Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Assad forces behind deadly Sarin attack - UN

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
Quote

Syria's government was responsible for a deadly chemical attack on a rebel-held town in the north-west of the country on 4 April, a UN report says.

The authors say they are "confident" Damascus used Sarin nerve agent in Khan Sheikhoun, killing more than 80 people.

"Today's report confirms what we have long known to be true," said the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his ally Russia have repeatedly said the incident was fabricated.

Syria's opposition and Western powers have said it was a Syrian government air strike on the area.

But Damascus and Moscow say an air strike hit a rebel depot full of chemical munitions.

The report findings were issued by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the UN's Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM).

"The panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of Sarin at Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April 2017," stated the report, the AFP news agency reports.

Meanwhile, Ms Haley said in a statement: ‎"Time and again, we see independent confirmation of chemical weapons use by the Assad regime. And in spite of these independent reports, we still see some countries trying to protect the regime. That must end now.

"Ignoring the overwhelming amount of evidence in this case shows a purposeful disregard for widely agreed international norms.

"The (UN) Security Council must send a clear message that the use of chemical weapons by anyone will not be tolerated, and must fully support the work of the impartial investigators. Countries that fail to do so are no better than the dictators or terrorists who use these terrible weapons."

Syria and Russia are yet to make public comments on the issue.

On Tuesday, Russia vetoed a resolution extending the JIM's mandate - the only official mission investigating the use of chemical weapons in Syria.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-41771133

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I do not trust these reports because they have been shown to be partial.

Last "report" from france was built upon "french intelligent sources" I remember actually reading it and face palming when it came to their sources.

All these organs and nations sending out reports and condemnation left and right, they all have their own agenda but LOGIC dictates that assad did not NEED to use chemical weapons.

Logic also dictates that the use of chemical weapons would surely turn the world against you; so in a scenario where mass media is watching every step you make and some western powers are praying for a justification to invade your country, you should not use chemical weapons.

Furthermore, logic also dictates that if indeed there was an actual NEED to use chemical weapons in order to win, why do we not see multiple chemical attacks, made systematically, throughout the entire conflict? 

So please brothers and sisters, should we rely on reports left and right from people/groups/governments with their own agenda or should we rely on our own sense of logic, rational thinking and common sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
46 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

I do not trust these reports because they have been shown to be partial.

Last "report" from france was built upon "french intelligent sources" I remember actually reading it and face palming when it came to their sources.

All these organs and nations sending out reports and condemnation left and right, they all have their own agenda but LOGIC dictates that assad did not NEED to use chemical weapons.

Logic also dictates that the use of chemical weapons would surely turn the world against you; so in a scenario where mass media is watching every step you make and some western powers are praying for a justification to invade your country, you should not use chemical weapons.

Furthermore, logic also dictates that if indeed there was an actual NEED to use chemical weapons in order to win, why do we not see multiple chemical attacks, made systematically, throughout the entire conflict? 

So please brothers and sisters, should we rely on reports left and right from people/groups/governments with their own agenda or should we rely on our own sense of logic, rational thinking and common sense?

Yes, so please people of ... do not use logic, do not use common sense, only use irrational thinking, illogical, your unique/peculiar sense.

And human can easily make a division on which side you are on. We human have lack/behind schedule for final battle in human history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Without knowing the specific details or evidences provided, I don’t understand how the Syrian state unleashing a chemical attack on people would be of any strategic benefit to them.

Why would they, distracted in the middle of a war to stabilize the country (which is of benefit to them), suddenly unleash senseless killing that would only provoke, inflame, and undo any progress being made?

Doesnt make sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I think the UN report raised some questions about the lack of a ground investigation which should've been carried out to prove completely, we know that the sources on the ground are not reliable particularly because we know people have been tried for terrorism in other countries and are now doctors revealing stories coming out of Idlib. I too question the logical side of things as to why Assad would need to launch CW at a time when the int'l community was becoming more and more accepting of the fact that he would have to be part of Syria's future. That too on a target of no military significance, on the eve of peace talks. It's kind of similar to what happened in Ghouta, where the govt invited UN inspectors in the day before to investigate a CW attack in Khan Al Assal in Aleppo which killed Syrian soldiers, but then somehow foolishly launched this attack the day after in Ghouta. It makes no sense to me. Assad is perfectly capable of this, he may be bad enough, is he stupid or mad enough though? Idk. But if it is true, which no one knows, (ultimately we can argue, depending on our bias but no one knows 100%) then this is pretty shameful tbh! Thing is the UN has reported on crimes in Israel and Saudi Arabia, as an institution it is corrupted by the fact that vetoes by the 5 permanent members prevent any action, but it has certainly condemned even the US for warcrimes in Raqqa, so I wouldn't say it is biased in its condemnation of events. However, the sources it uses to make the report raise some questions, though is this because they're being denied access to Syria? OTH, is it because Idlib is full of Al Qaeda affiliates that would probably kill or kidnap investigators? Idk, its tough to tell. But why the veto by Russia? Don't veto if you have nothing to hide right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

This is what happens when you become an apologist, you engage in confirmation bias and selective reasoning. 

14 hours ago, Hassan- said:

He’s using the UN as his source, as if the UN is not corrupt or owned by nato.

Where did you even get that from? You do realise Syria, Iraq and Iran are all members of the UN?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, IbnSina said:

I do not trust these reports because they have been shown to be partial.

Last "report" from france was built upon "french intelligent sources" I remember actually reading it and face palming when it came to their sources.

All these organs and nations sending out reports and condemnation left and right, they all have their own agenda but LOGIC dictates that assad did not NEED to use chemical weapons.

Logic also dictates that the use of chemical weapons would surely turn the world against you; so in a scenario where mass media is watching every step you make and some western powers are praying for a justification to invade your country, you should not use chemical weapons.

Furthermore, logic also dictates that if indeed there was an actual NEED to use chemical weapons in order to win, why do we not see multiple chemical attacks, made systematically, throughout the entire conflict? 

So please brothers and sisters, should we rely on reports left and right from people/groups/governments with their own agenda or should we rely on our own sense of logic, rational thinking and common sense?

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

The UN OHCHR report is here:http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/IICISyria/Pages/IndependentInternationalCommission.aspx

The documentation is all there:

COISyria_ChemicalWeapons.jpg

Satellite imagery is shown:

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoISyria/UNOSAT_Satellite_Imagery_1.pdf

 

Here is the full report by the sec-general of the UN:

http://undocs.org/A/68/663

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī 

During the time of Saddam Hussain in Iraq, the UN inspectors alleged Iraq not cooperating and Saddam dubbed them to be US spies. Later on, the UN inspectors plea was taken by the US government for propaganda and they alleged that Iraq has WMD. But Hans Blix and other inspectors did not find that. So, this is credibility of the pro-US departments. UN is a weapon for the US. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
24 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

@Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī 

During the time of Saddam Hussain in Iraq, the UN inspectors alleged Iraq not cooperating and Saddam dubbed them to be US spies. Later on, the UN inspectors plea was taken by the US government for propaganda and they alleged that Iraq has WMD. But Hans Blix and other inspectors did not find that. So, this is credibility of the pro-US departments. UN is a weapon for the US. 

The US cooked up all kinds of lies about Iraq, but I don't think the UN ever released a report about WMDs, Blix stated this; "in the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with UN inspections, and in February 2003 had provided UNMOVIC with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, there would likely have been a very different situation in Iraq."[6]. While it is true that the powers abuse the UN for their own agendas, as an organization itself it has certainly criticized pro-US positions too. The UN is corrupt not because of the organization itself lying, its corrupt because of the whole veto process and how it does not have the power to stop illegal invasions, doesn't have a military force etc. It is also very prone to succumb to pressure, as it did by retracting the report on Israeli apartheid, and the report on Saudi warcrimes in Yemen few years ago. But there are reports on Saudi warcrimes in Yemen and Israel human rights abuses and warcrimes in Gaza. I think if the organization got rid of its veto power, and was heavily armed with nukes too (every nation should get rid of theirs) and had perhaps the most neutral nations, like Switzerland being permanent members of the organization ready to take military action against any aggressor, it would be more effective.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

The US cooked up all kinds of lies about Iraq, but I don't think the UN ever released a report about WMDs, Blix stated this; "in the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with UN inspections, and in February 2003 had provided UNMOVIC with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, there would likely have been a very different situation in Iraq."[6]. While it is true that the powers abuse the UN for their own agendas, as an organization itself it has certainly criticized pro-US positions too. The UN is corrupt not because of the organization itself lying, its corrupt because of the whole veto process and how it does not have the power to stop illegal invasions, doesn't have a military force etc. It is also very prone to succumb to pressure, as it did by retracting the report on Israeli apartheid, and the report on Saudi warcrimes in Yemen few years ago. But there are reports on Saudi warcrimes in Yemen and Israel human rights abuses and warcrimes in Gaza. I think if the organization got rid of its veto power, and was heavily armed with nukes too (every nation should get rid of theirs) and had perhaps the most neutral nations, like Switzerland being permanent members of the organization ready to take military action against any aggressor, it would be more effective.

 

That is impossible in a current world where organizations do not have independent existence that they could maintain huge army and nuclear arsenal. However, as you have maintained that they retracted reports on Saudi and Israel's Human rights violation then it could also forge a wrong report for any country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
17 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

We'll see but honestly what makes you think that Assad is a good person?

He’s done good and bad things. Not bowing down to US and Israel like how most of the Arab nations have done is why I respect Assad.

3 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Where did you even get that from? 

Are you actually serious with that question? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

@Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī 

During the time of Saddam Hussain in Iraq, the UN inspectors alleged Iraq not cooperating and Saddam dubbed them to be US spies. Later on, the UN inspectors plea was taken by the US government for propaganda and they alleged that Iraq has WMD. But Hans Blix and other inspectors did not find that. So, this is credibility of the pro-US departments. UN is a weapon for the US. 

Source?

Edited by Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, Sindbad05 said:

Man that's book buy it from any online shop

It's funny because you cannot even buy it off amazon. None the less if you claim that it claims that, then it is completely false. Here is the UN report in 2003:

Quote

Iraq’s representative said the Americans and the British continued to attempt to “trump up” facts and evidence, pointing to Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, but they had fallen short in convincing the international community.  The inspectors had proved that there were no such weapons and that the allegations were false. 

https://www.un.org/press/en/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

It's funny because you cannot even buy it off amazon. None the less if you claim that it claims that, then it is completely false. Here is the UN report in 2003:

UN report ? It has no value bro....There are millions of reports by Transparency International and others that dub Iran and other anti-US countries as wrong but that isn't true. Does UN report mentions that it was Bush Administration's fault to allow Saddam to invade Kuwait ? Does it say that the 9/11 was invented event by the US ? otherwise, how could one plane violate air way and hundreds of F-16 flying do not notice it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

UN report ? It has no value bro....There are millions of reports by Transparency International and others that dub Iran and other anti-US countries as wrong but that isn't true. Does UN report mentions that it was Bush Administration's fault to allow Saddam to invade Kuwait ? Does it say that the 9/11 was invented event by the US ? otherwise, how could one plane violate air way and hundreds of F-16 flying do not notice it. 

You literally just claimed this previously:

Quote

During the time of Saddam Hussain in Iraq, the UN inspectors alleged Iraq not cooperating and Saddam dubbed them to be US spies. 

I refuted that with the report, in which they explicity state Saddam was cooperating and there were no WMDs....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I really wonder even though logically this doesn't make sense, why Assad would do this, but if he did indeed do it, what would it take for us to believe it? If you shun every organization, report, claim, media outlet as fake news except if it says good stuff about Assad, are we really being objective? There's a lot of lies about Syria I admit and this isn't to say support the head chopping, heart eating "rebels", but would you support someone if he indeed used these horrendous tactics? Just a thought. I was confident when this happened, it was a lie that Assad did it, but I did say that if an investigation claimed it as such, I would be ashamed of myself. Now there's no ground investigation, which is a valid claim, but say there was one and it came to the same conclusions, would you then look for another excuse and blame the investigative process because Assad is on our side? These are questions I'm asking myself, so I'm not really blaming anyone or anything, but just something to think about. Ultimately our prayer should be for safety of the Syrian people right? Would you support a leader other than Assad who could bring this? I'm not saying any of the rebels would, but say there was a democratic leader through a future diplomatic process who the Syrians supported and who wasn't a puppet but wasn't allied with Iran either, would you support him? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I really wonder even though logically this doesn't make sense, why Assad would do this, but if he did indeed do it, what would it take for us to believe it? If you shun every organization, report, claim, media outlet as fake news except if it says good stuff about Assad, are we really being objective? There's a lot of lies about Syria I admit and this isn't to say support the head chopping, heart eating "rebels", but would you support someone if he indeed used these horrendous tactics? Just a thought. I was confident when this happened, it was a lie that Assad did it, but I did say that if an investigation claimed it as such, I would be ashamed of myself. Now there's no ground investigation, which is a valid claim, but say there was one and it came to the same conclusions, would you then look for another excuse and blame the investigative process because Assad is on our side? These are questions I'm asking myself, so I'm not really blaming anyone or anything, but just something to think about. Ultimately our prayer should be for safety of the Syrian people right? Would you support a leader other than Assad who could bring this? I'm not saying any of the rebels would, but say there was a democratic leader through a future diplomatic process who the Syrians supported and who wasn't a puppet but wasn't allied with Iran either, would you support him? 

There is, see the report. They have numerous first-hand images, satelitte images and all mapped chemical attack sites. The report isn't stating only assad did these but is confirming the ones he did. 

Some people just engage in mental gymnastics in order to defend Assad, we should remember he is a Baathist, like Saddam. The only difference is he is Alawi and Saddam was Sunni but that doesn't mean anything in regards to his actions. I've yet to see one apologist of Assad point out a wrong action he committed. I'm not suggesting he is all bad but neither was Saddam, neither was Hitler, neither was Stalin or Mao all bad but on a macro-level when you add things up; you have to conclude this individual only cares for his own power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
19 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

There is, see the report. They have numerous first-hand images, satelitte images and all mapped chemical attack sites. The report isn't stating only assad did these but is confirming the ones he did. 

Some people just engage in mental gymnastics in order to defend Assad, we should remember he is a Baathist, like Saddam. The only difference is he is Alawi and Saddam was Sunni but that doesn't mean anything in regards to his actions. I've yet to see one apologist of Assad point out a wrong action he committed. I'm not suggesting he is all bad but neither was Saddam, neither was Hitler, neither was Stalin or Mao all bad but on a macro-level when you add things up; you have to conclude this individual only cares for his own power. 

The UN report for chemical weapons did state there was no ground investigation though, something about it being too unsafe to go to Idlib, let me see if I can find it in the report, unless your argument is satellite images can be sufficient evidence? I'm not an expert on these issues, but I know Ted Postle at MIT did a pretty comprehensive report debunking the initial claims. Wonder if you've seen that? I can link it here if not.

The only thing is who do you support? The Syrian people being killed on all sides are who we should be praying for, I am against the rebels and ISIS obviously, and Assad has done some horrible things too, but ultimately the end of this war is what's in the best interests of Syrians, and which "victor" will bring about this? (note the quotation marks, because no one really wins in war, it's horrible). 

What about you? Who do you "support"?

Edited by Mohamed1993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

The UN report for chemical weapons did state there was no ground investigation though, something about it being too unsafe to go to Idlib, let me see if I can find it in the report, unless your argument is satellite images can be sufficient evidence? I'm not an expert on these issues, but I know Ted Postle at MIT did a pretty comprehensive report debunking the initial claims. Wonder if you've seen that? I can link it here if not.

The only thing is who do you support? The Syrian people being killed on all sides are who we should be praying for, I am against the rebels and ISIS obviously, and Assad has done some horrible things too, but ultimately the end of this war is what's in the best interests of Syrians, and which "victor" will bring about this? (note the quotation marks, because no one really wins in war, it's horrible). 

What about you? Who do you "support"?

1-I have not seen anyone in the report which stated "idlib was too dangerous to go into". Unless I missed it, if it's possible to quote the excerpt from the report please.

2-The report also examined Aleppo and investigated it independently:

Quote

In his letter to the Secretary-General dated 20 March 2013, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Syrian Arab Republic alleged the use of chemical weapons in Khan Al Asal in the Aleppo governorate on 19 March 2013, and requested the SecretaryGeneral to conduct a specialized, impartial and independent investigation of the alleged incident. On 21 March 2013, the Secretary-General established the United Nations Mission based on the authority extended to him by the General Assembly (resolution 42/37 C) and endorsed by the Security Council (resolution 620 (1988)). In a letter received on the same day, the Governments of France and the United Kingdom requested an investigation, using the same mechanism provided for in resolution 42/37 C, into the alleged use of chemical weapons in the two locations of Khan Al Asal in Aleppo and Otaybah in the vicinity of Damascus on 19 March 2013, as well as in Homs on 23 December 2012.

28. On 26 March 2013, the Secretary-General appointed Professor Åke Sellström (Sweden) as the Head of Mission and tasked the United Nations Mission to ascertain the facts related to the allegations of the use of chemical weapons, to gather relevant data and to undertake the necessary analyses for this purpose in accordance with the above-mentioned terms of reference and Guidelines. 29. For the purpose of ascertaining the facts related to the allegations of the use of chemical weapons, gathering relevant data and undertaking the necessary analyses, upon request of the Secretary-General, OPCW put its resources at his disposal.2 Furthermore, upon the request of the Secretary-General, WHO provided technical support to the United Nations Mission in assessing the public health and the clinical and event-specific health aspects of the allegations that have been brought to his attention.3 30. The members of the United Nations Mission assembled in The Hague on 2 April 2013, in preparation for travel to the Syrian Arab Republic. In anticipation of an early agreement on the modalities of cooperation with the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Secretary-General requested the Head of Mission to deploy to Cyprus with an advance team in order to complete the necessary logistical arrangements for expediting their travel to the Syrian Arab Republic to conduct their on-site activities. On 7 April 2013, the advance team deployed to Cyprus and remained there until 12 May 2013.

http://undocs.org/A/68/663

 

3-I support a democratic and federated Syrian that isn't called the "arab republic". It should be a pluralist state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

3-I support a democratic and federated Syrian that isn't called the "arab republic". It should be a pluralist state.

agreed, but how do you achieve this while you have ISIS and rebels groups that work alongside Al Nusra? Obviously these groups cannot be part of a solution, I think even the UNSC resolution states the need to isolate groups considered "terrorists" by the UNSC, that's only ISIS and Al Nusra, but there are groups like Ahrar al Sham and Jaysh al Islam that work with Al Nusra when it suits them, so what do you do about them? Do you include them in a democratic process? Do you include Assad in the election? This is where countries disagree, some say Assad can't run for these elections, some say this should be determined by the Syrian people. Are there decent alternatives to Assad that are not hardline fundamentalists apart from the Kurdish groups?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

I have not seen anyone in the report which stated "idlib was too dangerous to go into". Unless I missed it, if it's possible to quote the excerpt from the report please.

Read number 7 brother; https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/Fact_Finding_Mission/s-1510-2017_e_.pdf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Yes I do:

https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/syria/events/article/chemical-attack-in-syria-national-evaluation-presented-by-jean-marc-ayrault

See the "national evaluation"

And let me quote it:

"This document is based on declassified intelligence from France’s own sources."

 

I dont accept UN as a source of unbaised information and thus I do not accept information that is solely given by them or those who have the same agenda as them, I need to see it from unbiased sources that have nothing to gain nor lose.

I answered your question, now you answer mine:

1. Did Assad NEED to use chemical weapons in order to win the fight? Would it be impossible to win it without the use of chemical weapons?

2. Do you think Assad was not aware of the international critic he would receive if he used chemical weapons? That he was not aware of the interest of multiple countries to get a justification for invading his country?

 

And now we have a country like the US, the biggest hypocrites of earth, condemning Assad because they claim that he used chemical weapons, meanwhile they had no problem supporting Saddam(la) in his war against Iran even though they had a known chemical weapons program that they used several times against civilians.

Not only did the world police look away but the UN also didnt do anything about it. So please, realize the difference between genuine care and plain politics.

Here, a nice history lesson:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/04/history-lesson-when-the-united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/?utm_term=.665dad110037

"the Reagan administration knew full well it was selling materials to Iraq that was being used for the manufacture of chemical weapons, and that Iraq was using such weapons, but U.S. officials were more concerned about whether Iran would win rather than how Iraq might eke out a victory. "

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

I refuted that with the report, in which they explicity state Saddam was cooperating and there were no WMDs....

That was when Hans Blix came and there were multiple countries engaged in the team. While before that I do not think that joint Inspector team visited upon whom Saddam blamed as the spies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī I literally admit that UN inspectors' team that constitute single country has no value. Like those reports which every country publish every where lacking participants from other countries which may confirm it is true. The single country report may be acceptable to that country but for other countries, these are allegations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Sindbad05 said:

That was when Hans Blix came and there were multiple countries engaged in the team. While before that I do not think that joint Inspector team visited upon whom Saddam blamed as the spies. 

Yes but the point is you were wrong about the UN inspection team stating there were WMDs. The point is the UN's report didn't lead Iraq into war in 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...