French shooting civs

[Achilles]

http://radioci.embaci.com/englishdownload/frenchsoldiersshootingcivilians2.mpg

NOT WORK SAFE

Very graphic. I know that the video doesnt show the whole story (EDIT: doesn't really even show part of the story)... but why are there a bunch of unarmed women and children dead and dying? What threat did they pose to those french soldiers? Why was there no nonlethal ammunition used (being at what looks like a civillian protest)?


Edited Thread Title - Frogs are our SEAL Brothers. This refers to the Phrench. NDD

[Airbornelawyer]

You have no idea what was happening, and relying on a selective piece of footage which does not in fact document what is alleged, you are willing to jump to conclusions and denigrate serving professional soldiers as common murderers. Michael Moore and al-Jazeera would be proud of you.

So the video "doesnt show the whole story"? You sound like the New York Times' resident Bush-hater Paul Krugman praising Fahrenheit 9-11 despite its obvious distortions as "telling essential truths."

[Achilles]

Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. I just saw some dead women and children with no weapons in sight and was wondering what happened. Firing came from the direction of the french troops, and I could not discern anything else.

[Roguish Lawyer]

You have no idea what was happening, and relying on a selective piece of footage which does not in fact document what is alleged, you are willing to jump to conclusions and denigrate serving professional soldiers as common murderers. Michael Moore and al-Jazeera would be proud of you.

So the video "doesnt show the whole story"? You sound like the New York Times' resident Bush-hater Paul Krugman praising Fahrenheit 9-11 despite its obvious distortions as "telling essential truths."

Whoa, body blow! LOL

You really bristle when people criticize the French. Why is that? :munchin :)

[Airbornelawyer]

Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. I just saw some dead women and children with no weapons in sight and was wondering what happened. Firing came from the direction of the french troops, and I could not discern anything else.
You saw a piece of footage (one of actually two floating around the net) edited and broadcast by the propaganda organ loyal to Cote d'Ivoirienne strongman Laurent Gbagbo. You didn't just "wonder[] what happened". As the title of the thread indicates, you bouught the propaganda line you were fed. Add to that the racial slur.

Two versions of the same event from April 2003, first from anti-American propagandists at Counterpunch:Al Fallujah is known in Iraq as the "city of mosques." There is a reverence for the holiness of the city and Muslim leaders made clear to American troops that they did not want them in their city. The US troops responded by saying they had to be there for "security." ... What happened next has raised questions among Iraqis and many international Middle East experts. Crowds gathered and demanded the troops leave. As the crowds became louder and more insistent, the American troops fired into the crowd and killed 13 people and injured more than 20 more according to doctors at the local hospital. The American troops said they were fired on; but all other witnesses at the scene denied the gunfire came from the demonstrators. Today, 2 more people were killed and more injured, with the Muslims of Al Fallujah and the city officials saying no one shot at the Americans, the American troops claiming otherwise.and from CENTCOMParatroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division were fired upon last night by approximately 25 armed civilians mixed within an estimated crowd of 200 protesters outside a compound they were occupying in the city of Fallujah. The paratroopers, who received fire from elements mixed within the crowd and positioned atop neighboring buildings, returned fire, wounding at least seven of the armed individuals.

Media reports have incorrectly reported that soldiers fired on the crowd without cause, and also reported numerous casualties were inflcted on innocent civilians, including women and children. This allegation cannot be confirmed by Coalition forces, as the crowd retrieved the wounded and dispersed after the exchange. Given this fact, it is extremely unlikely that the Coalition will ever be able to confirm casualties, or determine the extent to which any unarmed civilians were injured or killed.

While the Coalition regrets any innocent casualties if they did occur, it also maintains the inherent right of right of self-defense for its forces when they are threatened by hostile forces.
Scott, I bristle at attacks on soldiers because you don't like the policies of their government. The Michael Moore-esque shit disgusts me when it is directed at American soldiers. I find it equally disgusting when directed at French soldiers, who are also professional soldiers. Or Israeli soldiers, too, who get the same media treatment. And the disgust is only heightened by the hypocrisy of people suddenly willing to believe the worst propaganda when it is directed at someone else.

[Achilles]

Thanks for the insight, AL. I had a lot of trouble finding pertinent information about that footage on the net, and I stand corrected.

[Team Sergeant]

As much as I dislike the French, I’m with AL on this one, we've no idea who took the video, who the people are and who is doing the shooting. Until something is confirmed I am with-holding any and all speculation.

Achilles,
Don’t let your emotions overload your brain. Until you receive more info I’d suspend judgment on who the bad men are….


TS

[Bill Harsey]

9 times out of 10, hosing the French is the correct answer. There goes AL again interjecting sound critical thinking into an otherwise good arguement.

Be careful of what video shows you, all you have to do to field edit is not start recording until it goes your way and quit for the same reason.

[Achilles]

Roger TS, Mr. Harsey.

Dead and dying women and children is a very powerful tool of propaganda. Next time I see similar material I'll keep my emotions in check.

[Airbornelawyer]

There are two pieces of film from Radio Cote D'Ivoire (the Gbagbo propaganda outfit) being circulated. The one you link to basically shows a bunch of people gathered with French military vehicles in the background, then a herky-jerky part where the cameraman is running and you can hear fire of various calibers in the background, and then an extended portion showing various people dead or being treated. A fair number appear to be heat casualties rather than injuries. Several show what appear to be small caliber gunshot wounds, consistent with the 5.56mm rifles most of the French troops have. At least one had his head blown off, possibly by a .50 cal (mounted on the VABs and VBLs). You then see the VABs, VBLs, Sagaies and other vehicles leaving the Hotel d'Ivoire with most of the troops on the outside of the vehicles. Among those visible are several special operators (no PASGT helmets, headsets and a mix of M-4s and SIG assault rifles - French naval commandos are partial to SIGs). You see some more injured and more people standing around and yelling, and at the end you see at least one UN vehicle burning and members of the crowd moving into the hotel.

In the second video, you see an extended review of the crowd, including several CI police and militiamen with AKs. At this stage some French soldiers can be observed relaxed, even sitting on the hoods of the VBLs. Then there is a gap, and you see a period where French troops are clearly shooting at someone. None of the heavy weapons on the vehicles are firing, but several fantassins are firing their FAMASs obliquely to the cameraman and in the same direction. The rest of the crowd does not appear threatened at this point as several approach the road leading to the hotel, and many are standing or sitting around watching. Then the cameraman goes to where people are leaving or being carried away. Again, many appear to be heat casualties. In this video, only two injured persons are shown - one with a gash to the elbow who is later shown getting it sutured, and one with a small caliber wound.

What you don't see:

1. No time stamps on the videos, so no way to check how much was edited out.
2. No apparent fear of the troops by the crowd in most parts of the videos.
3. No use of the heavy weapons with which the troops were equipped (though as noted one casualty had what may be a mortal wound from a .50 cal).
4. No indiscriminate fire. The only French troops you see actually firing are firing in the same direction. There is, however, a fairly liberal use of full automatic rather than single shot fire.
5. No context. The Hotel d'Ivoire was a rally point for French civilians being evacuated in the face of widespread racially charged rioting and incitement to violence by Gbagbo. The troops were on the outside of the vehicles because civilians were inside.
6. No evidence one way or the other whether agitators in the crowd fired. Weapons are not evident in most scenes, but several armed men - police, militia or FANCI - are shown at one point. At one point where the cameraman is running, it looks like he passes a pile of brass. On the other hand, for most of time they are shown, the French troops appear reasonably comfortable in the open. I have been told by a French officer of my acquaintance who has been in touch with comrades there that people in the crowd definitely fired.

There are things we see and don't see which may or may not amount to an indictment of the conduct of some of these soldiers. Some soldiers may have fired indiscriminately. As with the shootings in Fallujah a year and a half ago, there may have been agitators in the crowd who fired, or even if not, there may have been a mistake by an overly nervous young soldiers. These are things with which we as soldiers and former soldiers are familiar, and as such we have a duty to our profession to not jump to conclusions or make broad-brushed or bigoted assumptions.

From a member of another forum:War is hell and sh*t happens. That's all. As far as western armies go, dick measuring contests are plain silly. What I think is that I stand behind soldiers who do their jobs. US, French, British, Bolivian, doesn't matter. They're working in very difficult conditions we cannot possibly grasp sitting in front of a screen. If time tells they were entirely wrong to act the way they did, well let history be their judge. Until then, the least they deserve is the benefit of the doubt.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Scott, I bristle at attacks on soldiers because you don't like the policies of their government. The Michael Moore-esque shit disgusts me when it is directed at American soldiers. I find it equally disgusting when directed at French soldiers, who are also professional soldiers. Or Israeli soldiers, too, who get the same media treatment. And the disgust is only heightened by the hypocrisy of people suddenly willing to believe the worst propaganda when it is directed at someone else.

I could not view the video and make no comment on it. I do think, however, that you are bothered by attacks on France and the French. Am I wrong? :munchin

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

One of the biggest challenges that we face today is Information Ops which allows anyone with a satellite link, radio, video camera, etc to select and transmit editted or set up scenarios world wide. Perception suddenly becomes a virtual reality whether it was contrived or not. I still think that some of the shots taken in the former Yugoslavian conflict were contrived for just that purpose. Add to that irresponsible media folks that are not really there to inform but to enhance the bottom line of the organization for whom they work and you have a constant battle to sort out fact from fiction. Opinions and attitudes can be swayed and manipulated instantly and governments and organizations get tied down doing damage control wasting time, money, and sometimes lives. Those that are most affected by this are those that are basically uniformed (I am not implying that you are uniformed-this is in general) or underinformed and hear only what they want to or are allowed to. Having said that, this is a lead in to a little trip I took to West Africa in the 80s with the primary mission of gaining control over the country's army and preventing the fledgling government from going tits up. One of the first things we did (there were 5 of us) was to get the guns off the street and those guns where carried by everyone that could walk, including women and children. I don't want to sound harsh here, but there is nothing special about women, children, old folk or trained critters when they have weapons, they are targets. Pictures can be manipulated, weapons in insurgencies are valuable commodities and will be recovered from the dead, and insurgents will use women and children as sheilds. There is often little choice when it comes to firefights in that situation. These folks know how to play on everyone's emotions, but your emotions will definetly change from what you see if the comfort of your own home to being there with the rain running down the crack of your butt, sweat burning your eyes, the unique combination of odors insulting your nose caused by cordite, rotting flesh, and those dense overhanging and oppressive air that dwells in third world alleys combined with noise, confusion, missiles from rocks to munitions whisteling over your head, surging movement and screams and yells in a language that has no meaning combined with your own adrenalin rush as you fall back on your survival instincts and training. No, there is always more to the situation than you can glean from some news report. Just a thought.

Jack Moroney

[The Reaper]

Achilles:

Not to belabor this overbeaten dead horse, but the same footage could have been shown (and probably was) of TF Ranger in Mogadishu.

Take your initial statement and apply it to the Rangers.

How did that look?

TR

[Achilles]

Roger Sir.

Damn that Michael Moore and his video editing trainnig camps!!

[Airbornelawyer]

I could not view the video and make no comment on it. I do think, however, that you are bothered by attacks on France and the French. Am I wrong? :munchin
I am "bothered" by irrational hatred and bigotry. The Left is consumed by its bigotry, but the Right is far from immune. Attitudes toward France are a particularly egregious example of this. When it comes to France otherwise good and rational people start hypocritically acting like Michael Moore wannabes.

We scoff when people advance dark conspiracy theories about the US and 9-11, Afghan oil pipelines, Iraq, etc., yet gullibly buy into any conspiracy theory about French motives. We express outrage when "antiwar" activists and their ilk attack the soldier because they oppose the government, yet jump on the bandwagon when French soldiers are at issue. When X happens and some French are involved, suddenly all X is French and all French are X. The "oil for food" bribery scandal, which involves oil companies and crooked politicians in dozens of countries, is an example. But note also the recent stories of "Frenchmen" fighting in Iraq: Some French Muslims, like some American, British and other Muslims, join the jihadis (recall that recent tape of a California jihadi in Pakistan's tribal areas), and we see stories and threads about how "the French" are fighting in Iraq for the other side (along with gratuitous swipes at French soldiers' professionalism). And so on...

None of this absolves France and the French government of criticism for its policies. Sadly, in fact, it weakens the case. A legitimate line of attack on, for example, Patrick Maugein's relations with oil-for-bribery and what influence he might have had on Chirac is lost in the background noise of easily dismissable ranting about cheese-eating surrender monkeys and "freedom fries."

What is worse, it leads otherwise rational folks to entertain irrational ideas. Consider, for instance, George Will's column of a week or so ago: Tough questions for Rice (http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/11450242p-12364318c.html). Therein he makes this statement:Should the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China) be changed? Should France (population 60 million) be included rather than India (1 billion — soon to be the world's most populous nation), Indonesia (238 million, the world's largest Islamic nation), Brazil (184 million, the most populous nation in Latin America) or Japan (127 million, and the world's second-largest economy)?Leave aside the rationality of using raw population as a measure of one's global influence. In what way, shape or form does it serve U.S. interests to advance the notion that we would be better off with India, Indonesia, Brazil or Japan on the Security Council?

Look at the most recent (2003) Congressionally-mandated State Department report on Voting Practices in the United Nations (http://state.gov/p/io/conrpt/vtgprac/). We track data on overall General Assembly votes and on votes we consider important to the US. Leaving out the unanimous consensus resolutions, there were 85 overall votes and 15 important votes tracked.

For overall votes, these are the voting coincidence percentages with the United States for these countries:
France - 50.7%
Brazil - 20.8%
India - 19.7%
Indonesia - 16.9%
Japan - 39.4%
That 50.7% for France may seem low, BTW, but it is 7th in the world, after Palau, Israel, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Australia and the United Kingdom.

It is ahead of other US allies like Poland (8th), Canada (11th), Germany (13th), Italy (23rd), the Netherlands (25th), Japan (46th), South Korea (49th), El Salvador (59th), Colombia (90th), the Philippines (118th) and Thailand (121st).

Brazil ranks 84th, India is 93rd, Indonesia is 133rd.

China is 158th.

For what the US considers "important" votes, these are the voting coincidence percentages with the United States for these countries:
France - 66.7%
Brazil - 38.5%
India - 23.1%
Indonesia - 21.4%
Japan - 63.6%Since there are only 15 votes, countries tend to be clustered in groups with the same percentages. For instance, there is a 10-way tie for 8th place (75.0%), followed by a 4-way tie for 18th place (72.7%). There is a 22-way tie for 26th place (66.7%).

The top spots are Palau, Israel, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Poland, El Salvador and Australia. Italy is one of those in 8th. Canada is in a tie for 22nd. The countries in that 22-way tie for 26th place include most of our European allies, including Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands and the UK.

Japan is tied for 49th. Brazil is 86th. India is tied for 134th. Indonesia is tied for 139th, just after Somalia.

Looking again at the same US allies ID'd above, we have Poland (5th), El Salvador (6th), Italy (8th), Canada (22nd), France (26th), Germany (26th), the Netherlands (26th), Japan (49th), South Korea (56th), Colombia (82nd), the Philippines (99th) and Thailand (99th).

What does any of this tell us? In the UN at least, our most reliable allies tend to be who we thought they'd be - Israel, the UK, Australia, El Salvador, Poland and Italy. And France is right there with them, or at least down just a tier. They have proven themselves far from our most reliable ally, but that is a far cry from being an enemy. If we buy into this irrational "oldest enemy" stuff and embrace countries like Brazil and Indonesia that are in reality far closer to our enemies, we will hurt our interests.

And in the end, that remains my most important point. What bothers me is that this French-bashing hurts our interests, not France's.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Dave:

You never disappoint! LOL

[The Reaper]

Well, what have we learned from this, boys and girls? :munchin

TR

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Well, what have we learned from this, boys and girls? :munchin

TR


Well I have learned never to get in a verbal gunfight with AL. However, a few observations. First of all the voting on issues in the UN for the most part reflects national interests most of the time and are cosmetic to make a statement the rest of the time. I agree that there is not place for bigotry and that we have folks on both sides of the issues that lead with the emotions first and their brain last. Having said that France has always seen itself as "Europe" with every other country a subordinate entity that exists to support France. Look at their issues within the EU. Second, France to this day feels that they got a raw deal in North America when they got tossed out by the Brits in the 1700s and still maintain a cell of activists in Quebec which is, in someways, more "old French" than France and continuously push for succession from Canada. Third, France is swarmming with muslims and must ensure that their policies do not ignite muslim fanatics within their own country so their issues have much to do with trying to control that aspect of potential disruption within their borders which is essentially pay back from the muslims for seriously flawed policies that France brought upon itself in North Africa in the good old days. France, though they will not admit it, maintains its old colonies "unofficially" which they continue to screw up-Ivory Coast comes to mind. Our good buddies France threw us out of their country in the 60s, refused to give us over flight permission in the 80s, etc, etc. Now I do not consider them an enemy but I am not going to sit down with them and have a beer. I have also seen French attempts at establishing "rapport" with foreign nationals in many countries and have not been impressed in a single instance. The one that stands out most in my mind was French soldiers shooting a water buffalo throught the front shoulders so it would drop to its knees and then mounting it from the rear like a bull in heat. This to threaten the locals that if they did not support them, this was what was going to happen to the women folk in their village. This event did so much to color their activities that I asked one of my montagnards why he did not go to France when he was offered a free trip and his reply was that he did not want to grow long noses like the French nor did want to have to engage in sex with animals (perhaps a double entendre here).Having said all that, and I really do not have an iron in this fire, the United States political apparratus has a very difficult time in defining its own national interests and when they do sorting out which are vital for our survival. This of course has caused major heartburn in determining just how our elements of national power would best be used to further and protect the interests of this country. SOooooo it doesn't really surprise me that folks get upset with France when we really aren't all that positive where our efforts should lie and we tend to take out our frustrations like little kids in a dodge ball game. Just my opinion.

Jack Moroney

[lrd]

Well, what have we learned from this, boys and girls?

TR

....SOooooo it doesn't really surprise me that folks get upset with France when we really aren't all that positive where our efforts should lie and we tend to take out our frustrations like little kids in a dodge ball game. Just my opinion.

Jack MoroneyWe need to grow up? :)

[Achilles]

Take nothing at face value and question everything.

[The Reaper]

Don't jump to conclusions, particularly when you are basing them on someone elses' observations, most especially the manipulative media.

TR

[Achilles]

Don't jump to conclusions, particularly when you are basing them on someone elses' observations, most especially the manipulative media.

TR

Roger, sir.

[Airbornelawyer]

First of all the voting on issues in the UN for the most part reflects national interests most of the time and are cosmetic to make a statement the rest of the time. That's why I left out the consensus resolutions adopted unanimously. There were 211 of these, far more than resolutions on which a vote was taken. The cosmetic "feel-good" ones end up being watered down so everyone can vote yes on them. The real area where disagreements occur is in the drafting process. Most of the diplomatic give-and-take occurs there.

This is especially true in the Security Council. Most votes there are unanimous, too. Given the make-up of that body and the issues it addresses, you know that if the actual vote is unanimous, such as the vote we got on Iraq in late 2002, the behind the scenes negotiations were contentious. The voting coincidences in the Security Council would routinely be closer to 100% if there wasn't a resolution or two a year condemning something Israel did, leading us to exercise our veto.

There were 69 resolutions considered in 2003. S/Res/1497, relating to Liberia, was approved 12-0 with France, Germany and Mexico abstaining. A resolution on Libya , S/Res/1506, was adopted 13-0 with the US and France abstaining. A draft resolution on the Middle East peace process died 11-1-3 due to a US veto, with the UK, Bulgaria and Germany abstaining. Another, criticizing Israeli settlements in the "occupied territories," died 10-1-4, with a US veto and Bulgaria, Cameroon, the UK and Germany abstaining. S/Res/1487, on the International Criminal Court, passed 12-0 with France, Germany and Syria abstaining. Syria was absent for the vote on S/Res/1483. The other 63 votes were 15-0. The US was the only Security Council Member to vote no on any resolution.

In 2002, 70 resolutions were considered, and 64 were 15-0 votes. Syria was the only no on a 14-1 vote condemning the terrorist attacks in Kenya in 2002. The US was the only no vote on that year's anti-Israel resolution, which would have condemned the IDF for destroying a food warehouse and killing several UNRWA employees. France and the UK voted yes on that one; Bulgaria and Cameroon abstained. We also vetoed a 13-1-1 resolution extending the mandate of UNMIBH in Bosnia because of our concerns over the International Criminal Court; Bulgaria abstained. Russia and Syria abstained on a 13-0-2 vote on a resolution on Iraq. The US voted yes on that year's resolution condemning violence in Israel and the "occupied territories," so either we managed to get the language we wanted or we chose to let Israel hang that year to win support for our Iraq policy.Having said that France has always seen itself as "Europe" with every other country a subordinate entity that exists to support France. Look at their issues within the EU.More like simply the leader of Europe, though there are no doubt quite a few French politicians like Dominique de Villepin who have Napoleonic visions of all Europe following France's lead. France and Germany (and to a slightly lesser extent the UK) see the EU as a tool not only to regain Europe's place in a world dominated by the US and with a rising China, but also as a means of ensuring that these three European powers don't have to keep fighting each other. If that means the lesser European countries like Spain, Belgium and Poland are supposed to take what the big powers give them, "so be it" seems to be the attitude.

France, Prussia/Germany and Britain fought four major wars in two and a half centuries (the Seven Years' War, the Napoleonic Wars, World War One and World War Two). Add the Franco-Prussian War, which Britain sat out, and you have a lot of warfare and tens of millions of deaths. Russia/USSR and Austria were major players in several of these wars, and the other Europeans were mainly caught in the middle. The post World War Two architecture - the UN, NATO and the EEC/EC/EU - was specifically designed to tie these countries together to avoid having to be ready to fight each other in another generation. I think that, even more than making Europe a superpower, motivates France and Germany to empower and seek to control the EU. For smaller countries like Belgium, the benefit is that they don't have to be the battlefront between France and Germany as they were in previous eras (remember that the goal of the Maginot Line was not to be an impenetrable wall behind which France could hide, but in case of war to force the Germans to invade through Belgium as they had in 1914, where the Anglo-French forces would meet them, saving France by destroying Belgium.Second, France to this day feels that they got a raw deal in North America when they got tossed out by the Brits in the 1700s and still maintain a cell of activists in Quebec which is, in someways, more "old French" than France and continuously push for succession from Canada.They did get a raw deal, but that's what happens when you lose a war. Of course, we supported Quebec secessionists when Britain was our enemy. The 1960s saw the height of French support for Quebec's separatists, capped by de Gaulle's notorious 1967 state visit to Canada. Since then, the French government has come to accept (and to some extent prefer, since that makes Canada more likely to side with France in international forums) that Quebec stay in Canada, albeit with its special status recognized. Most Quebecois seem to be of this view as well. Third, France is swarmming with muslims and must ensure that their policies do not ignite muslim fanatics within their own country so their issues have much to do with trying to control that aspect of potential disruption within their borders which is essentially pay back from the muslims for seriously flawed policies that France brought upon itself in North Africa in the good old days. France's biggest problem, and one faced by most of Western Europe. The Netherlands is having a big problem these days with this. I doubt the Europeans will have much success, though if Chirac loses the presidency to Nicholas Sarkozy, they may do better, since Sarkozy earned a Guiliani-esque reputation for law and order when he was Interior Minister.
...I asked one of my montagnards why he did not go to France when he was offered a free trip and his reply was that he did not want to grow long noses like the French nor did want to have to engage in sex with animals (perhaps a double entendre here).Interesting comment. Note in the video that several of the Cote d'Ivoirennes grasp and squeeze their noses before the camera. This is a racist gesture related to that "long nose" remark. It is analogous to the way Somalis would press their noses flat around African-American and Zimbabwean troops - "flat-noses" - since Somalis do not consider themselves black.

France's biggest problems are threefold, two of which are related to one another. One is the demographic problem you noted with the growing unassimilated Muslim population. Second is the fact that France is a highly centralized state, with no real tradition of federalism, too much power in the hand of bureaucrats, and too much state-owned industry, all of which stifles innovation and keeps alternative ideas from being aired (imagine if our only source of news was 60 Minutes, NPR and the New York Times). Third is the corruption of so many French politicians, probably related to this centralized state and all those cozy public-private enterprises. The main reason Chirac ran for president was to get immunity from corruption charges from when he was mayor of Paris.

[Achilles]

If only my professors in Austin were like AL. :munchin

[Roguish Lawyer]

I'm still going to wear this t-shirt a lot. ;)