The Evolution of Modern Terrorism

2002 ,    »  -   76 Comments
137
3.83
12345678910
Ratings: 3.83/10 from 78 users.
Storyline
The Evolution of Modern Terrorism

In October, 1917, Lenin and Trotsky – the two dominant figures behind the Russian Revolution – set out to overtake the Provisional Government and replace it with a communist one. Through the formation of a group of highly trained revolutionary fighters, they were successful in achieving their goal, and also managed to incarcerate many of those they opposed.

For the first time in history, film cameras allowed the entire world an opportunity to witness these rapidly unfolding events with their own eyes. During this swift two-day action in early November of that year, the era of modern terrorism was born. Such is the premise set forth by the filmmakers behind The Evolution of Modern Terrorism, an exhaustive primer on the touchstones that have defined a horrifying epidemic which continues to resonate in every corner of the globe.

The war on terrorism presents greater threats and challenges with each passing decade. From Che Guevara to Osama Bin Laden, the nature of modern terrorist tactics continues to evolve alongside ever-changing infrastructures, technologies and political landscapes. As the film illustrates, the current state of terrorist aggression results in loss of life on a massive scale, a trend that can be traced from the taking of Pan Am Flight 103 by Libyan nationalists in 1988 to the attacks of September 11, 2001 and beyond. These terrorist organizations are well funded and structurally solid; in many cases, they operate much like a corporation in their quest to inflict mass chaos throughout the world.

Whether indoctrinated through situations of impoverishment, ideology or religion, the perpetrators of these terror acts are growing more sophisticated in their ability to co-exist within the regions they eventually intend to attack, and in their capacity to exploit technological vulnerabilities to their advantage.

The Evolution of Modern Terrorism provides a clear-eyed and necessary exploration of three key questions: what are these terrorist organizations, how do they thrive and what motivates those who join them? It is only through understanding the answers to these complex questions that the world can begin to wage successful campaigns to eliminate their existence altogether. The film postulates that these solutions could potentially come in the form of increased education and resources for impoverished nations, trade embargoes, economic sanctions, and continued diligence in the gathering of actionable intelligence. Regardless of these efforts, one thing is certain. The world will have to contend with the scourge of terrorist extremism for some time to come.

More great documentaries

76 Comments / User Reviews

  1. dmxi

    a real terrorist would know no mercy in usage of the most capable WMD:the atom bomb (twice!for good measures)!

  2. windship

    But what about all the evidence collected to date that proves that the scale of destruction on 9/11 was largely attributable to "an inside job"? Who are the REAL terrorists?

  3. Svanstrom

    I won't watch this crap. The description just made me sick to my stomach!
    If they call the Russian revolutionaries terrorist then they might just categories the American or the French the same. What's the point?
    The only terrorist in this crapy Doc is probably the creators them selfs.
    Shamless people to say the least.

  4. Fabien L'Amour

    I disagree, a real terrorist would use it as often and massively as needed until he reached the goal of his actions. One can imply the goal of Harry Truman was to terrorize Japan into submission but I can't quite label him as a terrorist. He was in a war against a country that attacked his navy and territory first and showed no sign of wanting to end the war without a long deadly fight all over its territory. It was a logical decision after losing over 110 000 americans to the pacific war.

    I doubt that real terrorists would show any mercy or restraint if they had the means to launch as many atom bombs as they desire. I never want to see that power in the hands of fanatics like Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi or Abubakar Shekau.

  5. dmxi

    "....and showed no sign of wanting to end the war without a long deadly fight all over its territory."
    that's the official line but the reality begs to differ.
    the crux of my comment is that 'terrorism' is a label for an opponent that responds from a weaker position or to reek havoc & fear to submit own policies.....a term that fits both 'parties'(US vs 'fill-in-any-country-that-doesn't-comply'),don't ya think?

  6. Fabien L'Amour

    I disagree, the government officials and/or military commanders of Japan made no offer to surrender to the U.S.A. prior to the atomic bombings and trained the population to fight off landings on mainland Japan with any means possible.

    You know better than me what you meant with that comment. I interpreted it as labeling the United State government as a terrorist state because Harry Truman gave the final go to drop 2 Atomic bombs on Japan during World War 2.

  7. dmxi

    this sums up any future debate we would have about this topic:the difference being which side one chooses to pick!
    i label the US as 'terrorist' due to their foreign policies during & after WW2 which are without debate 'atrocities'(& NO-it doesn't excuse any of THE others!)...no matter which way you turn it!if you choose to defend that's ok with me...freedom of speech,remember?

  8. Fabien L'Amour

    I don't pick a side, I am reticent to label acts of war as terrorism. When war is declared by belligerent countries, it's a given there will be terror on both sides.

    But if I wanted to call these events something terrible, I would call them war crimes. I go with the definition that military actions by a state against another state are acts of war and military actions by non state sponsored forces with the purpose of killing, hurting and terrorizing the civilian population are acts of terrorism.

  9. dmxi

    "...hurting and terrorizing the civilian population are acts of terrorism."
    tell that the citizens of nagasaki & you'll might be right-

  10. Fabien L'Amour

    You cut out the important part of purpose. The purpose was to force the Emperor, Japanese government and army into surrendering, not terrorizing the population of Japan. They had close to a non-existent say in the conduct of the war.

  11. Msdcs

    Wont watch this as we all know who is behind the terrorist and its not the people the MSM say it is it is our own people.

  12. DigiWongaDude

    It's an interesting conversation. You are both right in many regards, but although the Japanese never offered surrender prior to the bombs, they were clearly beaten by June 1945. They were seeking a way to end the fighting. The bombs were dropped to send a clear message to the soviets - "don't mess with the west". This makes the use of nuclear bombs "an act of terror" (imo).

    Is there really such a difference between, say, a "act of terror" and a "terrorist act"? As Dmxi says, not to the people on the receiving end. That's for sure.

    States using acts of terror (including shock and awe) do not qualify as terrorist acts, as Noam Chomsky tells us repeatedly, but you could instead call these types of acts "war crimes". However, States have learned how to get around most of these quite easily by claiming they were provoked. Standard procedure for the use of aggression. On the other hand, 'terrorists' often refer to themselves as 'freedom fighters'.

    So it should be clear that the use of labels is a tricky business just in itself, let alone the trickle down effect these games have on things like economic practices and media presentation.

    Check out Oliver Stone's "The Untold History of the United States" (6x 1hr episodes) for some eyebrow raising questions on the use of "terror", though such practices can be seen the world over, at varying scales.

  13. Fabien L'Amour

    I agree the Japanese were beaten, I am aware of the attempt by Japanese diplomats at having the Soviets as mediators to negotiate a peace agreement. On the other hand, Japan was making preparations for an all out defense of the mainland by the military and civilians. No direct offer whatsoever was made to the U.S. even after the first bomb. They had time after the first bomb to at least initiate parlays but they didn't make a move, which is very hard to explain for a nation ready to surrender.

    One can suppose the U.S. government wanted to demonstrate the A-bombs power to the Soviets but it wasn't necessary to drop it on Japan to do so. My opinion is the U.S. government wanted an end to the war without a D-Day type invasion, it had the weapons to force an unconditional surrender and used them. Dropping them on those cities was a very big error of judgement if not a war crime.

  14. DigiWongaDude

    I'd like to hear your views on this: to quote Noam Chomsky (on the hanging of the nazi von Ribbentrop [Nazi Foreign Minister] at the Nuremberg Trial, who was found guilty of a preemptive strike against Norway)

    "...How about Colin Powell? He justified a preemptive war against no threat. So... if von Ribbentrapp was hanged...? You know, ok, fill it out. So could the International Criminal Court do something like that? Only if it wanted to be immediately destroyed."

    He goes on to say that the great powers don't pay any attention to the Security Council: "Take Article 2 of the U.N. Charter, it bans the threat or use of force in international affairs. Every time President Obama, or any other western leader, opens his mouth [against Iran] he's making a threat. That's what it means to say 'all options are open'. And it's not an idle threat (take a look at the armaments in the area and so on), it's a very live threat. Yet nobody says a word." ...Chomsky then rages on for a few more minutes on U.S. ignoring the Magna Carta over the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and the outcome is stark - war crimes, rather like terrorism, ARE defined clearly but also conveniently by the west. For example, Reagan declared in the 80's that a war on terror would be the center piece of U.S. policy, and for the last 30 years academic conferences have been discussing how to define terrorism in a favorable light towards the west. You might like to pick up the above interview here:

    ...Clearly it's a complex issue with double standards galore!

  15. DigiWongaDude

    Sorry link had to be removed, search youtube for "Noam Chomsky US, a top terrorist state" and jump to 19m55s.

  16. Fabien L'Amour

    First, I want to make clear I am not pretending war is more morale than terrorism, only that they are 2 different things.

    An intervention in Irak would have been lawful when Irak invaded Kuwait. The second time around, it was illegal and unjustified.

    I think comparing Colin Powell to Joachim von Ribbentrop is going too far. Von Ribbentrop wasn't hanged only for a preemptive strike, he was found guilty of crimes against peace, deliberately planning a war of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Colin Powell was merely a puppet at the United Nations and his involvement in the decision of the invasion of Irak was null. Other people more directly involved in decisions should face the international tribunal instead. (Georges W. Bush, Dick Cheney, etc.)

    The situation between Iran and the U.S.A. has threats on both sides. I can't agree that whenever a leader opens his mouth against Iran he is making a threat. Saying "all options are open" when the other side says your country and your allies should be destroyed is only a way to convey the message "we will retaliate" in my opinion.

  17. Fabien L'Amour

    I wrote a long reply then got a message my comment needed to be approved by TDF. Hopefully, it will appear at some point. Otherwise, take care. I don't really feel like rewriting it all.

  18. JPTardif

    Terrorists dont ware mask when they're ready to die for a prophet. Don't be stupid folks. They dont bring ID card neither...

  19. dmxi

    "...the other side says your country and your allies should be destroyed is..."
    the 'threat' is misconceived:

    Ahmadinejad meant the 'zionist government' should be wiped away like the russian communist government....big difference which correction was hardly heard in western media!

  20. Fabien L'Amour

    The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) in a statement released on Saturday underlined that the US is still the main enemy of Iran and its Islamic Revolution.

    "The US is still the great Satan and the number one enemy of the (Islamic) revolution and the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation inspired by the lessons of the great uprising of Ashoura, the eternal guidelines of the late Imam Khomeini as well as the wise and vigilant guidelines of Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei ..."

    Source is FARS News Agency, Tehran, November 1st 2014 and it can't be qualified as western media. "Great Satan" and "number one ennemy". I don't see the "US government" or "US administration" written in that statement, I see "the US" and it doesn't come from Ahmadinejad either.

  21. dmxi

    nr.1 enemy...mmh,seems to be factual but no 'complete destruction' is mentioned.

  22. Richard Neva

    Any film on terrorism that does not mention Israel is amiss. The opening scenes of those airplanes that never hit the twin towers is another fake scene that turned me off to watching this pro Jew propaganda film. Anyone who does the research knows that the towers fell due to controlled demolitions that were planted my Mossad in the twin towers way before they fell! I am sick of films like this!

  23. Fabien L'Amour

    From the Iranian FARS news website again:

    Israel's leaders sometimes threaten Iran, but they know that if they do a damn thing, the Islamic Republic will raze Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground," Ayatollah Khamenei stressed.

    "Today the Iron Dome has failed and this miserable people (occupiers) are on the verge of complete destruction," Hojjatoleslam Seddiqi said.

    Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces General Hassan Firouzabadi said Iran is ready for the “decisive battle” against Washington and Tel Aviv and would strike all the US bases if it comes under attack.

    Lieutenant Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC)
    Brigadier General Hossein Salami warned that the slightest military by the US will be reciprocated by Iran's harshest response, underlining that Iran's reaction would "recognize no boundary".

    If the Al-Saud commits such a crime against Ayatollah Sheikh al-Nimr, its move will not remain unanswered and Muslims will change this world to a hell for them," General Naqdi said, addressing a ceremony in Tehran
    on Saturday.

    Conducting trainings, exercises and drills to get prepared for operational goals is always on our agenda and Americans and all the
    world know that one of the operational goals of the IRGC Navy is destruction of the US naval force," Admiral Fadavi said in an exclusive interview with FNA.

    That's only from the first 2 pages of results from a google advanced search for the word destruction. Looks to me like threats against the US and its allies including a complete destruction threat of Israel, Tel Aviv and Haifa. Also, I never wrote "complete destruction" in my posts.

  24. Michael Epstein

    USA is terrorist nation #1. So-called Israel is terrorist nation #2.

  25. martych

    ".....those airplanes that never hit the twin towers...." May be you should watch films about Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Fiction rather than fact sounds like more your thing.

  26. Richard Neva

    I can see you were duped into thinking real airplanes hit those towers. You are joke!

  27. dmxi

    that is a response to threats given,or not?clearly signalling whom the aggressor is which is in accordance to israels polices backed by US military spendings.
    we clearly have different views on terminology & 'real-life' meanings....but without there would be no debate,me ole chap.

  28. Joan

    COMMENT BY JOAN: FYI: It has been shown that Libya had NOTHING to do with the Pan
    Am Flight 103 Do your research. You might contact William Blum,
    author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Intervention for some
    truth.

    As for 9-11, well it would take a total id*ot or one totally
    afraid of losing his/her job not to see that the buildings, ESP.
    BUILDING 7, came down in free fall speed, which happens only with use of
    explosives as in controlled demolition.

    GET THE ORIGIN OF TERRORISTS STRAIGHT!
    The US/Israel/NATO/EU corporate "leaders" (Presidents and Congress and
    State Legislatures) are behind the terrorism around the world. There
    is no question that the US and Israel are both supporting ISIS.

    support of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, two of the most repressive States
    in the world, should at least make Americans, Europeans and Africans
    wonder what the intentions of the US are. Of course, some, such as the African
    People, already know the US intentions, as they have long
    been the victims of imperialist military and moneyed interest wars.
    The US has been behind most of the false flag wars--before 9-11, on 9-11
    and after 9-11-- one would think the Americans would have awoken to
    reality by now. So, why haven't they? Well, junkie false-propaganda
    films like this one are part of the reason. NO, I did not waste my
    time watching the whole film. Just reading the description is all one
    needs to do. The description is jam-packed with deception and outright
    fabrications and lies. The film can not be much more than an extension of those warmongering lies.

    The US/Israel/EU allies/NATO do nothing but
    wage wars. These are wars that have proven very successful for the
    moneyed interests who have planned the One World Order and The Project
    for a New American Century (PNAC). LOOK AT THE THE FILM-MAKERS
    STATEMENT: "THEY WANT TO ELIMINATE THEIR EXISTENCE ALTOGETHER." My
    goodness, read the words and see who really are the terrorists--the
    imperialist moneyed interest who want to be rid of what they see is the
    rift-raft of the world. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME for promoting terrorism
    via promoting the real terrorists, the moneyed interests who will not
    be satisfied until they OWN THE WORLD. Thing is, these global
    moneyed interests have destroyed the whole world environment; and, it is
    very unlikely that they will survive much longer than their subjects
    that they have sought to rid this earth.

  29. fk_censors

    We get it, you didn't watch the doc, but please don't pollute the comment section with your obsessions - this space here is for adults to discuss thia specific documentary. Thanks!

  30. Zengei12

    Thank you, Joan. You are right on. MLK said that the US was the "chief purveyor of terror in the world" and it continues to be.

  31. fk_censors

    Are you re*arded? It mentioned Israel a lot!

  32. fk_censors

    Interesting doc, although a bit disjointed, but tough to present this subject in under one hour. And I suspect terrorism (using terror on innocent civilians to push forward political agenda) is much older than the Bolshevik Revolution. Anarchist attacks and assassinations were not mentioned (I remember some instances in the US as well). However, there were some interesting things, and a depth of footage, so I gave it 7 stars.

  33. Fabien L'Amour

    Looks to me more like an escalation of threat. You go from something vague like "all options are open" to a definite description of military destruction against US forces where there is no room left for interpretation whatsoever.

    There is even more of an escalation against Israel where Iran's supreme leader said if they do a damn thing, we will raze entire cities, which would amount to thousands of civilian deaths.

    There is a big difference in my mind between attacking a military target in retaliation and razing cities to the ground. You don't hear anything like that from the U.S. president or Israel's prime minister.

  34. dmxi

    well,i guess you check on the 'samson option' esp during yom kippur (golda meir) & while you're at it tell me a little about the 'stern gang' & the definition of terrorism,mmh?
    besides,in the advent of drone attacks & their use you should 'check' how the hope-bringer obama has loosened the term 'collateral damage'....if you're OK on that we're worlds apart!

  35. Fabien L'Amour

    Can you give me a quote from a recent Israeli leader concerning the "samson option"? I googled for samson option but it leads me to decade old external military analysis.

    Golda Meir died in 1978 before the Iranian revolution so I don't understand how she can be linked with the conflict between Israel and Iran.

    Care to share some information instead of asking questions? I like to read but I am not going to spend hours reading about everything you mention.

  36. Lancev32

    I was in NYC and close enough to see the planes fly into the towers. Please shut your Fkn mouth.

  37. Lancev32

    Move to Yemen.

  38. dmxi

    i sent you 2 short links that consume hours of reading(no one forces you!)?ok!...decade old
    material has nothing to do with the current status(...& we're talking about 'complete' nuclear retaliation here,weapons that israel shouldn't have by broad consensus)?ok!.....& as you
    like to share information which i question, you question my information
    given without actually responding to the topic?very irritating which leads me to believe that you're debating
    from a set mind & not debating to conclude the facts of the
    matter!if so,avoid the discussion when in fear of being challenged!case
    closed

  39. Michael Epstein

    i am the Light of the world and the Light goes where it is most dark. At the moment that happens to be the USA.

  40. Fabien L'Amour

    What are you talking about? Who said anything about having or not having nuclear weapons? I wrote about threats from leaders of nations. Define what you are debating and I will continue writing. If having nuclear weapons is terrorism for you, what is there to debate exactly and who has a set mind?

    If I am going to inform myself on a subject, I tend to read several articles with different opinions of it, unless the stern gang is directly related to the Israeli government which I was discussing, I don't see the point of reading on it. Just describe what it is/was so I don't waste my time if it's off topic.

  41. Fabien L'Amour

    What exactly do you mean by "I am the Light of the world" ?

  42. Michael Epstein

    Light means actually Living Love, Peace, Joy, Beauty, Creativity in each and every moment of daily life.

  43. Fabien L'Amour

    Ok, how do you plan to make the U.S.A. less dark and make it not the #1 terrorist nation?

  44. Achems_Razor

    You are probably talking about your deities, walking on water etc: anthropomorphized from the Sun/sunbeams, your deity the big JC

    Funny religee's

  45. Michael Epstein

    You are mistaken.

  46. Michael Epstein

    If we want a Wonderful World, then we must Create Wonderful individuals.

    Totally Free. Totally Lucid.

    Without beliefs, religions, philosophies, or ideologies.

    Without national or racial identities.

    Not democrats, republicans or libertarians.

    Not leftists. Not rightists. Not centrists

    Not socialists. Not anarchists.

    Not jews, christians, muslims or atheists.

    Not american, russian or chinese.

    Individuals who are the very embodiment Love, Wisdom and Strength, without any bias or prejudice.

    One for All and All for One.

    And Oneness does not mean sameness.

    This is my gift to you.

    Total Enlightenment...once & for all, Now & forever.

    Love, Peace, Joy, Freedom, Creativity, Beauty, Clarity, Truth and Wisdom for the very first time, in each and every moment of your daily life.

    Jacob's Ladder: Total Freedom NOW (page on Facebook)

  47. bringmeredwine

    This was straight forward and without fanfare. A quick watch with lots of info. Take from it what you will.
    I never knew terrorists had manuals. (The CIA has one too!)

  48. bringmeredwine

    There's always a catch.

  49. Achems_Razor

    Right! and how much would that cost in cash?

  50. Michael Epstein

    This is my gift to you.

  51. Achems_Razor

    Don't need and don't want your gifts!
    Quit trolling or will ban you from TDF!

  52. Fabien L'Amour

    How do you create such individuals?
    What do you do with the individuals that aren't like that?

  53. Michael Epstein

    Begin with yourself. Study my page.

  54. Fabien L'Amour

    Thanks for the offer but I try to find knowledge outside Facebook pages whenever possible.

  55. Michael Epstein

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with knowledge. This is about Wisdom.

  56. Fabien L'Amour

    Thanks for the offer but I try to find wisdom outside Facebook pages whenever possible.

  57. Richard Neva

    Absolutely impossible for an airplane to bring down those towers. It was a controlled demolition that was planted before they came down. The airplanes were just a subterfuge. This has been proved already so forget about any airplanes that brought those buildings down. Find the people that planted the explosives!

  58. dmxi

    sir,i believe we are victims of misunderstanding our points made.

  59. Michael Epstein

    You can not find Wisdom anywhere. Wisdom comes to you uninvited when you're not there.

  60. Michael Epstein

    See your violence right there. Look at it Now. See your self. This is the Key.

  61. a_no_n

    except it hasn't been proved, in fact there's extensive evidence disproving the notion that there were any explosives at those towers...Or that there was ever an opportunity to plant that many without being noticed.

    your conspiracy theory would be better reserved for the panels of a comic book.

  62. Richard Neva

    It has been "proved" by educated chemists who have studied the melted metal and the rapid deployment of metal from the girders could only by done by sophisticated explosives designed for such action. You just are not familiar with that research and it has been kept from the main press because the press is controlled in America. So there you are, you speak with no backing whatsoever.

  63. Fabien L'Amour

    Would you please provide the names of these educated chemists so I can look for those proofs?

  64. a_no_n

    that's bullsh/t. Steel loses structural stability at 500 degrees celcius. That's a temperature that can be easily achieved with burning office equipment and jet fuel.

    If steel behaved like the wonder materiel you and your crank chemists seem to think it does then medieval history would have looked a lot different. those suits of armour didn't just spring out of the ground fully formed you know. Blacksmiths had to shape steel after heating it with coal.

    You sir are the one speaking with no backing...you trumpet the words of a few solitary cranks and pretend you've informed yourself when all your championing is misinformed nonsense put out by by attention seekers.

  65. Richard Neva

    This is the name of but one that has determined from 911 debris that nano-thermitic explosives were used. He is a Dr. Steven Jones of Brigham Young Univ. Physics Prof. There is a whole bunch more and just because you folks have not read the research you jump on anyone who has. I have been studying this for years now. I am convinced and I don't care if you people want to remain in the dark. There is really nothing we can do to bring these scumbags to justice either because they all part of cabal that rules America. Just because you do not read about it does not mean it does not exist. Get your heads out of the sand, turn off the tv and do the research like I did! I am fed up being a teacher here!

  66. Fabien L'Amour

    Steven E. Jones is not a chemist and also claimed that Jesus visited the Mayans to show his crucifixion scars in an article titled "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America".

  67. Horst Manure

    Well said your CIA check is in the mail.

  68. a_no_n

    I wish...unfortunately they don't pay people to state the blindingly obvious.

  69. a_no_n

    really...a guy from the private university of the Mormon church in Utah...which he was expelled from for these exact 9/11 theories.

  70. fk_censors

    If you don't watch it please don't comment.

  71. abdul mobeen asari

    this documentary dose not mention any kind of state terrorism.against their people .new forms of terrorism.war against innocent people only for control and undertake their resources, is not a form of a terrorism of our age??dual standard for all kind of freedom,justice,human rights,civil rights,democracy is the main cause root of anger of public.which leads them to unlawful activities.they take arms....but...who provides them WMDs?who earns more and more by selling,supplying and smuggling them WMDs? isn't it it a form of terrorism?so this one is biased,not made for information.but only for propagation.only for providing shelters for real terrorists of our era.the real enemies of mankind........

  72. READ2lips

    A piece of propaganda courtesy of the USA/NATO/CIA and let's not forget MOSSAD.

  73. Sportsbruh

    I'm sure this documentary spells out how We are stealing the terrorist resources, raping their women, polluting their environment and denigrating its people

    Amerikkka is the terrorizers

  74. Epicurus

    people asking questions on the internet do not count as "evidence". there is ZERO evidence that shows it was an inside job. grow up.

  75. david

    What a crap propaganda documentary!

  76. bungabunga

    abdul has said it perfectly. if some psycho nation invaded your country claiming that it had the ways that you must be, would the resistance be called terrorists or freedom fighters?

Leave a comment / review: