Russian approach to combat terrorism: Target terrorists' families

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Why cant we do this? Terrorism does not function in a vacuum! If you look at the parents and extended families of the Boston Bomber, it makes sense to go after the families. The recent terror activity also points to this in California.

The apple never falls far from the tree.
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
In lots of cases of these crazy mass murderers, or nuts with guns either the parents raised them this way or they got these ideas because their parents were oblivious of what their children were doing. Whether by neglect or ignorance or willfully bad parenting the parents have to have some responsibility if they still live at home.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
I guess human societies are predisposed to push us back to our primitive roots: Brutal extermination of any threat through any cost or means, real or imagined. We try to reform and improve ourselves periodically, but it oscillates between wanting to be better and truly believing things were better in the "good old days."



I think an angle that is most worrisome is that if we as a nation can justify murdering innocents to stop a foreign threat, then the only thing keeping us from not doing it at home is propaganda surrounding a new "domestic" threat. Once it is okay to torture a foreign radical to potentially stop a bombing, then we aren't far from torturing Americans who may know something about a bomb threat, murder, etc. The mental switch gets turned where if your morals allow torturing humans or murdering innocents at any level then it is easier to further justify those actions in the future as solutions to another problem.
We also like to get some scope-creep, too: If you've got people whose families are already dead, then what? Now you need a new way of pressuring that kind of person. Close friends? People who they lived with? Where does it stop? How about step-parents or adoptive parents? Siblings? Adopted siblings?
If we're going to do this, we should define which human lives are expendable forms of leverage to attain our own means.
...not that that definition will matter. We've already tried changing the definition of "torture." Let's see which other boundaries we can push.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,856
4,974
126
For those against this, what's your opinion on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I just want to see what your stance is on one versus the other.
 
Last edited:

cirrrocco

Golden Member
Sep 7, 2004
1,952
78
91
Soviet Approach to Kidnapping - very rare you see russians being kidnapped in the middle east since

http://articles.philly.com/1988-02-...mic-liberation-organization-soviets-hezbollah
=================================

As related here in a column two years ago, the Soviets were victims of a hostage-taking operation only once in Lebanon. But the way they handled it left a lasting impression on the Shiite gangsters.

Since some inaccurate versions of that episode have been popping up on talk radio in the wake of the Higgins kidnapping, the rest of this space is given over to a summary of what really happened, as first disclosed in the Jan. 6, 1986, Jerusalem Post by reporter Benny Morris.

In late September 1985, pro-Iranian Shiites put the snatch on four attaches

from the Russian Embassy in Beirut and warned that the hostages would be executed, one by one, unless the Soviets persuaded pro-Syrian militiamen to stop shelling Hezbollah strongholds in the Lebanese port city of Tripoli.

On that occasion, the "Oppressed of the Earth" were billing themselves as agents of the hitherto unknown "Islamic Liberation Organization," but the KBG had no doubts about who they really were.

Although the Soviets attempted to open channels for quiet negotiations, there was no let-up in the shellings. Only two days after the kidnappings, the body of one of the four hostages was found, shot through the head, on a Beirut trash dump.

So much for quiet negotiations. Having gotten the message, the Soviets decided to send one back.

KGB agents ran the name of a prominent Hezbollah leader through their computers and came up with the name and address of one of his closest blood relatives. They then kidnapped the kinsman, castrated him, and sent his severed organs to the Hezbollah honcho.

The package was accompanied by a terse cover note indicating that the KGB had the names of other close relatives and that Hezbollah could expect more such deliveries unless the three remaining hostages were freed forthwith.

It didn't take much time for Hezbollah to realize it was dealing with a different breed of "Great Satan." The three surviving hostages were dropped off only 150 yards from the Soviet Embassy from a late-model BMW that couldn't drive away fast enough.

Gorbachev didn't call a press conference to brag about what bad-asses his boys were, but Hezbollah obviously concluded that challenging the Russians could lead to more painful consequences than simply losing face.

It's worth noting that this was the last anyone ever heard of the "Islamic Liberation Organization."

By not-so-remarkable coincidence, it was also the last time Hezbollah ever messed with any Soviets in Lebanon.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
For those against this, what's your opinion on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I just want to see what your stance is on one versus the other.

Not really comparable. Japan as a whole was our enemy and the Japanese population as a whole would have resisted a U.S. invasion. In the case of terrorists they may be intermingled within an innocent population. A terrorists mother may just be a mother and has no idea what her child is up to.

This is the issue with the drone wars and whether it is okay to blow up a wedding party to get at one terrorist. With Russia it is a little different as it seems they are going after the families regardless of where the terrorist is located.
 

arsjum

Junior Member
Nov 26, 2015
20
1
71
It seems many have already forgotten about tactics used by the US military in Iraq.

http://www.salon.com/2006/07/14/kidnap/


U.S. accused of kidnappings in Iraq


Congress demands that the Pentagon release documents that could show U.S. forces kidnapped family members of terror suspects.
MARK BENJAMIN


Congress has demanded that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hand over a raft of documents to Congress that could substantiate allegations that U.S. forces have tried to break terror suspects by kidnapping and mistreating their family members. Rumsfeld has until 5 p.m. Friday to comply.

It now appears that kidnapping, scarcely covered by the media, and absent in the major military investigations of detainee abuse, may have been systematically employed by U.S. troops. Salon has obtained Army documents that show several cases where U.S. forces abducted terror suspects families. After he was thrown in prison, Cpl. Charles Graner, the alleged ringleader at Abu Ghraib, told investigators the military routinely kidnapped family members to force suspects to turn themselves in.

A House subcommittee led by Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays took the unusual step last month of issuing Rumsfeld a subpoena for the documents after months of stonewalling by the Pentagon. Shays had requested the documents in a March 7 letter. “There was no response” to the letter, a frustrated Shays told Salon. “We are not going to back off this.”

The subpoena demands that the Pentagon turn over documents about apparent retribution by the military against Army Spc. Samuel Provance, a whistle-blower, who sought to expose abuse at the infamous prison by talking to military investigators and the press. Following his revelations, the Army demoted Provance from sergeant and revoked his security clearance.

The subpoena also includes a separate demand, at the behest of Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., for any documents that might show that U.S. forces were systematically detaining family members of suspects at Abu Ghraib, and mistreating them to force suspects to talk.

In a hearing before Shays’ Government Reform subcommittee last February, Provance testified that the Army had retaliated against him. Provance also made the disturbing allegation that interrogators broke an Iraqi general, Hamid Zabar, by imprisoning and abusing his frail 16-year-old son. Waxman was shocked. “Do you think this practice was repeated with other children?” he asked Provance. “I don’t see why it would not have been, sir,” Provance replied.

Zabar’s son had been apprehended with his father and held at Abu Ghraib, though the boy hadn’t done anything wrong. “He was useless,” Provance said about the boy in a phone interview with Salon from Heidelberg, Germany, where he is still in the Army. “He was of no intelligence value.”

But, Provance said, interrogators grew frustrated when the boy’s father, Zabar, wouldn’t talk, despite a 14-hour interrogation. So they stripped Zabar’s son naked and doused him with mud and water. They put him in the open back of a truck and drove around in the frigid January night air until the boy began to freeze. Zabar was then made to look at his suffering son.

“During the interrogation, they could not get him to talk,” Provance recalled. “They said, ‘OK, we are going to let you see your son.’ They allow him to see his son in this shivering, freezing, naked state,” Provance said. “That just totally broke his heart and that is when he said, ‘I’ll tell you what you want to know.'”

Provance said the boy was timid and afraid. “He was so skinny and so frail, and he was scared out of his mind,” Provance remembered. “He was so skinny the handcuffs would not fit securely on his wrist. I had to put this green sandbag on his head. I just felt like a horrible person doing this.”

Provance was not an interrogator; at that time, he worked on a security detail at Abu Ghraib. He said he did not see firsthand the boy being abused in the truck, although an interrogator working on the general’s case later explained the abuse to Provance in detail.

Provance’s account does not appear to be an isolated allegation. It echoes similar accusations at Abu Ghraib and across Iraq. In an interview with military investigators conducted after he was imprisoned, Graner called kidnapping, in addition to detainee abuse, “the other big Geneva Convention violation” going on at the prison. “They were picking up, you know, Joe Snuffy’s wife to get Joe Snuffy,” Graner explained to military investigators. “So, more or less, we’re holding this female with no charges, which happened a lot.”

Graner did not say in the interview who was doing the kidnapping. There were a broad range of forces operating at Abu Ghraib, including military Special Operations troops and CIA operatives.

Similar allegations have shown that kidnapping may have been a systematic practice. Special Operations troops, working with an elite unit called Task Force 6-26, allegedly abducted the 28-year-old wife of a suspected Iraqi terrorist during a raid on a house in Tarmiya, Iraq, in May 2004, the month after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. That is according to a memorandum buried in thousands of pages of documents obtained by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act. The memorandum, a formal complaint titled “Report of Violations of the Geneva Conventions,” was filed in June 2004 by a 14-year veteran intelligence officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency. The Department of Defense blacked out the officer’s name.

In the memorandum, the intelligence officer said the kidnapping was planned. “During the pre-operation brief it was recommended by TF [Task Force] personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target’s surrender,” the officer recalled, stressing that he objected to the tactic. Later, the wife was indeed present when the raid took place. “I determined that she could provide no actionable intelligence leading to the arrest of her husband,” the officer recalled. “Despite my protest, a raid team leader detained her anyway.” She was held for two days.

Little has been reported about kidnapping in comparison to the exposure of the detainee abuse depicted in the photographs from Abu Ghraib. But there have been isolated press reports.

In 2003, Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush died in U.S. custody in northern Iraq after suffering beatings and interrogations. He died when he was stuffed into a sleeping bag and straddled by Chief Warrant Officer Lewis E. Welshofer Jr. In January 2006, Welshofer was reprimanded for Mowhoush’s death. His son, Mohammed, told the Washington Post that month that U.S. forces first kidnapped him and his three brothers from their home. Mohammed was 15 at that time and claimed he was not an insurgent. “They said if my father does not come [turn himself in] you will never see your family back,” Mohammad told the Post. The article stated that classified documents show the general “later surrendered in an attempt to free his sons.”

Congressional staff said the Department of Defense so far has not adequately responded to the subpoena for documents about Provance or kidnapping at Abu Ghraib. The Pentagon claimed that Shays’ subcommittee already had everything it needed about detainee abuse. “The Department has already provided much of this information to the Congress — mainly to the House Armed Services Committee, a committee of oversight,” Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros said in an e-mailed statement. “We have delivered to the House Government Reform Committee all of the documents that can be provided and are appropriate to provide.” Ballesteros added that, “Humane treatment is and always has been the Department of Defense standard for the treatment of detainees in its custody.”

But staff from both parties on the House Government Reform Committee said that won’t do. Shays, a pro-war incumbent facing a tough election this fall, told Salon that he had no intention of backing down. “If the administration wants more power, then oversight of it has to be more aggressive,” he said. He lamented that congressional oversight of detainee issues should have been stiff all along. “I just wish we had been on top of this issue sooner,” he said with regret.

Congressional experts agree. “Oversight has been moribund during the first five years of President Bush’s terms,” said Charles Tiefer, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, who worked as solicitor and deputy general counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1984 to 1995. “Nowhere has it been more moribund than with respect to the Pentagon.”

There is no paper trail that shows that kidnapping or abusing the family of suspects might have been official Department of Justice or Pentagon policy. It is not mentioned in any of the Bush administration interrogation memos that have so far surfaced in the press. In late 2002, commanders at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay did request authority, during interrogations, for “the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequence are imminent for him and/or his family.”

In a December 2002 memorandum, Rumsfeld rejected a “blanket approval” of that interrogation technique, but did not rule it out completely.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
So male relatives are OK? I thought men and women were equal?

Rather than idiotic sentiment about women and children, how about, oh I don't know, only the actual criminals are guilty?

As much as I normally disagree with you, this is 100% spot on. A man can be just as innocent as a woman or a child.
 

Hugo Drax

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,647
47
91
The families of suicide bombers do get special compensation. There are people who do I it because they have family members who are in need of money or medical attention.

So if you immediately target the suicide bombers family by immediate summary execution it will definitely lower the incentive for others to go and become suicide bombers.

It is brutal to do so but this is how people like a Hussein kept Iraq under control.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Any society willing to use the tools of tyranny will eventually turn those tools on itself.

It's always been that way in Russia. I don't think we really want that, do we?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Taking out the family of the terrorist is a long and very common process in the middle east. It does tend to work. Families know if they have a rogue family member and can stop it if they want. If the family knows about it and does nothing, they are almost as guilty as the terrorist.

If 'it does tend to work,' then why does the ME still have so much terrorism?
I assume you have some rogue family member yourself, some cousin that you barely know doing time, you're probably almost as guilty as he is too.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,631
7,681
136
Any society willing to use the tools of tyranny will eventually turn those tools on itself.

It's always been that way in Russia. I don't think we really want that, do we?

Morality aside, I believe yours is the strongest argument for not crossing that line. It's easier when it's killing "others".... but when push comes to shove everyone is "other" at some point. Maintaining high moral standards is useful at ensuring it's not our heads on that chopping block by association.

We might feel that collective punishment is useful in overseas theater... but it's not so fun when used at home.

Still, we've a history at failing to address terrorism. Our methods seem to make it even worse. If Russia's method is effective...
Just look at Syria. Russia moved in to fight an actual war. Many innocent people have been caught up in the fighting, have died in bombs. Yet the waging of that war is pushing back ISIS and other terrorists in Syria. Peace and stability have increased in the wake of acts that the US condemns.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,036
5,338
136
Morality aside, I believe yours is the strongest argument for not crossing that line. It's easier when it's killing "others".... but when push comes to shove everyone is "other" at some point. Maintaining high moral standards is useful at ensuring it's not our heads on that chopping block by association.

We might feel that collective punishment is useful in overseas theater... but it's not so fun when used at home.

Still, we've a history at failing to address terrorism. Our methods seem to make it even worse. If Russia's method is effective...
Just look at Syria. Russia moved in to fight an actual war. Many innocent people have been caught up in the fighting, have died in bombs. Yet the waging of that war is pushing back ISIS and other terrorists in Syria. Peace and stability have increased in the wake of acts that the US condemns.

Honest question here, do you think Russia's geographical position helps them fight these terrorists? They are battling them on what's more or less the same continent, whereas we need to travel 1000's of miles, across oceans, continents, to a relatively hostile area. We can base out of Egypt, but they're dealing with their own issues right now, and Greece, well...
That said, I don't think killing families of known terrorists is anything more than terrorism itself. We are better than that, and if we're not, we should be.
 

DrunkenSano

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2008
3,892
490
126
That is the problem with the US, they keep going into these situations half-cocked. Some people do not realize the extend you have to go through to beat these types of enemies. You basically have to wipe them out to beat them, you can't have another Vietnam where you are very selective in targeting the enemy. So if the Commander-in-Chief decides to go to war with ISIS, then he must be fully committed in wiping them out, completely. Otherwise leave it alone, let someone else take care of the problem and focus on domestic issues, which are many. Sending in stupid air strikes only costs US taxpayers more money for no gain, or even adverse results. It's like poking a hornet's nest with a stick, either you leave it alone or destroy it completely and thoroughly.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,577
4,659
136
Why cant we do this? Terrorism does not function in a vacuum! If you look at the parents and extended families of the Boston Bomber, it makes sense to go after the families. The recent terror activity also points to this in California.

The apple never falls far from the tree.

So true and logical. Some douche-bag was tailgating me this morning. I found out who he is and egged his parents' house and punched out his sister. Tomorrow, I will find his uncle and tailgate him; see how he likes it.
 

DrunkenSano

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2008
3,892
490
126
So true and logical. Some douche-bag was tailgating me this morning. I found out who he is and egged his parents' house and punched out his sister. Tomorrow, I will find his uncle and tailgate him; see how he likes it.

Except we are talking about foreign grown terrorism, not tailgaters. They are not American, they do not live with the same standards and ideology we do. While we strive for freedom and other concepts foreign to them, their goal is to make sure Islam is the only religion in the world. The extremist teaching is passed down from generation to generation, to hate the civilized west as infidels that must all die. You would be a fool to think that the extremists' their families do not know what they are doing or do not approve. They fully support their sons, fathers, husbands, brothers in their terrorist act as it is their holy duty to do so.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
Some terrorists do what they do simply because they are coerced by a clear and present threat of violence toward their families. This would counter that. "If I dont blow myself up you will kill my family, if I do, they will kill my family. No matter what, something happens to my family so I'm just not gonna do it."
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
Some terrorists do what they do simply because they are coerced by a clear and present threat of violence toward their families. This would counter that. "If I dont blow myself up you will kill my family, if I do, they will kill my family. No matter what, something happens to my family so I'm just not gonna do it."
Or find out what that threat is, and address the problem from that end. Prevention, rather than treating symptoms forever.



Soviet Approach to Kidnapping - very rare you see russians being kidnapped in the middle east since

...

By not-so-remarkable coincidence, it was also the last time Hezbollah ever messed with any Soviets in Lebanon.
They also mutilated a potentially innocent man. What if we try it and find that the removal of two testicles is no longer the asking price for prevention of terrorist acts or kidnapping? How far does it go? If it is effective abroad, could it be applied domestically as well?




For those against this, what's your opinion on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I just want to see what your stance is on one versus the other.
We have the benefit of hindsight there.
And it was a horrific thing to do, and I can only hope a terribly difficult decision to make.
I'm not a historian either, so I don't know if I can say with any certainty how else it should have or could have played out. What I understand is that we already managed to devastate Tokyo using more conventional firebombs.
I also don't know if some manner of close-up "demonstration" of the atomic bomb would have had the proper impact to forcefully coerce an end to the war. I'm also thinking now that I'm trying to find a rational explanation for something used in the course of war; I have it in my head that war is often inherently irrational though, and trying to apply reason to such things is often exceedingly difficult.

Either way, we have the unfortunate distinction of being the only nation in the world to have used this weapon on other people in warfare. I hope that that remains the case indefinitely, though I'm not entirely optimistic about that.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Morality aside, I believe yours is the strongest argument for not crossing that line. It's easier when it's killing "others".... but when push comes to shove everyone is "other" at some point. Maintaining high moral standards is useful at ensuring it's not our heads on that chopping block by association.

We might feel that collective punishment is useful in overseas theater... but it's not so fun when used at home.

Still, we've a history at failing to address terrorism. Our methods seem to make it even worse. If Russia's method is effective...
Just look at Syria. Russia moved in to fight an actual war. Many innocent people have been caught up in the fighting, have died in bombs. Yet the waging of that war is pushing back ISIS and other terrorists in Syria. Peace and stability have increased in the wake of acts that the US condemns.

We have a history of failing to realize that we create the circumstances from which terrorism arises.

We support the Saudi monarchy that pays the Wahhabis to spread radical madrassas throughout the world. We encouraged Iraq to attack Iran in the wake of the Iranian revolution. We encouraged foreign fighters like Al Qaeda to join the Mujahedin in Afghanistan, trained & supplied all of them. When the resultant govt was more radical than we wanted, we withheld promised aid. We enraged Saudi radicals by placing infidel troops on their sacred soil for GW1, imposed crushing sanctions on Iraq for a decade afterwards, then destroyed civil society in that country with an invasion, driving millions of Iraqi refugees into Syria. When Syria is thus destabilized, we send guns & bombs to rebels to further the process. We've supported the Israelis as they've taken military action against Lebanon & the Palestinians.

Maybe we're inflicting our own brand of terrorism on a lot of people.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,724
7,219
136
Not arguing the point one way or the other, but following along the line that "desperate people do desperate things", we, the citizens of the USA, can and do take the moral high ground simply because we can.

But if the role we now play, if that situation were reversed, if we as a nation were somehow reduced to fighting a guerrilla war against a foe that was militarily superior in every way, our "option" to be morally superior will be sorely tested, right up to the brink of extinction.

IMO, from that point on, we find ourselves doing whatever it takes, whatever means we may find necessary to prevent our nation, our national identity, from being wiped off the face of the earth, now wouldn't we?

This line we make that distinguishes us from them, that distinguishes a patriot from rebel, or an unconventional militia from terrorists, this line becomes indistinguishable when the tables are turned, yes?

So then, shall we say that when we have the luxury of holding the moral high ground, then by all means. But let us not fool ourselves that that moral high ground is unshakable in the face of abject defeat when we're down to that last bullet, that last stone that we can throw at the enemy, that last ball of spit that we can hack up to spray in our tormentor's face.

Just say'in.
 
Last edited:

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,577
4,659
136
Except we are talking about foreign grown terrorism, not tailgaters. They are not American, they do not live with the same standards and ideology we do. While we strive for freedom and other concepts foreign to them, their goal is to make sure Islam is the only religion in the world. The extremist teaching is passed down from generation to generation, to hate the civilized west as infidels that must all die. You would be a fool to think that the extremists' their families do not know what they are doing or do not approve. They fully support their sons, fathers, husbands, brothers in their terrorist act as it is their holy duty to do so.

No, we are talking about the FAMILIES of people who may hold those beliefs.

You'd be a fool to assume the family is to blame, or supports their behavior.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
No, we are talking about the FAMILIES of people who may hold those beliefs.

You'd be a fool to assume the family is to blame, or supports their behavior.

Can't we just take the Lindhs, the McVeighs & the Nichols clan & string them up?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |