, KILLING THEM SO THEY CAN'T FUCK WITH US ANYMORE.
Oh my yes, and how well that certainly works! (*koff*blowback*koff*)
posted by scody at 11:40 PM on November 13, 2002
Oh my yes, and how well that certainly works! (*koff*blowback*koff*)
posted by scody at 11:40 PM on November 13, 2002
Violence begets violence. Forever. We solve nothing by the warfare we visit on others. We....WE....Taliban and Republican and Democrat Also Ran and American and Iraqi....are creating an absolutely nightmare world for our children....a world of adolescent bombers grinning over their latest slaughter....a world of back-slapping bomber pilots congratulating each other over another village successfully strafed. Complete banality. Complete waste. Complete evil.
Yes. It is so much better to bury our heads in the sand, disregard the horrific travesty visited upon millions every single day all in the cause of "peace." We have "peace" because we are not fighting a war. And what about those millions who suffer under despotic rule? Those who live as virtual slaves scavenging grass and eating tree bark to try and get basic sustenance? Who cares about them, because we have "peace." We'll send ships with supplies to fatten the troupes of the despot and ensure he stays in power even longer, brutally crushing the spirit of the people cursed to have been born under his rule. What is 20, 30, 50, even 100 years? We don't have to see the torture first hand and as long as we have our peace, fuck the millions who live, if you can call it that, and die in those places. WE HAVE OUR PEACE.
War is evil. That is true. But allowing these brutal, tyrannical regimes to continue is a far greater evil. You say violence begets violence. I say that, at times, a short time of intense violence can bring about true peace, not the sham masquerading as peace that you speak of.
posted by Baesen at 11:49 PM on November 13, 2002
Yes. It is so much better to bury our heads in the sand, disregard the horrific travesty visited upon millions every single day all in the cause of "peace." We have "peace" because we are not fighting a war. And what about those millions who suffer under despotic rule? Those who live as virtual slaves scavenging grass and eating tree bark to try and get basic sustenance? Who cares about them, because we have "peace." We'll send ships with supplies to fatten the troupes of the despot and ensure he stays in power even longer, brutally crushing the spirit of the people cursed to have been born under his rule. What is 20, 30, 50, even 100 years? We don't have to see the torture first hand and as long as we have our peace, fuck the millions who live, if you can call it that, and die in those places. WE HAVE OUR PEACE.
War is evil. That is true. But allowing these brutal, tyrannical regimes to continue is a far greater evil. You say violence begets violence. I say that, at times, a short time of intense violence can bring about true peace, not the sham masquerading as peace that you speak of.
posted by Baesen at 11:49 PM on November 13, 2002
From the article: '... at one moment Amrozi pointed to Western journalists and said in Indonesian: "Those are the sorts of people that I wanted to kill," prompting laughter in the room full of police.'
A thought experiment: What if the situation were reversed? What if someone bombed a disco full of Indonesian expats in D.C. and the bomber were caught -- and then the perpetrator pointed to a bunch of Indonesian journalists and said, "Those are the sorts of people I wanted to kill"? Would American cops have laughed?
No. They wouldn't have thought it was funny.
But the Indonesian cops thought it was funny. I wonder what Australians make of this?
posted by Holden at 3:34 AM on November 14, 2002
A thought experiment: What if the situation were reversed? What if someone bombed a disco full of Indonesian expats in D.C. and the bomber were caught -- and then the perpetrator pointed to a bunch of Indonesian journalists and said, "Those are the sorts of people I wanted to kill"? Would American cops have laughed?
No. They wouldn't have thought it was funny.
But the Indonesian cops thought it was funny. I wonder what Australians make of this?
posted by Holden at 3:34 AM on November 14, 2002
Well, we're not too fucking chuffed about it, obviously...
The Age is a respectable paper, so I can't dismiss this article as crass sensationalism, but that photo's got me boggled.
Australia's relationship with Indonesia is patchy at the best of times and there is a suspicion amongst many Australians that the Indonesian police may not be equipped or even inclined to investigate the Bali bombing as thoroughly as they should - somehow I don't think stories like this are going to help matters much.
Indonesian Police PR department - what are you thinking?
posted by backOfYourMind at 6:26 AM on November 14, 2002
The Age is a respectable paper, so I can't dismiss this article as crass sensationalism, but that photo's got me boggled.
Australia's relationship with Indonesia is patchy at the best of times and there is a suspicion amongst many Australians that the Indonesian police may not be equipped or even inclined to investigate the Bali bombing as thoroughly as they should - somehow I don't think stories like this are going to help matters much.
Indonesian Police PR department - what are you thinking?
posted by backOfYourMind at 6:26 AM on November 14, 2002
Oh yeah, look at all the U.S. Military planners posting to Metafilter. I hear clavdivs is actually General Wesley Clark
why dont you e-mail me and we can talk about it. really, no need to hide behind a false account.
To get back to the substance of this post, this seems like the weirdest interrogation I've ever heard of
I guess you don't "hear" much nor even consider the 'why' the article gave.
e-mail me. we can talk.
posted by clavdivs at 8:26 AM on November 14, 2002
why dont you e-mail me and we can talk about it. really, no need to hide behind a false account.
To get back to the substance of this post, this seems like the weirdest interrogation I've ever heard of
I guess you don't "hear" much nor even consider the 'why' the article gave.
e-mail me. we can talk.
posted by clavdivs at 8:26 AM on November 14, 2002
You're escaping from captivity on a horse-drawn cart and being pursued by fifty guys with swords. Unfortunately they can run faster than the cart. Luckily, you're an excellent shot with a bow (you always kill anyone you shoot at), but unluckily, you only have ten arrows, and the guys chasing you know that. What do you do?
Simple. You use the first arrow to kill the guy in the front of the pack. You use the second arrow to kill the guy in the front of the pack. You use the third arrow to kill the guy in the front of the pack. Right around here, nobody will want to be in the front of the pack anymore. Even though forty guys would have survived and caught you, nobody wants to be one of the ten who die, so none of them will chase you.
The application of this scenario to U.S. strategy in the war on terrorism is left as an exercise for the reader.
posted by kindall at 9:30 AM on November 14, 2002
Simple. You use the first arrow to kill the guy in the front of the pack. You use the second arrow to kill the guy in the front of the pack. You use the third arrow to kill the guy in the front of the pack. Right around here, nobody will want to be in the front of the pack anymore. Even though forty guys would have survived and caught you, nobody wants to be one of the ten who die, so none of them will chase you.
The application of this scenario to U.S. strategy in the war on terrorism is left as an exercise for the reader.
posted by kindall at 9:30 AM on November 14, 2002
Holden - 'A thought experiment: What if the situation were reversed?'
For the situation to be truly reversed the US would have to be only 3.5 years into it's life as a democracy. For the situation to be truly reversed the US would still be trying to build up the institutions of a democracy having been under a brutal military dictatorship for a generation. For the situation to be truly reversed the US would have bombs & violent uprisings occuring all over the country on a depressingly regular basis. And so forth...
Hellooooo! Indonesia is not a safe western-style democracy, it's an unstable, corruption-ridden string of islands that has lost 100,000s (possibly millions) of it's people & nobody gave a shit until white people started dying. Now 'we' expect them to 'be like us'. Bah!
What f&m said.
Kindall: Put the 10-sided dice down & back out of the room v-e-r-y slowly. Now go get drunk.
posted by i_cola at 11:42 AM on November 14, 2002
For the situation to be truly reversed the US would have to be only 3.5 years into it's life as a democracy. For the situation to be truly reversed the US would still be trying to build up the institutions of a democracy having been under a brutal military dictatorship for a generation. For the situation to be truly reversed the US would have bombs & violent uprisings occuring all over the country on a depressingly regular basis. And so forth...
Hellooooo! Indonesia is not a safe western-style democracy, it's an unstable, corruption-ridden string of islands that has lost 100,000s (possibly millions) of it's people & nobody gave a shit until white people started dying. Now 'we' expect them to 'be like us'. Bah!
What f&m said.
Kindall: Put the 10-sided dice down & back out of the room v-e-r-y slowly. Now go get drunk.
posted by i_cola at 11:42 AM on November 14, 2002
i_cola, are you implying that we shouldn't expect humanity out of Indonesians? Seems condescending.
posted by Holden at 2:57 AM on November 15, 2002
posted by Holden at 2:57 AM on November 15, 2002
« Older Eminem | Badthoughts Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tpoh.org at 4:43 PM on November 13, 2002