Bowfinger, were you going to substantiate your claims (for once), or just dangle an assertion into yet another thread as you move on to the next and pretend no one questioned your statistics? Bowfinger? Bowfinger?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but . . .
I guess I'll start with your inability to do simple research. (You sure you have a degree? Did it come postage due? From somewhere in the Caribbean? Just curious.) I know Google can be intimidating, what with reading and typing and all, but their Help Page should get you started. If that's too technical for you, Google for Dummies may be more your speed.
Of course I'll grow old and gray while I wait for you to expose your own BS, so I guess I'll have to help.
Getting accurate information about Iraqi casualties is tough since Bush-lite refuses to tally them. Looking around with Google (see above), it looks like Iraq Body Count is widely considered the most comprehensive and credible source. They confirm between 6,125 and 7,843 Iraqi civilian deaths from direct, US-led military action as reported by at least two reliable sources. They also show another 20,000 reported civilian injuries.
These counts are known to be too low. Many, perhaps most casualties are never reported because they were "burned beyond recognition, pulverised into dust or buried quickly according to Islamic custom." There have been no reports at all from major sections of Iraq even though they are populated and were involved in heavy military action. These counts do not include any indirect casualties, e.g., the bombings at the U.N. building and the mosque, deaths due to inadequate medical care and other essential services, and casualties due to the lack of public safety resources. They do not include Iraq military deaths. They do NOT include deaths due to natural causes such as weather since that would be dishonest ... and just plain stupid.
That's the best I can do for you, we just don't have a total count. We're confident the number is well above the 6,000 to 8,000 range, but we can only estimate how many thousand deaths have not been reported, or at least were not explicity reported as civilian deaths by at least two sources. Other sources report "over" 10,000 deaths, assuming that "most" deaths have not been reported. There is an effort underway to tally civilian deaths by doing a nationwide survey. They have not provided results yet. Even that process will miss casualties, so we'll never know the complete death toll.
Now that I've dispensed with your flaccid distractlon, let's get back to the point. You keep trolling about the French tragedy, comparing the "300" who died in Iraq to the 10,000 who died in France. (For example, 300 (in Iraq) vs. 10,000 (in France)...How many deaths are enough?.) Why don't the deaths of innocent Iraqis matter to John Galt? I've asked at least four times, but you run away or change the subject (like here) by questioning the number. Unless you are claiming zero Iraqi civilians died, the question is valid.
So Galt, what is it? What kind of a person are you? Who is John Galt? Is he a bigot -- "Who cares, they're only A-rabs" -- or a moron -- "Doh, I didn't know there were people there."? We're waiting.
I've got to hand it to you Galt, there aren't many people who can put that much dishonesty into a single sentence. I barely know where to begin.
I guess I'll start with your inability to do simple research. (You sure you have a degree? Did it come postage due? From somewhere in the Caribbean? Just curious.) I know Google can be intimidating, what with reading and typing and all, but their Help Page should get you started. If that's too technical for you, Google for Dummies may be more your speed.
Of course I'll grow old and gray while I wait for you to expose your own BS, so I guess I'll have to help.
Getting accurate information about Iraqi casualties is tough since Bush-lite refuses to tally them. Looking around with Google (see above), it looks like Iraq Body Count is widely considered the most comprehensive and credible source. They confirm between 6,125 and 7,843 Iraqi civilian deaths from direct, US-led military action as reported by at least two reliable sources. They also show another 20,000 reported civilian injuries.
These counts are known to be too low. Many, perhaps most casualties are never reported because they were "burned beyond recognition, pulverised into dust or buried quickly according to Islamic custom." There have been no reports at all from major sections of Iraq even though they are populated and were involved in heavy military action. These counts do not include any indirect casualties, e.g., the bombings at the U.N. building and the mosque, deaths due to inadequate medical care and other essential services, and casualties due to the lack of public safety resources. They do not include Iraq military deaths. They do NOT include deaths due to natural causes such as weather since that would be dishonest ... and just plain stupid.
That's the best I can do for you, we just don't have a total count. We're confident the number is well above the 6,000 to 8,000 range, but we can only estimate how many thousand deaths have not been reported, or at least were not explicity reported as civilian deaths by at least two sources. Other sources report "over" 10,000 deaths, assuming that "most" deaths have not been reported. There is an effort underway to tally civilian deaths by doing a nationwide survey. They have not provided results yet. Even that process will miss casualties, so we'll never know the complete death toll.
Now that I've dispensed with your flaccid distractlon, let's get back to the point. You keep trolling about the French tragedy, comparing the "300" who died in Iraq to the 10,000 who died in France. (For example, 300 (in Iraq) vs. 10,000 (in France)...How many deaths are enough?.) Why don't the deaths of innocent Iraqis matter to John Galt? I've asked at least four times, but you run away or change the subject (like here) by questioning the number. Unless you are claiming zero Iraqi civilians died, the question is valid.
So Galt, what is it? What kind of a person are you? Who is John Galt? Is he a bigot -- "Who cares, they're only A-rabs" -- or a moron -- "Doh, I didn't know there were people there."? We're waiting.
?so what you are saying is this: You use Google for your so-called research; you are a high-powered researcher because you use Google proficiently. In other words, you are saying you believe everything you read on the internet from your two minutes of ?Googling.? Google, in your world, is synonomus with gospel. ?Wait, I know it?s true! Look, I have some lame website I just linked after I Google-researched. And www.geocities.com/bushkilled10000iraqis.com has the same numbers! How do you dispute these FACTS?? Google, sir, is the lamest form of ?research? I have ever seen. This is what?s wrong with kids today. They spend five minutes querying ?how many died in Iraq?? in Google, up pops a few thousands sites (5 of which might be worth a chit, if you are lucky), and suddenly you are a subject-matter expert. Although this is laughable, let?s see what your high-powered research yielded?.
Really? It?s tough to get data on this? Wait, the site your ?Googling? discovered didn?t seem to have problems finding all sorts of ?accurate data?. Oh, wait, there?s a caveat:
I see your point. I put a call-in to the president; Air Force One is en route; the president has a Mead notebook, #2 pencil, and a laptop using IE 5.0 w/ Google Toolbar set to advance researcher mode. He should have a count for you by morning.
Yes, sir, I agree. That looks like a professional operation they are running there and totally unbiased. They work together with major news agencies to get timely, accurate, and objective information from a number of sources. Let?s look at a few sources after we examine their methodologies, shall we?
So they read newspapers, conduct high-powered Google research, and ask eyewitnesses in?where are they located?England? ?Good day, mate. Have you seen any dead Iraqis when you were in the Lou?? ?Aye, mate, I saw 1,400 of them.? ?Thanks, mate; God bless the Queen!?
Here are just a few sources this objective organization with the bomb-dropping wallpaper use to gather their summary statistics:
2. Sources
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
NYT - New York Times
? The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources). By requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international media network.?
Now remember, kids, if two sources report the same number, they take it as gospel and aggregate this into their dataset. Is anyone thinking what I am thinking?
Really? This is not the way their methodology reads:
Who exactly is ?we?? And, moreover, what type of estimation was used? I am fond of estimating myself, and I would be interested in hearing all about the methodology you used to arrive at these estimates..please share, oh PhG in Googlology.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
You are right Gaut. Chirac needs to be punished for all these French deaths.
Bush is next. Look at all the people who died in the US during that time! And he shamelessly ignored them.
Good investigative reporting.
Carry on
Bush is next. Look at all the people who died in the US during that time! And he shamelessly ignored them.
Good investigative reporting.
Carry on
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
As expected, Galt spewed endlessly without ever addressing the issue. He attacked me, he attacked Google, he attacked assorted sources of information, he attacks and attacks and attacks. He has nothing of his own to offer of course. He attacks the numbers and their sources, but he offers no alternatives. He seems to dispute my premise, but offers nothing of his own. All noise, no content.
And through it all, he avoids the issue, just as he has avoided it ever since I brought it up days ago. How about it Galt, are you a bigot or a moron? How can you claim only "300" died in Iraq? Why do you dismiss the thousands of Iraqis who died in our invasion, be it 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000? Why don't they count?
You said you would "continue down this path" if I showed you statistics (9/11 post at xx:30 PM). I did what you asked. Now do you have the integrity to answer the question, or is your word as worthless as your reasoning skills?
-----------------------------
I know what you're saying; I know what you're saying ...
"John Galt is a troll!"
Bow, I think the sanctimonious a-hole meant 300 U.S. troops died. He obviously doesn't care about the dead Iraqis - no matter how many there were. Galt's only interested in "Mission Accomplished" - yeah baby, grab your package on the flight deck. Huevos grande, baby! Dead Iraqis? What dead Iraqis?
You are right. I care nothing about dead Iraqi soldiers, as they take up arms against Americans in support of Saddam's regime; I do, however, feel bad that there are innocent civilians killed, but given our technologtical advances in war fighting, they are minimal and to be expected. So in short, there could be 6 million dead Iraqi soldiers and I will not blink an eye in my sleep, you are right.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
And again he changes the subject. Who would have guessed?
As I explicitly and repeatedly said, we're talking about innocent Iraqi civilians, NOT soldiers -- not even conscript soldiers. You yammer on and on about the tragic deaths in France, yet you completely ignore the equally tragic deaths of a comparable number of innocent Iraqis, pretending they don't count ("300 vs. 10,000", according to you).
The questions remains, is xxxxxJohn Galtxxxxx a racist or a moron? Wait, I'll give you a thrid option. Are you such a blind Bush apologist that you will say anything, no matter how stupid or outrageous, just to deflect attention from the shameful performance of your boy in the White House?
Three options - pick one.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Well, there are only 2 options for you
Are you such a blind Bush hater that you will say anything, no matter how stupid or outrageous, just put shame on the President? Or are you just a moron?
2 options - you pick.
The amount of dead "innocent" Iraqis can't be numbered - only guessed at. Labeling the "combatants" is not an easy task considering where they were hiding and shooting from. How many were truly "innocent"? It doesn't lessen the guilt/pain/whatever from having to do so though. It sucks - plain and simple. This argument is stupid - neither side "wins" and is just a platform from which to hurl insults(like I did above
). So Bow - if you wish to continue the "games" you best not keep whining about it when you are attacked in retaliationCkG
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Caddie, my friend, are you endorsing Galt's incessant, ignorant anti-French spews? If not, then you're missing the point and I respectfully suggest you butt out.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Well, there are only 2 options for you
Are you such a blind Bush hater that you will say anything, no matter how stupid or outrageous, just put shame on the President? Or are you just a moron?
2 options - you pick.
The amount of dead "innocent" Iraqis can't be numbered - only guessed at. Labeling the "combatants" is not an easy task considering where they were hiding and shooting from. How many were truly "innocent"? It doesn't lessen the guilt/pain/whatever from having to do so though. It sucks - plain and simple. This argument is stupid - neither side "wins" and is just a platform from which to hurl insults(like I did above
CkG
Galt has repeatedly compared the "10,000" deaths in France to the "300" in Iraq. It is a stupid and racist comparison, and he needs to acknowledge it. Never mind the superficial idiocy of equating deaths due to a random act of nature with deaths directly caused by Bush-lite's attack on Iran. The whole premise that Iraqi deaths don't count is repugnant to any civilized person.
As I explicitly said earlier, the exact number of deaths is not the issue -- period. Be it 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 50,000, the point is the same. Galt intentionally ignores and exploits those deaths to distract us from Bush's atrocities. Galt is quibbling over the number to avoid accountability for his comments.
Re. your comments about me, please show me a "stupid or outrageous" statement I made that you can prove is wrong. Don't bother with differences of opinion; I'm talking about something clearly factual like Galt's "300" deaths in Iraq nonsense. Unlike Galt (and tcsenter with his "Bush never tried to link Iraq to 9/11" BS), I have and will acknowledge when I've screwed up or gone over the top.
I can accept differences of opinion, even if I think the other person is an idiot for his views. I have no respect or tolerance for people who act like Galt.
Bow - Galt's only starting these threads as some bizarre kind of "retaliation" for the numerous "anti-Bush" threads started by others. His motivation and false sympathy, as twisted as it is, is so obvious and retarded, I can't even believe we're in here discussing it. Seriously, it's best left alone. It's like trying to respond to 'BigDude' when he interjects and drops a big turd into the middle of a thread. Sometimes it's fun to taunt him, but in the end, it only serves to perpetuate his madness...
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I agree. It's his "only 300 died in Iraq" claim that galts ... err ... galls me. There are too many other war-mongers that think like him, that believe the only deaths that count are American deaths, or even Caucasian deaths. It is a repugnant attitude.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I do not "endorse" these types of threads, much like I don't "endorse" these types of threads when they are aimed at Bush.
Well, I don't see how someone can claim to be "non-exploitive" of these deaths no matter who was using the argument. You claim he is distracting from Bush - maybe this is his way of saying that you are distracting from Chirac's atrocities, no? I fail to see how your argument is any more true than his(if that was his intention). Does the fact that he constantly brings up the French bother you? (implied yes) Do you not think that the endless "Bush Bashing" bothers others? Why is what bothers you(implied that it does) more reprehensible than what bothers others?
Like I said in a different thread - I think more than a few of us(ALL) need to step the F@#$ back and regain our grip on reality. This forum is full of emotional rhetoric and neither "side" is necessarily wrong or right.
Will you admit that your attempts to add the "iraqi dead" numbers into this argument are "stupid and racist", as you accuse JG of doing? That is how I see this playing out. You are attempting to "beat" his death comparison numbers with your own. I realize you didn't put a "number" on them, but your argument is still an "exploitation" of their death to further your "cause".
See my point yet?
You became what you were fighting against. Damn that moonbeam and his mirrors
CkG
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I do not "endorse" these types of threads, much like I don't "endorse" these types of threads when they are aimed at Bush.
Well, I don't see how someone can claim to be "non-exploitive" of these deaths no matter who was using the argument. You claim he is distracting from Bush - maybe this is his way of saying that you are distracting from Chirac's atrocities, no? I fail to see how your argument is any more true than his(if that was his intention). Does the fact that he constantly brings up the French bother you? (implied yes) Do you not think that the endless "Bush Bashing" bothers others? Why is what bothers you(implied that it does) more reprehensible than what bothers others?
Like I said in a different thread - I think more than a few of us(ALL) need to step the F@#$ back and regain our grip on reality. This forum is full of emotional rhetoric and neither "side" is necessarily wrong or right.
Will you admit that your attempts to add the "iraqi dead" numbers into this argument are "stupid and racist", as you accuse JG of doing? That is how I see this playing out. You are attempting to "beat" his death comparison numbers with your own. I realize you didn't put a "number" on them, but your argument is still an "exploitation" of their death to further your "cause".
See my point yet?
You became what you were fighting against. Damn that moonbeam and his mirrors
CkG
Actually, I have problems with Chirac myself. When he becomes the President of the US, I will be sure to vote against him, especially if he starts a war.
Ok, back to frying the French (French Fries, get it?) There a French pun
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I agree, but there are a few foreign posters on this board that post about American politics - are they to not post about our "problems"?
Again - this isn't "defending" actions of anyone - it is just pointing out the basics of the argument.
CkG
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
With all due respect, I can't believe you even read what I posted if this is your response. To me, the issue is black and white. This is not about France and Chirac. While that was also a tragedy, it is irrelevant to my point.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I do not "endorse" these types of threads, much like I don't "endorse" these types of threads when they are aimed at Bush.
Well, I don't see how someone can claim to be "non-exploitive" of these deaths no matter who was using the argument. You claim he is distracting from Bush - maybe this is his way of saying that you are distracting from Chirac's atrocities, no? I fail to see how your argument is any more true than his(if that was his intention). Does the fact that he constantly brings up the French bother you? (implied yes) Do you not think that the endless "Bush Bashing" bothers others? Why is what bothers you(implied that it does) more reprehensible than what bothers others?
Like I said in a different thread - I think more than a few of us(ALL) need to step the F@#$ back and regain our grip on reality. This forum is full of emotional rhetoric and neither "side" is necessarily wrong or right.
Will you admit that your attempts to add the "iraqi dead" numbers into this argument are "stupid and racist", as you accuse JG of doing? That is how I see this playing out. You are attempting to "beat" his death comparison numbers with your own. I realize you didn't put a "number" on them, but your argument is still an "exploitation" of their death to further your "cause".
See my point yet?
You became what you were fighting against. Damn that moonbeam and his mirrors
CkG
Galt says only "300" died in Iraq. He is completely ignoring the thousands of innocent Iraqis who died, as if they aren't real people. It's not an issue of the exact number. It's the fact that Galt pretends the number is zero. I can't see why you won't acknowledge that this is seriously and fundamentally wrong. You are starting to look like a Galt apologist.
Re. me becoming what I'm fighting, bullshot. By that logic, one cannot refute any lie or point out any atrocity without "becoming what you were fighting against." It's an absurd premise.
Oh well, believe what you will. I believe Galt's "300" comments are racist and stupid. If he had any integrity at all, he'd just apologize for ignoring the deaths of innocent Iraqis and we could all move on.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
With all due respect, I can't believe you even read what I posted if this is your response. To me, the issue is black and white. This is not about France and Chirac. While that was also a tragedy, it is irrelevant to my point.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I do not "endorse" these types of threads, much like I don't "endorse" these types of threads when they are aimed at Bush.
Well, I don't see how someone can claim to be "non-exploitive" of these deaths no matter who was using the argument. You claim he is distracting from Bush - maybe this is his way of saying that you are distracting from Chirac's atrocities, no? I fail to see how your argument is any more true than his(if that was his intention). Does the fact that he constantly brings up the French bother you? (implied yes) Do you not think that the endless "Bush Bashing" bothers others? Why is what bothers you(implied that it does) more reprehensible than what bothers others?
Like I said in a different thread - I think more than a few of us(ALL) need to step the F@#$ back and regain our grip on reality. This forum is full of emotional rhetoric and neither "side" is necessarily wrong or right.
Will you admit that your attempts to add the "iraqi dead" numbers into this argument are "stupid and racist", as you accuse JG of doing? That is how I see this playing out. You are attempting to "beat" his death comparison numbers with your own. I realize you didn't put a "number" on them, but your argument is still an "exploitation" of their death to further your "cause".
See my point yet?
You became what you were fighting against. Damn that moonbeam and his mirrors
CkG
Galt says only "300" died in Iraq. He is completely ignoring the thousands of innocent Iraqis who died, as if they aren't real people. It's not an issue of the exact number. It's the fact that Galt pretends the number is zero. I can't see why you won't acknowledge that this is seriously and fundamentally wrong. You are starting to look like a Galt apologist.
Re. me becoming what I'm fighting, bullshot. By that logic, one cannot refute any lie or point out any atrocity without "becoming what you were fighting against." It's an absurd premise.
Oh well, believe what you will. I believe Galt's "300" comments are racist and stupid. If he had any integrity at all, he'd just apologize for ignoring the deaths of innocent Iraqis and we could all move on.
OK - lets just say he does mention/acknowlege/whatever the "thousands" in Iraq...now what? It's still exploitation...is it not? You are using the Iraqi deaths to "distract" from his point about the French dead, are you not?
I understand that the comparison between the US service people who have fallen to the people who died in the hear wave, but why make it an even more assinine argument by adding "iraqi" deaths?
Sad.
CkG
I'm more interested in why someone would bring it up. In Bow's case, it's likely because he's against the war, in Galt's case however, it's likely some bizarre way of "getting back" at the libs/dems on the forum. The logic that blaming Bush for Iraqi deaths is the equivalent of blaming Chirac for French deaths is fundamentally flawed. The war in Iraq and the French heat wave are apples and oranges. It's rather pointless to compare them, don't you think?
this is either bad phacking satire or it's passive-aggression against whoever opposes his faith in the (hehe) Busheviks.
Once Chirac apologizes to the thousands of families who lost loved ones because their leader decided to take a vacation to Canada, in an effort to escape the heat, and did not have a contingency plan in place to mitigate the senseless loss of human life, then I will address you 'innocent death' agenda, as I have done twice already.
It is important to compare them to put things into perspective...When Democrats are not engaging in their fallacious class warfare nonsense, they like to appeal to the emotionally-loaded "The Sky Is Falling" tactic....within 72 hours of the statues in Baghdad coming down, the LA Times, CNN, NYT, Democratic party, and talking-points in Congress started their scare campaign on the American people. ?Look, Muhammad is stealing?we understand that they are finally tasting freedom and more people have died in D.C. since the war, but this is a tragedy; If Saddam were running chit, this barbaric behavior wouldn?t be happening??
We lost ~300 soldiers waging war against, at one time, the 4th or 5th largest standing Army in the world. Wars used to take years; now, because of our technological advances and superior joint operations war planning and doctrine, wars could conceivable be won in weeks. Ever see the B-52's flying over Frankfurt, Germany opening up the hatch and releasing literally tons of bombs on anything and anyone below? Our precision-guided munitions have drastically reduced collateral damage on the battle field, but when a brutal dictator, one with an utter disregard for his own citizenry, places his military assets in civilian populated areas (i.e. Mosques, hospitals, schools, housing projects, marketplaces), loss of innocent human life is inevitable. The point is simply this: we do everything in our power to avoid these tragedies. When you want to whine about the lost of civilians in Iraq, you need to ask the International Red Cross and the Human Rights Watch Organization why they, along with the mighty U.N., has allowed Saddam to place military assets and take up fighting positions in heavily populated civilian areas. I read more criticisms of the United States and the way they are keeping the clowns in Guantanamo Bay than I have about the atrocities that took place under Saddam?s regime?all these so-called ?peace? organizations write a few position papers and leave it at that? ?Cruel, Tortuous, Inhumane.? These were the words the Human Rights Watch Organization used to describe the conditions under which we are holding the detainees in Cuba. Instead of attacking the United States, they should be thanking the United States?.for that ?cruel, Tortuous, Inhumane? treatment that facilitated woman going to school in Afghanistan, removed the Taliban regime that derived their power from the fear and oppression of the Afghani people, and has now given the Iraqi people a taste of true freedom. All of these organizations, the U.N. included, have marginalized themselves once again.
And, moreover, if we use Bowflex's 'Body Count' statistics, which, for the most part, accept Al Jaherrz 'innocent death' numbers as gospel (given that the other 3 Arab news agencies report and get their feeds from Al Jaherz, thus they have two sources and the numbers reported are aggregated into the 'Death Count' dataset, accurate or not), 6,000-8,000 Iraqi civilians have died, or so Bowflex and his biased sources presuppose to further their "The Sky is Falling" arguments. Now, Mother Nature has taken the lives of 10,000+ elderly in France...we wage war against a country the size of California and within 3-weeks, we have American soldiers sitting in Saddam's chair...and less people have died, in total, than from 90 degree in France. Lastly, we, as you know, do everything in our power to mitigate the loss of human life when we wage war. WHAT DID THE FRENCH LEADER DO PRIOR TO HIS VACATION IN CANADA? He knows heat is a problem for the elderly during the Summer in France....he did absolutely nothing except leave the country, and "followed the situation" from Canada, and he came home to 10,000 less constituents....and less overhead in providing socialized healthcare...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter