Article

2004-06-20 Home Front: Politix

Gen. Karpinski: Still Deciding if She Was Responsible for her Command

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-20 11:00:53 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 She gave an interview to the enemy? Resign NOW, General; you're a disgrace to your uniform.

And you give all the responsible women in uniform a bad name.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-06-20 12:47:15 AM|| 2004-06-20 12:47:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Cool it Barb, she is a woman! And a woman has a special insight. Man may never know.

Posted by Lucky 2004-06-20 1:28:34 AM|| 2004-06-20 1:28:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 She may be a female, Lucky, but - considering the way she's acting, blaming everyone but herself - she's definitely not a woman.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-06-20 1:35:52 AM|| 2004-06-20 1:35:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 No gender issue at all.

2 words: Clinton General.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-06-20 1:43:55 AM|| 2004-06-20 1:43:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 If she is a scapegoat, she is one ugly one. She could stop a prison riot cold with her face.

Anyone who wails az much as the BG has got something to protect; her guilt.

Posted by Capt America 2004-06-20 1:45:04 AM|| [http://captamerica.blogspot.com/] 2004-06-20 1:45:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Okay fine, Barb!

Posted by Lucky 2004-06-20 1:50:19 AM|| 2004-06-20 1:50:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#7
Badanov, you opine that Gen Karpinski should resign her commission because she was interviewed by the BBC. Does your rule apply to male military officers too, if they have been interviewed by BBC?

Do you, Badanov, think that the BBC is on the side of the terrorists who behead terrorists? Do you think that's why the BBC didn't ask Gen Karpinski to comment about the beheadings?

Do you think General Karpinski approves of the beheadings? Do you think that explains her failure to express shock and anger about the beheadings in her interview with the BBC?

Are you accusing General Karpinski of lying when she says she did not know about the humiliation incidents in the jail?

General Sanchez says he didn't know. Is General Sanchez lying too?

Donald Rumsfeld says he didn't know. Is Donald Rumsfeld lying too?

President Bush says he didn't know. Is President Bush lying too?

General Karpinski says she believes the soldiers had not taken pictures of their own accord. Do think she in fact does not believe this? Do you think she really believes something else?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 9:56:26 AM|| 2004-06-20 9:56:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Mike S has it backwards. The question is not about those above Karpy's pay grade, but those below. Weren't there any colonels, majors, captains or lieutenants, any grade, between Karpy and Graner? How come we never hear about them? She's responsible for the environment in which this occurred, whether she knew about the specific photo incidents or not, but so are they.

As to Bush and Rumsfeld, their bosses will conduct a regularly scheduled performance review this November.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-06-20 10:35:33 AM|| 2004-06-20 10:35:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#9
Weren't there any colonels, majors, captains or lieutenants, any grade, between Karpy and Graner? How come we never hear about them?

They're all males.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 11:10:05 AM|| 2004-06-20 11:10:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Badanov, you opine that Gen Karpinski should resign her commission because she was interviewed by the BBC.

Yes.

Does your rule apply to male military officers too, if they have been interviewed by BBC?
Do you really think this is all about gender? I have repeated this several times on this board and others and in other venues: this is about a General losing control of her command.

Nothing more.

A senior grade officer was so in the dark about goings on in her own command that she was relieved, thankfully, of that responsibility. Losing control of the troops means death not only to a commander's own unit, but also to other friendly units as well, as well as other components in a warzone, civilians, etc. It can be likened to a contagious disease.

None of the aforementioned people would have submitted to interviews of the BBC nor would they have spoken disparagingly about their comrades in arms.

And here's a hint: They didn't run Abu Ghraib.

Karpinski did.

Oh wait, Karpinski is a woman general, so the rules of conduct doesn't apply to her... Sorta like how she acted at Abu Ghraib. She shriked her responsibility and now you want us to believe it was because how she was equipped. It is eally sad you can be so stupid about a fundamental matter in military science.

For the umpteenth time: Karpinski lost control of her troops and was properly relieved of command. I think loss of her command in a warzone is about as bad as it gets. Being relieved of command is a career ending event, as it should be; so is giving an interview to a news organization that a disseminator of enemy propoganda.

Do you, Badanov, think that the BBC is on the side of the terrorists who behead terrorists?

Yes. The BBC are a known outlet for enemy propoganda.

Do you think that's why the BBC didn't ask Gen Karpinski to comment about the beheadings?

Huh?

Do you think General Karpinski approves of the beheadings?M/I>

** Re-reads my reply ** HUH??

Are you accusing General Karpinski of lying when she says she did not know about the humiliation incidents in the jail?

She said in her interview she knew some MPs in her unit long enough to know they didn't have much time to be confident enough to make photographs of the prisoners. She also said the MPs did not take pictures of their own accord. So, she is admitting she knew something, but this after subsequent media interniews in which she said she knew nothing.

General Sanchez says he didn't know. Is General Sanchez lying too?

General Sanchez wasn't running Abu Ghraib.

Donald Rumsfeld says he didn't know. Is Donald Rumsfeld lying too?

Rumsfeld wasn't running Abu Ghraib.

President Bush says he didn't know. Is President Bush lying too?

Bush wasn't running Abu Ghraib.

General Karpinski says she believes the soldiers had not taken pictures of their own accord. Do think she in fact does not believe this? Do you think she really believes something else?

When you to conduct an interview with a known outlet for enemy propoganda, is it hard to credit Karpinski's judgement. It appears Gen. Karpinski is maintaining the same professionalism after being relieved of command that she did before she was relieved. If I had any doounts as to this officer's incomptetence, they are gone after this little stunt.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-20 11:11:36 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-20 11:11:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Sorry for the double post

Badanov, you opine that Gen Karpinski should resign her commission because she was interviewed by the BBC.

Yes.

Does your rule apply to male military officers too, if they have been interviewed by BBC?
Do you really think this is all about gender? I have repeated this several times on this board and others and in other venues: this is about a General losing control of her command.

Nothing more.

A senior grade officer was so in the dark about goings on in her own command that she was relieved, thankfully, of that responsibility. Losing control of the troops means death not only to a commander's own unit, but also to other friendly units as well, as well as other components in a warzone, civilians, etc. It can be likened to a contagious disease.

None of the aforementioned people would have submitted to interviews of the BBC nor would they have spoken disparagingly about their comrades in arms.

And here's a hint: They didn't run Abu Ghraib.

Karpinski did.

Oh wait, Karpinski is a woman general, so the rules of conduct doesn't apply to her... Sorta like how she acted at Abu Ghraib. She shriked her responsibility and now you want us to believe it was because how she was equipped. It is eally sad you can be so stupid about a fundamental matter in military science.

For the umpteenth time: Karpinski lost control of her troops and was properly relieved of command. I think loss of her command in a warzone is about as bad as it gets. Being relieved of command is a career ending event, as it should be; so is giving an interview to a news organization that a disseminator of enemy propoganda.

Do you, Badanov, think that the BBC is on the side of the terrorists who behead terrorists?

Yes. The BBC are a known outlet for enemy propoganda.

Do you think that's why the BBC didn't ask Gen Karpinski to comment about the beheadings?

Huh?

Do you think General Karpinski approves of the beheadings?

** Re-reads my reply ** HUH??

Are you accusing General Karpinski of lying when she says she did not know about the humiliation incidents in the jail?

She said in her interview she knew some MPs in her unit long enough to know they didn't have much time to be confident enough to make photographs of the prisoners. She also said the MPs did not take pictures of their own accord. So, she is admitting she knew something, but this after subsequent media interniews in which she said she knew nothing.

General Sanchez says he didn't know. Is General Sanchez lying too?

General Sanchez wasn't running Abu Ghraib.

Donald Rumsfeld says he didn't know. Is Donald Rumsfeld lying too?

Rumsfeld wasn't running Abu Ghraib.

President Bush says he didn't know. Is President Bush lying too?

Bush wasn't running Abu Ghraib.

General Karpinski says she believes the soldiers had not taken pictures of their own accord. Do think she in fact does not believe this? Do you think she really believes something else?

When you to conduct an interview with a known outlet for enemy propoganda, is it hard to credit Karpinski's judgement. It appears Gen. Karpinski is maintaining the same professionalism after being relieved of command that she did before she was relieved. If I had any doounts as to this officer's incomptetence, they are gone after this little stunt.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-20 11:13:26 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-20 11:13:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Badanov, you have to realize -- Mike Sylwester has a serious problem regarding Abu Ghraib. He can't believe that Rumsfeld himself wasn't the one taking the pictures, so he latches on to every story -- no matter how poorly reported -- that tries to make it a bigger deal.

He's been caught deliberately leaving out pieces of stories that don't fit his fetish; he's at best blinded by his rage, at worst a purposeful liar.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-20 11:33:49 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-20 11:33:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#13
Do you, Badanov, think that the BBC is on the side of the terrorists who behead terrorists?
Yes. The BBC are a known outlet for enemy propoganda. The brutal beheading of Americans should have sparked even more shock and anger, but not to the Beeb. We know which side they are on. And Gen. Karpinski.
So, I repeat my question: Do you think General Karpinski approves of the beheadings? Do you think that explains her failure to express shock and anger about the beheadings in her interview with the BBC?

General Sanchez wasn't running Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld wasn't running Abu Ghraib. Bush wasn't running Abu Ghraib.
She says she wasn't running that cell block. She says the military intelligence unit was running that cell block.

When you to conduct an interview with a known outlet for enemy propoganda [BBC], is it hard to credit Karpinski's judgement.
I'm sure President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, Donald Rumsfeld, General Myers and many other officials have been interviewed by BBC. Do you credit their judgement?

Do you really think this is all about gender? I have repeated this several times on this board and others and in other venues: this is about a General losing control of her command. Nothing more.
On a scale of 1 to 100, Badanov, would you say that the reason for your hostility to General Kapinski being because she is a woman officer is closer to 100 or is closer to 90?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 11:37:51 AM|| 2004-06-20 11:37:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#14
On a scale of 1 to 100, Badanov, would you say that the reason for your hostility to General Kapinski being because she is a woman officer is closer to 100 or is closer to 90?

Wow, Mike. What a classic example of someone unable to handle the answer they're given, and instead substituting their own misperceptions.

Badanov's answer was clear: "I have repeated this several times on this board and others and in other venues: this is about a General losing control of her command. Nothing more."

What part of that didn't you comprehend? In what part of his answer did he mention Karpinski's gender? Why did you feel it necessary to, well, lie about his answer?

Is it because you believe Karpinski -- or, rather, want to believe her, because what she says supports your opinions -- and prefer to paint disbelief of her as coming from dark, sinister motives like sexism than to consider their objections rationally?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-20 11:46:46 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-20 11:46:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#15
My impression is that he's so hostile to Gen Karpinski 90% because she's a woman officer and 10% because she is on the side of the terrorists who behead Americans.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 11:53:15 AM|| 2004-06-20 11:53:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 So, I repeat my question: Do you think General Karpinski approves of the beheadings?

Of course not.

Do you think that explains her failure to express shock and anger about the beheadings in her interview with the BBC?

I remarked she spoke with a leftist publication with disseminates enemy propoganda. I frankly care little for the prisoners, except I disaprove of the fact they are still breathing my air.

General Sanchez wasn't running Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld wasn't running Abu Ghraib. Bush wasn't running Abu Ghraib. She says she wasn't running that cell block. She says the military intelligence unit was running that cell block

It was Karpinski's prison, and therefore Karpinski's problem. Everything that went on in that prison was her under her purview. Karpinski was clearly not up to the task, and she risked the lives of those under her command and of other friendly units.

When you to conduct an interview with a known outlet for enemy propoganda [BBC], is it hard to credit Karpinski's judgement. I'm sure President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, Donald Rumsfeld, General Myers and many other officials have been interviewed by BBC. Do you credit their judgement?

Yes I would if they said some event that took place in an area directly under their command was not their responsibility and said so to a known enemy propoganda outlet.

Do you really think this is all about gender? I have repeated this several times on this board and others and in other venues: this is about a General losing control of her command. Nothing more. On a scale of 1 to 100, Badanov, would you say that the reason for your hostility to General Kapinski being because she is a woman officer is closer to 100 or is closer to 90? .

Cute way to pose a question. Mike, do you masturbate in front of Abu Ghraib prison photos five times a day or is it closer to nine?

Posted by badanov 2004-06-20 11:55:28 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-20 11:55:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#17
Be patient, Robert. He's already admitted that he thinks BBC is on the side of terrorists who behead Americans. By the end of the day I'll get him to admit he hates Gen Karpinski because she's a woman officer.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 11:56:19 AM|| 2004-06-20 11:56:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#18
My impression is that he's so hostile to Gen Karpinski 90% because she's a woman officer and 10% because she is on the side of the terrorists who behead Americans.

There's no evidence supporting your impression. He's stated his view clearly and succinctly, yet you continue to believe otherwise. Just as a reminder, here's what badanov said:

"I have repeated this several times on this board and others and in other venues: this is about a General losing control of her command. Nothing more."

Either start citing facts, or admit you're talking out your ass.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-20 11:57:30 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-20 11:57:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Be patient, Robert. He's already admitted that he thinks BBC is on the side of terrorists who behead Americans.

Maybe he believes that because the BBC has admitted it?

A senior BBC correspondent in the Gaza Strip is reported to have told a Hamas gathering that journalists and media organizations are "waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."

The alleged remarks, by BBC Arabic Service correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla, were reported on the Hamas Web site, which said they were made at "an impressive and well-attended ceremony" [in early May] to honor some 140 Palestinian, Arab, Islamic, and international journalists and attended by Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

At the ceremony, Hamas official Ismail Abu Shanab said journalists should be honored for "the special role they have played through their cameras, pens, and skills, as well as through their rare courage and daring which they have demonstrated by their joining the nation struggling fiercely against the enemy."

He praised their "accurate depiction of the terrorism employed by the Zionist enemy and its vile crimes, as well as the outstanding courageous portrayal of our children and martyrs."

Naw. Can't be that, right? No doubt you know badanov's mind better than he does.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-20 12:02:12 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-20 12:02:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 If Mike is right, Karpinski is being hung out to dry in order to protect male ass.

If he's not right, Karpinski clearly doesn't have the organizational management skills necessary to run a big operation--which is doubly damning since military is run so much differently than business (as in: "do as you're told, or else.")

I think OldSpook is completely right.

And who can argue against RC's post #19?

I think I should have been in charge of Abu Gharib. And I'm a woman. Anybody have a problem with that?

Posted by ex-lib 2004-06-20 12:13:12 PM|| 2004-06-20 12:13:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#21
Robert, do you think that senior correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla speaks for BBC? When Faid Abu Shimalla says something, then, in your opinion, that's BBC's position?

And therefore, do you say, if General Karpinski is interviewed by BBC, then that means she endorses BBC position and by extension endorses everything said by senior correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla?

Do you, Robert, extend your rule on this matter to other people who are interviewed by BBC? Do you say, for example, that Tony Blair by extension agrees with everything ever said by senior correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 12:14:01 PM|| 2004-06-20 12:14:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 nice Strawman argumenting Mikey. Karpinski wanted all teh benefits of her position and none of the responsibilities. Man or woman, that person should shut the fuck up and quit whining. To continue to argue she's being punished for being a female officer demeans all the female's in the friggin world who do their job competently. You need to get a grip, cuz that moral high-horse you think you're on is an ass...

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-20 12:20:55 PM|| 2004-06-20 12:20:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 You go, Frank!

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-06-20 12:24:01 PM|| 2004-06-20 12:24:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I think I should have been in charge of Abu Gharib. And I'm a woman. Anybody have a problem with that?

If, as a military officer, you can follow orders, and you know and hold yourself and your command fundamental elements of military science: that you control and direct your own troops and take responsibility for everything that takes place in your area of responsibility; that protection of command, yet another vital element in military science, is paramount (which means you do not talk to a known outlet for enemy propoganda ) then you as well any other military officer regardless of gender should have control of that prison.

My whole stance on Gen. Karpinski is simple. Karpinski, in complaining she is being made a scapegoat for what happened in her command, is failing to take responsibility for what actually took place. This, to me means, she did not know what was going on, which means she lost control of her command.

If, for example, ( albeit a poor one ) Gen. Sanchez's HQ staff started running a prostitution ring in Baghdad, and Sanchez subsequently stated he knew nothing of the matter, Sanchez should be relieved of command, not for the crimes taking place, but because he did not know, i.e. he lost control of his staff ( his command ). Losing control of your command can cascade down into the ranks. It is potentially a deadly event.

And I will bet you that Sanchez wouldn't have gone to BBC to complain he is being made a scapegoat, not because he is male but because he probably has better judgement about such matters than Karpinski apparently did.

And the thing is: All Karpinski has to do is STFU.

And Karpinski just doesn't get it. She IS finished as a military officer, especially after this dumbass interview she gave to the BBC. She should resign and make a personal commitment to shut up and take her lumps just as any other military officer should in any similar situation.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-20 12:31:49 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-20 12:31:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#25
If Mike is right, Karpinski is being hung out to dry in order to protect male ass.

I would not put it that way, ex-lib. I suspect Badanov's venom is based almost entirely on a hostility to women officers. His venom is focused entirely on one woman, and he is very hostile to any suggestion that some blame might be apportioned to anybody below or above her.

Gen Karpinski says that the command over the cell blocks where the scandal occurred was transfered from her to the military intelligence unit. Furthermore, she says that members of the military unit coached the guards there to act in ways that led to the scandalous misbehavior. MOst people, I think, would agree with her, if she is correct about those facts, that the primary blame should be laid on the responsible officers in the military intelligence unit instead of on her.

I think the facts are still murky. It's not clear whether the commmand over that cell block was transfered from her. It's not clear what the military intelligence people told the guards to do.

In general, I think that the guard unit was grossly undermanned and undertrained for the number of prisoners. I heard during the congressional hearings that the ratio of guards to prisoners at the prison was supposed to be five times greater, according to US Army norms.

I also think that a great deal of confusion was created at the prison last September and October by the influx of a large number of military intelligence personnel who were pressured excessively to extract much more "actionable intelligence" from the prisoners there. I say that confusion contributed very significantly to the guards' scandalous misbehavior, which occurred mostly in November. The people who created the confusion are happy to dump all the blame off themselves onto General Karpinski -- to some extent because she is a woman and to some extent simply because they can.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 12:35:08 PM|| 2004-06-20 12:35:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 The problem is that the General, no mater gender, is abdicating responsibility for action in her command - in her DIRECT command. She did not see that the troops were taken care of (morale was crap in that unit and NOTHING was done), she did nto ensure that her orders were followed, she did not ensure that her command enforced discpline and reporting that an efficient military unit requires.

And worse of all, she NEVER visited her subordinates and go all the way down the Chain of Command to tour the facility and talk to the line troops.

She was INCOMPETENT - she should never have pinned on that Star - only reasons she rose far above her competence are politicts, and Clinton's "experiments" in using the Army as a social experimentation area instead of a fighting force.

As for her subordinates, many of them ARE being prosecuted. The Sgt MAjor of the battalion in question has already had his career ended, and the company commander and battalion commander are being investigated and given official reprimands.

Those are something Genereal Sit-On-Her-Ass Karpinsky did not do over the months of investigation prior to the publishing of the photos.

MIke Syl - you are an ass, and you pander to jackoff officers when you try to use thier gender to damn them or protect them. You obviously know jack squat about the needs of the military.

It must be *COMPETENCY* that is the bottom line. Anything less, like gender based crap, simply gets people killed!

Posted by OldSpook 2004-06-20 12:44:51 PM|| 2004-06-20 12:44:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 interesting phrase Mike: "to some extent because she is a woman and to some extent simply because they can"

that's exactly Clinton's rationale for the Lewinsky fun and games

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-20 12:47:10 PM|| 2004-06-20 12:47:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 If Mike is right, Karpinski is being hung out to dry in order to protect male ass. I would not put it that way, ex-lib. I suspect Badanov's venom is based almost entirely on a hostility to women officers. His venom is focused entirely on one woman, and he is very hostile to any suggestion that some blame might be apportioned to anybody below or above her

Do a search of rantburg. If you can find ANY posting I have ever made here or elsewhere in ANY forum or venue that referred to Gen. Karpinski as anything other than a general or I have used the any other term than 'she,' I will apologize for it.

And Mike, I don't care. If I was hostile to Karpinski because she is female, I would admit it. I have no problem with admitting the truth.

But I post this with confidence that if I did EVR regard Gen. Karpinski as anyone or anything OTHER than a military officer who was simply not up to the task accord her, I will apologize for them. But you won't find it here or elsewhere.

My entire thesis has been from a coldly military point of view. I frankly don't care if you continue this little charade. It's your time to waste.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-20 12:50:52 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-20 12:50:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Badanov, what is your general opinon about women officers in the US military?

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 12:54:20 PM|| 2004-06-20 12:54:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Robert, do you think that senior correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla speaks for BBC?

Yep. Particularly when the BBC defends her in regards to her statements. Ya see, where I come from, if an employee makes a public statement regarding company policy, and that employee's statement is contrary to company policy, that employee is canned. If, on the other hand, the company retains the employee, and further DEFENDS them, then it's a safe bet that the company has no problem with that statement.

When Faid Abu Shimalla says something, then, in your opinion, that's BBC's position?

The BBC didn't repudiate her statement, and their actions in recent years certainly support her statement, so why shouldn't I take that as their position?

And therefore, do you say, if General Karpinski is interviewed by BBC, then that means she endorses BBC position and by extension endorses everything said by senior correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla?

I never said that. Badanov never said anything like this. This is a strawman you've built in your fevered little mind, and in no way reflects the beliefs of anyone.

I suspect Badanov's venom is based almost entirely on a hostility to women officers.

You have offered absolutely no evidence to support that suspicion. You are quite simply talking out your ass.

No big surprise; it was clear long ago your head was there.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-20 12:59:02 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-20 12:59:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Badanov, what is your general opinon about women officers in the US military?

Mike, don't you have some self-gratifying to do while you look at Abu Ghraib prison photos?

Posted by badanov 2004-06-20 12:59:40 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-20 12:59:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Badanov, what is your general opinon about women officers in the US military?

Mike, I thought you knew the answer to this. Hell, you've been claiming absolute knowledge on this all morning; you've just NOW gotten around to asking?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-20 1:01:46 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-20 1:01:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#33
OldSpook, she says those cell blocks were taken out of her direct command. It seems to me that they were. A large number of military intelligence personnel were assigned to the prison in September and October, and General Karpinski was basically told that henceforth they would manage everything that happened in those cell blocks. Most of the trouble happened in those cell blocks in November.

I agree with you, OldSpook, think Gen Karpinski nevertheless should have inquired and intervened. She indeed lost her command and career because she failed to do so. If, however, she indeed had inquired and intervened, then she would have lost her command and career anyway, because she was supposed to understand that she was supposed to stay out. She was damned if she did, and she was damned if she didn't.

The decision had already been made at much higher levels to establish a fundandamentally new prison regime that would push and push to extract actionable intelligence from the prisoners. Anybody who objected would be batted down. The fact that subsequent misbehavior was photographed and undeniably exposed to the world public was an unpredictable wild card.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 1:12:42 PM|| 2004-06-20 1:12:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#34
Re: #30
Robert, here's what the linked article actually says:
A BBC spokesman last night confirmed to The Jerusalem Post that Shimalla has been the Gaza Strip correspondent of the BBC Arabic Service for the past five years, but he said the BBC was unable to locate the Web site and could not comment further. He noted, however, that Shimalla is âa senior and experienced journalist who knows the requirements for impartiality.â

To me, that looks mostly like a no-comment.

Do you, Robert, think that this weak "no-comment" statement really justifies Badanov when he replies as follows?
Do you, Badanov, think that the BBC is on the side of the terrorists who behead Americans?
Yes. BBC are a known outlet for enemy propoganda. The brutal beheading of Americans should have sparked even more shock and anger, but not to the Beeb. We know which side they are on. And Gen. Karpinski.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 1:22:00 PM|| 2004-06-20 1:22:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#35
Badanov: Mike, don't you have some self-gratifying to do while you look at Abu Ghraib prison photos?

Aha, just as I thought. You are against General Karpinski 90% because she is a woman officer and 10% because she supports the terrorists who behead Americans.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 1:24:40 PM|| 2004-06-20 1:24:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 OldSpook, she says those cell blocks were taken out of her direct command. It seems to me that they were. A large number of military intelligence personnel were assigned to the prison in September and October, and General Karpinski was basically told that henceforth they would manage everything that happened in those cell blocks

If that was the case then the transfer would have been memorialized in a written order. I have yet to see any reference to a written order. If Karpinski was told she was no longer responsible for that cell block, she sould have insisted on written orders. The lack of paper memorializing this arrangement should have raise the first flag.

As it was, as I understand it, her personnel were being used even though she wasn't to manage the cellblock. Here is where I have a problem with your version of events. Now if she was told to stay out of the cellblock but her people were being used, she still had responsibility for the actions of those people and she still has responsibility to her command, her fellow commanders, and to her commnader, to get this in writing, and to order those charges to keep her apprised of what was really going on in that block. This is black letter military stanard in armies the world over.

As far as I am aware no such written directive exists. That alone is serious enough: to allow your own charges to be used in a command seperate under the physical where you have command, but not being aware of what her charges were doing, and being unaware of orders they were receiving is inexcusable.

Did they keep her in the dark about what whomever was in charge of that cellbloack was doing? It doesn't matter. It happened in a place where she had absolute command, and she took ZERO initiative to ensure she knew exactly what was going on.

Gen. Karpinski wasn't up to the task assigned her.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-20 1:29:47 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-20 1:29:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Game, set, match to OldSpook. Okay boys, tournament's over, let's all move on.

Posted by Steve White 2004-06-20 1:30:43 PM|| 2004-06-20 1:30:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#38
Badanov, I agree with everything you wrote in #36. I would add that blame should also be placed on the officers in charge of the military-intelligence unit.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 1:34:33 PM|| 2004-06-20 1:34:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 The decision had already been made at much higher levels to establish a fundandamentally new prison regime that would push and push to extract actionable intelligence from the prisoners. Anybody who objected would be batted down. The fact that subsequent misbehavior was photographed and undeniably exposed to the world public was an unpredictable wild card.

You really believe this line of bullshit, don't you?

The decision had already been made at much higher levels to establish a fundandamentally new prison regime that would push and push to extract actionable intelligence from the prisoners.

FALSE. The extent of the evidence so far is that some prisoners were ruled illegal combatants, and that some were subjected to "more pressure". The change was miniscule, as seen by the fact that Rumsfeld had to approve treatment that amounted to solitary, a shave, and cold meals.

Anybody who objected would be batted down.

Pure crap. You have no evidence of this.

The fact that subsequent misbehavior was photographed and undeniably exposed to the world public was an unpredictable wild card.

Never mind the evidence that Graner was the "mastermind" behind the abuse and photographing. Never mind that others have already testified that, had the officers been aware, they would have stopped it.

If, however, she indeed had inquired and intervened, then she would have lost her command and career anyway, because she was supposed to understand that she was supposed to stay out.

You have no evidence of this. In fact, the evidence points to the exact opposite -- for example, the Taguba report specifically praises the soldiers who exposed the abuse and who refused to take part.

OldSpook, she says those cell blocks were taken out of her direct command. It seems to me that they were.

She's contradicting what she told Taguba:

It is clear from a comprehensive review of witness statements and personal interviews that the 320th MP Battalion and 800th MP Brigade continued to function as if they were responsible for the security, health, and welfare, and overall security of detainees within Abu Ghraib (BCCF) prison. Both BG Karpinski and COL Pappas clearly behaved as if this were still the case.

http://www.npr.org/iraq/2004/prison_abuse_report.pdf

A little farther down:

During the course of the investigation I conducted a lengthy interview with BG Karpinski that lasted over four hours, and is included verbatim in the investigation annexes. BG Karpinski was extremely emotional during much of her testimony. What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principals among its soldiers.

(Emphasis mine)

It appears Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba agrees with Badanov, and that Karpinski hasn't learned a thing since he spoke with her.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-20 1:36:03 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-20 1:36:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 ...Okay - I did 20 years in the USAF, and out of the 10 best officers I served with, I would easily say that six or seven were women. And if the shit ever well and truly hit the fan, of the ten people I knew who were most likely to get home, most of them were women.
NONE of what has happened here has to do with Ms. Karpinski being a woman - other than the fact that she really does (from the point of view of a veteran) seem to be trying to be hoping that if the boom is indeed lowered, she will be able to scream that she is being persecuted by the 'good old boy' network because she's a woman.
Horseshit.
No, wait. Horseshit would be a step up.
If you took Ms. Karpinski's gender out of the reports , it still shows the same damned thing - a complete, total, and utter failure on the part of a field grade officer in the United States Army, and the apparent liklihood that she just didn't give a rat's ass, because she had her stars!
I've read and re-read Badanov's comments and can see nothing anti-female officer in them. She screwed up, she knew it then and knows it now, and now she is deseprately trying to blame everyone and everything else possible for her mistakes, instead of taking the ultimate responsibility.
She is a General Officer in the United States Army. She failed at her most basic responsibilities. Male or female, anyone who has f**ked up as thoroughly and completely as Ms Karpinski has deserves to lose their stars at the very least.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-06-20 1:36:55 PM|| 2004-06-20 1:36:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#41
I would add also that very few generals would be up to the task, because General Karpinski's unit had far too people, training and resources for the assigned mission.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 1:38:11 PM|| 2004-06-20 1:38:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Do you, Robert, think that this weak "no-comment" statement really justifies Badanov when he replies as follows?
Do you, Badanov, think that the BBC is on the side of the terrorists who behead Americans?
Yes. BBC are a known outlet for enemy propoganda. The brutal beheading of Americans should have sparked even more shock and anger, but not to the Beeb. We know which side they are on. And Gen. Karpinski.

You are combining different answers I made to different questions to one of your questions to make it look like I posted something I did not. Why are you dong this?

Game, set, match to OldSpook. Okay boys, tournament's over, let's all move on

With all due respect, Steve, you're not the one whose words are being twisted and Old Spook isn't the one underfire in this thread.

Badanov, I agree with everything you wrote in #36. I would add that blame should also be placed on the officers in charge of the military-intelligence unit. .

You can just go to hell Mike.

If MI got their info, they should get medals.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-20 1:40:35 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-20 1:40:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#43
Re #39: Taguba: What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principals among its soldiers.

General Taguba placed a lot of the blame also on the officers in the military intelligence unit and also on general confusion about acceptable treatment of prisoners.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 1:43:23 PM|| 2004-06-20 1:43:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#44
#40: Mike Kozlowski: I've read and re-read Badanov's comments and can see nothing anti-female officer in them.

Mike, ask Badanov to tell you his opinion about women officers and see what kind of response you get (ref: #35).
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 1:45:37 PM|| 2004-06-20 1:45:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Badanov:
You are combining different answers I made to different questions to one of your questions to make it look like I posted something I did not. Why are you dong this?

Because Mike's devotion to enlarging the Abu Ghraib story requires demonizing anyone who disagrees with him. To do that he routinely lies.

General Taguba placed a lot of the blame also on the officers in the military intelligence unit and also on general confusion about acceptable treatment of prisoners.

Why, yes, he did. And the MI officers need to be held responsible, too, at least to the extent they are responsible.

As for "confusion about acceptable treatment of prisoners", you do realize that he places blame for that specifically on Karpinski? She failed to ensure her unit got the necessary training, and failed to react appropriately to earlier cases of abuse.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-20 1:51:12 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-20 1:51:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#46

Mike, ask Badanov to tell you his opinion about women officers and see what kind of response you get (ref: #35).

Sylwester, #35 was a dishonest "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question. Hell, it wasn't even a question -- it was an assertion that you KNEW he had a beef against women officers.

I'd say I'm amazed at your dishonest, but I'm really not anymore.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-20 1:53:11 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-20 1:53:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Mike Kozlowski: I've read and re-read Badanov's comments and can see nothing anti-female officer in them. Mike, ask Badanov to tell you his opinion about women officers and see what kind of response you get (ref: #35). .

I guess you really are obsessed with Abu Ghraib. My posting that was to ridicule your obsession with this event.

Mike, it is over. A dangerous general was removed from command, should take the hint and retire, and forces who really did go overboard are being disciplined.

And to your question what I think of female officers in the military: I have answered that.

My whole reason for psoting and remarking on this is that General Karpinski should just shut up and leave the military. She spoke to a known dissiminator of enenmy propoganda. She has no judgement on military matters and she should admit it.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-20 1:54:31 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-20 1:54:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#48
Re #45: Badanov: You are combining different answers I made to different questions to one of your questions to make it look like I posted something I did not. Why are you dong this?

Anybody who reads your third fisk and your comment #11 can see for himself that I combined your two statements fairly. That is the idea you communicated and obviously intended to communicate.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 1:56:08 PM|| 2004-06-20 1:56:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#49
Re #45. Robert, I do agree with much of what Badanov says when he cools down. For example, I agree with everything he wrote in #36. I have never said Gen Karpinski was free of blame nor that she should have remained in command. She should have investigated and intervened, no matter what the consequences for her career. If, however, she indeed had investigated and intervened, I think she would have been removed from her command anyway, basically for interfering.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 2:02:00 PM|| 2004-06-20 2:02:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#50
Re #47: Badanov: And to your question what I think of female officers in the military: I have answered that.

Where? When?
Do you think the US military should have female officers? What is your general opinion about female officers?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 2:05:59 PM|| 2004-06-20 2:05:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#51
Re #47: Badanov: She spoke to a known dissiminator of enenmy propoganda.

Badanov, would you apply your rule to a male officer who spoke to a BBC reporter?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 2:09:20 PM|| 2004-06-20 2:09:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 I deal with people like yourself all the time, Mike. Folkks who would much rather tell lies and twist facts as we know them than to admit they are wrong.

For the final time, my views on Abu Ghraib:

1) A Brigadier general was in command of the prison Abu Ghraib.

2) That general lost control of her command so completely, she knew nothing about what was going on until the day CID walked through the door.

3) That general was subsequently relieved of command.

4) Being relieved of command in a war zone is a career ending event. I am not even going to delve into the seriousness of losing control of your troops during wartime. I am simply talking about what has happened and what should be done, not what should have been done. Big difference.

5) The BBC is a known diseminator of enemy propoganda. They not only are known by their enemies, they also shamlessly admit they would rather pursue an agenda of getting soldiers killed than to tell the truth about the WoT.

6) Gen. Karpinski thought it would be a good idea to talk to the BBC. She not only talked about Abu Ghraib, she vilified her commanders and her own command all without taking responsibility for her lack of oversight at the prison. I would guess that many, many officers in the military, male and female, now feel betrayed by this outragous lack of judgement on Karpinksi's part. It is one thing to talk to Ed bradley on CBS, but to go to a foreign news service known to be against our missions in the War on Terrorism, known to diseminate enemy propoganda simply amplifies this officer's lack of judgement and her personal irresponsibility.

Now either Gen. Karpinski mentally broke down well before those photoes were taken or she was promoted to a position well beyond her abilities and capabilities.

But now, it doesn't matter. This most dangerous commander was removed from command. We go on to win the war.

7) The priciples of war are immutable. Some of them: maintaining good order and discipline, protection and security of command, awareness of the presense of enemy forces and all information relating thereto should be known reflexively by officers serving in every military in the world, especially in the USA.

Gen. Karpinski disregarded every one of those principles enumerated, and thereby endangered her command and the other commands as well.

Gen. Kaprinski was relieved and should do the right thing and retire without another word about the matter.

Now you can read this and re-read this but I will tell you: if you can find any anti-female officer bias in those words i have written here or elsewhere, I will kiss your ass at noon in front of the Baltimore City Hall.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-20 2:25:11 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-20 2:25:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#53
Re #43: Badanov: If MI got their info, they should get medals.

And what should MI get if it caused a huge scandal?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 2:26:54 PM|| 2004-06-20 2:26:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#54
Now you can read this and re-read this but I will tell you: if you can find any anti-female officer bias in those words i have written here or elsewhere, I will kiss your ass at noon in front of the Baltimore City Hall.

What's your general opinion about female officers in the US military?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 2:29:08 PM|| 2004-06-20 2:29:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#55
#52: The BBC is a known diseminator of enemy propoganda. They not only are known by their enemies, they also shamlessly admit they would rather pursue an agenda of getting soldiers killed than to tell the truth about the WoT.

So, if a male officer in the US military is interviewed by BBC, then that means the officer endorses BBC's agenda of getting soldiers killed? Would that interview show what side he is on, just like Gen Karpinski's being interviewed showed what side she is on?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 2:37:10 PM|| 2004-06-20 2:37:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Jeez, give it a rest, willa guys? Steve called "game over" almost 20 comments ago.

Or else chip in some extra for Fred's bandwidth.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-06-20 2:58:21 PM|| 2004-06-20 2:58:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#57
Steve called the game in favor of OldSpook. Since Badanov stubbornly refuses to state his general opinion about female military officers, I conclude as follows:

Badanov's opinion about General Karpinski is based 90% on his opinions about female officers and 10% on his opinon that she is on the side of terrorists who behead Americans.

All discussion in this thread is now officially closed.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 3:04:49 PM|| 2004-06-20 3:04:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 First off: Females in the military? Fine by me as long as standards are not compromised, and the mission is not put at risk.

As to Gen K.'s unit not being given enough support/supplies, etc?

Well there's this thing called "Command" that field grade officers are expected to provide- and a "Command Staff" they use to assist them in providing it.

The General, were that person worthy of the Bird or Star, should have been personally tending to G-level staff and inspecting them all the way down the lines at the battalion level regularly, and periodically (at random) inspecting an individual squad or factility, on at least a weekly basis.

You cannot blame bad support on the G-3/G-4 or the element above, if the Commanding Officer was derelict in their duty. Its her staff's job to bring supply and morale issues to her attention, present her with plans for handling it, and execute her orders in consonance withthe commander's intent.

But above that, its the Commander's job to ensure that these things are accomplished - by getting staff reports, touring the units, inspecting them, and making sure that the facilities and equipment are all in proper order at "tip of the spear".

As an example, a combat unit commander that seldom did line inspections, never ensured that the junior officer's and senior NCO's knew the command intent and mission, mismanaged the brigade staff, allowed militarary order and disipline to deteriorate, and then allowed his unit to run out of ammunition would be in serious trouble. Then if he tried to blame the ensuing disaster on someone else, either echelon above him or his staff, he would be ripped to shreds. In light of that, General K is getting off easy.

The commander's job is to get the mission accomplished, and to provide the tactical unit leaders with the things they need to accomplish the mission. This includes supplies, training, morale/welfare of the troops, weaponry & ammunition, equipment, leadership by their junior officers and NCOs, and a clear direction of the commander's intent for the mission at hand.

General Karpinsky failed on all those accounts.

To be sure, so did her subordinte unit leaders. The Sgt Major that had his career justly ended was the one that should have been aware of the severe moral problems by way of his First Sgts. Same goes for the battalion commander whose career is effectively over now that the 2-star had hnaded down letters of reprimand in their permanent record.

The breakdown of military discpline and good order (as shown by the cessation of saluting, informal name use in the chain of command, lack of enforcment of uniform waer by regulation, etc) is indicative of a unit on the verge of collapse. A regular set of inspections and command visits would have brought this to the forefront because the NCO's would have seen to this before the General comes through on a meet-n-greet. They woudl ahve reported up to their Topkick, and from there the company and battalion commanders woudl ahve been aware. This was in fact done in some units - a few Lieutenants and Sgts did the right thing, but the command above them let them down, because there was no support for reporting such things to brigade level staff and command.

Yes, the subordinates failed, but they failed because their commander was a disaster and did not exercise the authority and leadership that a Field Grade position *demands* of the individual to whom it is entrusted. There are reasons that makign General rank is supposed to be limited; chief among them is that some people, although great commanders at the tactical level (company, and possibly batttalion), they simply do not have tha ability to manage a staff and still get out from behind the paperwork and staff to actively engage the tactical and small unit elements.

Gen Karp. further compounds this by excuse-making instead of doing what any honorable commander would do; she is equivoating and trying to point fingers instaed of accepting responsiblity for the consequences of her own actions and inaction.

She should have presented her commander with her letter of resignation/retirement, as well as the resignation of every battalion level or higher officer in the chain of command between here and those criminals who abused the prisoners, as well as the Article 15 proceedings against all the Junior Officers and the NCO's in the enlisted chain of command from the squad leader all the way to the brigade Command Sgt Major.

Thats what Honor, Duty and Country demanded of her. And she is shirking that as surely as she shirked her responsiblites as a field grade officer in the US Military.

Now you know why the anger is there. Its not her gender, its her duplicity and lack of honor.

THAT is why there is so much venom directed against her. Not becuase she is female, but because she is shirking the duties, breaking the honor, and hurting the country that she is took an oath to uphold and defend as a Soldier.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-06-20 5:18:23 PM|| 2004-06-20 5:18:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 All discussion in this thread is now officially closed.

Wow! Now that's serious power.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-20 6:21:10 PM|| 2004-06-20 6:21:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#60
I still think Badanov is one of those people who doesn't think women should be in the military at all and that he is bouncing up and down on this problem in order to prove his point. Beyond that, Badanov insinuates that she is traitorous because she was interviewed by the BBC, which is on the side of the terrorists who behead Americans. Don't suggest to me that Badanov's position about Gen Karpinski or about the BBC is respectable, because it isn't.

I agree with everything you say, OldSpook, and I've always thought she failed in her position and should be removed. Unlike Badanov, I thought her failure involved more than her sex and her treasonous association with BBC.

I think that most generals placed in that position would have failed, although perhaps not as badly as she did. The situation was such that failure was almost certain. Keep packing the prisoners into a jail beyond the capabilities of the facility and staff, and probably there will eventually be a breakdown of order no matter how capable the general. Allow the prisoner-guard ratio to grow to five times the norm, and then go ahead and remove the general, but eventually something has to be done about that gross disproportion. There should also be some acknowledgement that the problem extends beyond the general's personal abilities.

Yes, Gen Karpinski should have insisted on a formal, written clarification of the changed command relationship that she alleges. She certainly must be kicking herself every day that she didn't. Despite the lack of documentation, however, it seems to me that the command relationship indeed was changed along the lines that she alleges. A decision was made at higher levels that the military intelligence unit should run those particular jail cells and should exercise a special control over the guards assigned there. Although not written, the new regime was plenty clear to Gen Karpinski, and she complied with it. If, in fact, she had started acting as you wisely say she should have, OldSpook, then she would have been removed anyway for insubordination to implied directives from above.

One more point, OldSpook. I think she perceived that no written directive would ever be forthcoming. In key areas, policies and responsibilities related to the treatment of prisoners simply were not going to be written down clearly. If she had insisted on a document declaring the true state of affairs, she soon would have been transfered to some distant inspectorate where she could wallow in documentation.

As it turns out, that's what she should have done. She chose to accept her situation too passively, and so her career ended in disgrace.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 6:27:38 PM|| 2004-06-20 6:27:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#61
Now that's serious power.

Dog Bites Trolls think that Fred and I run Rantburg together as co-equals.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-20 6:29:11 PM|| 2004-06-20 6:29:11 PM|| Front Page Top

23:11 OldSpook
22:59 Frank G
22:51 Robert Crawford
22:45 Mr. Davis
22:38 Frank G
22:27 Atomic Conspiracy
21:49 Mark Espinola
01:38 .com
01:23 Super Hose
01:14 Super Hose
01:12 Super Hose
01:12 Quana
01:10 Super Hose
01:07 Super Hose
01:03 Zenster
01:01 someone
00:54 Zenster
00:50 11A5S
00:45 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
00:23 tu3031
00:11 RWV
00:08 tu3031
00:02 RWV
23:55 Zenster