Talk:Suicide attack

• Old talk on homicide bombing is at talk:homicide bombing
• Talk:Suicide bombing/Temp - edit conflict version moved out of main namespace
• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

Non-Mulsim suicide attackers

..What about non-muslim suicide attacks (Columbine, recent mall & church shootings, etc.)? 71.84.249.178 (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Brian

see post at bottom --BoogaLouie (talk)

Reads Like

...a freshman college essay. Full of opiions, original research and steering of facts and conclusions. Hardly encylcopedic. Did I mention tons of rhetorical statements and questions?

Yep, you're right. It's like it was written by a toddler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.56.241.32 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi. Please sign your posts on talk pages. Also, please be bold in making edits. I'm going to take out some editorializing fluff in the intro in just a moment. Also, can somebody point me to the archived peer review? Something seems to be wrong with that template, since the link is a blank page. Tarheelcoxn 10:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

IRA Suicide Bombings

When did the IRA ever force persons to become suicide bombers? i'd like to see a citation to a formal source.

PIRA did first use what were referred to as 'proxy' or 'human' bombs in October 1990. They were used on several occasions thereafter.

Wednesday 24 October 1990 'Proxy Bomb' Attacks

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) launched three bomb attacks at British Army check points. The attacks became know as 'proxy bombs' or 'human bombs' because three Catholic men, whom the IRA claimed had worked for the security forces, were tied into cars which had been loaded with explosives and ordered to drive to the check points. At the Coshquin checkpoint near Derry five soldiers and the man who was forced to drive the car were all killed. In a second attack, at Killeen near Newry, a soldier was killed. The third bomb, that had been driven to Omagh, County Tyrone, failed to detonate. [1][2]

Trailfinder 09:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a defination of a suicide bomber though. Suicide would imply the bomber who triggers the device is doing so of thier own free will. Hobbes 30/12/05

I agree. The reference in the article states "involuntary suicide bomb", which means nothing. That is like a person being stabbed to death having commited "involuntary suicide". I will remove this. If someone has a good explanation for what "involuntary suicide" is, then post it here. Guardian sickness 22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is nothing like "being stabbed to death having committed "involuntary suicide"". Proxy bombing relies on a person being willing to blow themselves up under the duress. A better comparison would be a person who chooses to throw themselves out of a window rather than face another round of torture. There should be a section on proxy bombing in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Philip.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Suicide mission

I've created Suicide mission as a redirect to this page. However, I'm not sure this is 100% correct. Another use of the term refers to any mission (including those that aren't trying to kill anyone) which involves a high-likelyhood of getting oneself killed e.g. A 17-member Army Reserve platoon...deployed to Iraq is under arrest for refusing a "suicide mission" to deliver fuel... [3]. Ewlyahoocom 17:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• This redirection is imho incorrect. A suicide mission can as easily be, for example, a tactical commando action to disrupt enemy logistics, very distinct from an act of terrorism intent on taking lives. Even the term "attack" feels much broader than the phenomena described in the article body, and therefore seems inappropriate. 81.182.216.195 13:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Genocide Bombing"

I see no need for this silly propaganda term to be even mentioned. But in any case, I've revised the section to be more skeptical. Whatever the rhetorical claims of groups like Hamas, the occasional murder of a dozen people is less of a threat to the existence of the Jewish people than road accidents or choking on food. In any case "wipe Israel off the map" does not inherently proclaim genocidal intent; Palestine is not currently "on the map" because it has been conquered by Israel but that doesn't mean Israel is committing genocide. Eleland 19:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ours is not to judge the silly terms people use, ours is just to report on their usage. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide bombing came down pretty clearly on the merge side of the issue, though I did trim the text down a bit when I did the merging. Bryan 23:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Its the very propaganda nature of the terms Genocide bombing and Homacide bombing that make them notable.Hypnosadist 13:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas73 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Nicholas73 This term was not coined in 2002, to my knowledge it was used by Germans to describe the practise of area bombing during WWII. I have defintely known of this term from history books for at least a decade.

Need admin help to remove vandalism

Hello, I found the following text in section 9 and it does not appear in the "edit page" section so I cannot delete it myself. It is very offensive, please see that it is deleted. Thank you!

The muslims are raising disgusting animals and they should all be caged. The well known saying, "Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim," is very true. Do we have to kill all muslims to take care of this problem? The answer is, yes. This problem has caused us to kill the muslim race so we can take care of this issue.

Looks like it was already removed by the time you posted this comment here on talk, perhaps explaining why you couldn't find it in the source text when you tried editing it. Perhaps you were seeing a leftover cached page when viewing the page without logging in. Anyway, it's gone. Bryan Derksen 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Suicide attacks in former Spanish colonies.

Suicide attacks happened (without the use of explosives) long before WW2. During Spain's 400 year occupation of the Philippines, the Muslim Moros of Sulu frequently went amok in markets and penetrated military establishments attacking anyone around them, with machetes strapped to their arms. They would ceremoniously pray, wash and dress themselves prior to the attack. It seems that suicide in the name of God is an old and not uncommon tactic used by Muslims during periods of infidel occupation. 219.88.63.35 05:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

USMC aviators at Midway

I understand that the Japanese were inspired to use Kamikaze aircraft attacks from the defense of Midway Island by USMC aviators. On 4 June 1942 USMC Squadron VMF-221 flying a mix of andequated Brewster F2A-3s, augmented by a few more modern F4F-3s (about 26 operational airplanes) defended against much larger numbers of Japanese aircraft, including 36 Zero fighters. Over the course of the battle 42 members of Marine Air Group 22 lost their lives. On 5 June 1942, Captain Richard Fleming, a dive-bomber pilot with VMSB-241, flew an obsolete Vindicator into the IJN cruiser Mikuma's aft turret. He was postmostly awarded the Medal of Honor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rus72 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

"Self Martyrdom"

Suicide attacks are "Self Martyrdom" and symptomatic of gross religious vanity. Whether in peace or war this fringe of spiritual vanity plagues people of all faiths. It is soulish blackmail ie an unspiritual act performed inorder to draw attention to any person or group whose main grievance is the total lack of interests shown in them otherwise. Children throw tantrums and "Self Martyrs" throw violent tantrums or sulk profusely. It is this spirit of doom, this soulish sulking that cuts off "Self martyrs" from society at large and drives them into isolation and further loneliness where their own self delusions can fester and be manipulated by fanatics. It's promotion is usually found in those whose views are self centered and whose beliefs are unfounded and lacking in any demonstration or proof of teaching, such as those who profess peace but kill anyone their way and/or those whose teachings are unfounded and whose relationship with higher powers can never be demonstrated to others. AP

Kamikaze attacks and "terrorism"

Why are kamikaze attacks, which took place as an official tactic of the Imperial Japanese government in the context of a legal state of war against exclusively military targets of the enemy, included in the "terrorism" series at wikipedia? Isn't "terrorism" defined as acts of violence against non-military targets by non-state entities? Someone should make some changes.

Mammals are mortal; fish are also mortal; ninjas are mammals, but they're not fish. Likewise: WWII kamikaze attacks were suicide attacks, terrorists use suicide attacks, but WWII kamikaze attacks were not terrorism. What changes would you make? Note that kamikaze is a separate detailed article, and the series box does not appear there. —Charles P._(Mirv) 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all suicide attacks are terrorist (e.g. kamakazes), but today most are, hense the inclusion of this article in the terrorism category. --BoogaLouie 15:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

History: what about the Hashishins?

I see that one of the first instances of Islamic suicide attacks is not mentioned.

Cleanup

I'm going to try and do a major cleanup of this article --BoogaLouie 15:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Shut the hell up booger loo. or whatever yuor name is you suck and are too critical Suicide bombers are stupid and ackmed the dead terrorist is the only muslim I trust —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.172.242.122 (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychology statement

I reverted the sentence Alternatively, Evolutionary Psychology points out that most suicide bombers are single in a polygynous society, making the prospect of 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven most appealing. I can see where the article is coming from, but that's an amateurish attempt to analyze suicide bombers. The biggest problem is that this explanation doesn't work for most cases of suicide bombings. Sri Lanka is a monogamous and non-Islamic culture, yet the LTTE have carried out more terrorist attacks than any single Islamic militant group. Chechnya is Muslim but monogamous, and in both conflicts women are taking part too. So I don't see that the promise of virgins goes very far towards explaining anything. Dchall1 08:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

sri lanka, chechnya counters other opinions...but who'z got a reliable source as to an acutal count of the demographic of suicide bombers. that should settle any argument. A Hard count will do more for this debate

07/18/2007

Dependence on media coverage

The article might possibly describe the fact that the success of suicide bombing depends on its coverage by news media. If there were no coverage, there would be little motive for suicide bombing, as it has relatively small effect in a war. Therefore, it works best against Western powers who always report all incidents to their public by means of television, radio, internet, etc. Its optimum use is against a power that has a two–party system. This is because the continual coverage of suicide bombing would tend to weaken the party in power which is conducting the war.Lestrade 16:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Excepting the 9/11 attacks, the most heavily suicide-bombed countries are Sri Lanka and Iraq (that's still true when you exclude suicide attacks on foreign forces). Eleland 19:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue with the Rationale subsection

In the section concerning the rationale of a bomber, the two notions that suicide bombers are motivated by religion and that suicide attacks are motivated by foreign occupation are written as though the two are mutually exclusive. But in fact, it makes perfect sense that both are true. Foreign occupation provides the enemy, while religion provides the ease of making a personal decision to sacrifice one's own life for the cause.

Ideally, the section should discuss them both in a manner that does not imply that only one of them can be true. Mbarbier 16:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusing definition

• A suicide attack is an attack on a military or civilian target, in which an attacker intends to kill others and knows he or she will most likely die.

This is inconsistent in my mind with the normal definition of suicide, which is intentionally killing oneself. The current definition could class, say, a desperate breakout attempt by a cut-off unit as a "suicide attack", which is bizzare. I suggest:

• A suicide attack is an attack on a military or civilian target, in which the attacker intends to die in the process of killing others.

Of course ultimately we need to know what reliable sources define "suicide attack" as, which we don't seem to right now. But the intent to die is required for suicide, so it should logically be required for suicide attacks, no? Eleland 19:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I wonder how many attackers are more interested in dying than killing? I mean, if they had to choose between their suicide failing and not being able to kill any of their targets, wouldn't they choose the suicide failing? --BoogaLouie 22:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

non-suicide bombings

what if a bombing is called a suicide bombing and actually was not. how does this change the picture of martyrdom?

the following was taken from US central command website sometime around feb 2007

Driverless, Remote-Controlled Car Bombs 'Guaranteed To Prolong Resistance'

Terrorism: Islam Memo Describes New Remote Control Vehicles Used by Iraqi Resistance

On 1 February, a website posted a description of what it called "the Mujahidin's new technology" as quoted by "an unidentified police source." The posting was about "the new remote-controlled vehicles directed at US and Iraqi forces without suicide drivers, which were tried first in Al-Durah then in Al-Taji districts last week."

The following is a translation of the posting:

"The Iraqi resistance has introduced a new technology in its fight against the American Army and Safawis [Shiites], described by experts as a method guaranteed to prolong the resistance for years to come.

An Islam Memo correspondent in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, quoted a source in the Iraqi police, which is loyal to the occupation, confirming the information that "the terrorists" have introduced, through their military operations, a new technology of planting explosives in vehicles and exploding them on the American and Iraqi forces. The source, who refused to identify himself, added that the new method has already been implemented, a few days ago, when they controlled vehicles without drivers, for 40 to 50 meters [ 131 to 164 feet], directing them toward a targeted convoy or gathering, without a driver.

The source said that the American forces discovered this technology in two incidents, first in Al-Durah, then in Al-Taji, where they were surprised to see a speeding vehicle that came out of an alley, or the beginning of a road, speeding toward the target without a driver, exploding and causing massive destruction.

Regarding this technology, our correspondent met with professor of "Micatronics" in Baghdad University, engineer "Rafid al-Qaysi", who said that the possibility of possessing this technology requires a specialized engineer who is an expert in remote control equipments and vehicle speeds. Al-Qaysi thought that the resistance is able to acquire such technology, especially with the increasing daily support of Iraqis to the resistance. "Al-Qaysi" added that this technology will not be limited to one [resistance] group without the other, but rather all groups are bound to benefit from it, particularly those groups without suicide brigades such as Al-Qa'ida Organization."

Bias in Introduction

"The motivation of recent attack campaigns is a matter of much controversy, with one scholar (Robert Pape), attributing 95% of attacks in recent times to the same strategic goal: the withdrawal of the occupying forces from a disputed territory. "

Having this individual's academic speculation in the intro is POV, though it would be fine in other areas of the article. This is because factually most suicide attacks in Iraq (which is obviously what Robert Pape is talking about) are targeting other Iraqis, not the U.S. military (occupiers that Pape is talking about).

The above quote is written so that it illustrates a generalized viewpoint and presents it as fact. This viewpoint is that the huge number of suicide bombings targeting feuding religious groups, ethnic groups, civilians, and sects in Iraq's civil war have only one purpose: to force the occupiers (U.S.) to leave the country. In other words, despite all of the asymmetric warfare, 95% of the suicide attacks in Iraq are part of a symmetric effort against the U.S. because the U.S. is still occupying Iraq. This kind of statement is very biased, and very low for Wikipedia standards, this stuff belongs in Criticisms and Controversies and Speculation sections of articles. Why? Because it is has almost no directly correlative logic, which is needed if some sort of conclusion is to be drawn up in any Wikipedia article's introduction. This is made especially apparent by the percentage statistic (95%) that seems to be pulled out of a hat.

That it was not. Pape did a big huge project hiring native readers to go through local newspapers in Lebanon, Sri Lanka, etc. to figure out who the "martyrs" were, what they had to say, etc. --BoogaLouie 21:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not go ahead and say that only the remaining 5% of the fighting is civil war, only 5% of violence in Iraq is Sunni versus Shiite versus Kurd? At Robert Pape's rate, the Iraqi civil war wouldn't qualify as a civil war, far from it. Rather it would qualify as a nearly unified Iraqi defense against U.S. occupiers.

The U.S. military is mainly attacked by IEDs, gunmen, and occasionally suicide bombers. But just pasting a random percentage and quote that a single outside person mentioned is not what you put in the introduction of any article. --Exander 04:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Papes 95% come from attacks from 1980 to early 2004. We could add that or change 95% to majority. --BoogaLouie 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to The motivation of recent attack campaigns is a matter of much controversy, with one scholar (Robert Pape), attributing over 90% of attacks prior to the Iraq Civil War to the same strategic goal: the withdrawal of the occupying forces from a disputed territory. --BoogaLouie 21:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Major changes

I did some major editting to get rid of the overview section and try to eliminate a lot of repitition. --BoogaLouie 22:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The page was very fragmented in focus; designed by committee and assembled in the dark. Much needed improvement. Binksternet 03:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-Mulsim suicide attackers

..What about non-muslim suicide attacks (Columbine, recent mall & church shootings, etc.)? 71.84.249.178 (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Brian

What about non-political suicide attacks?

In response to the question by "Brian" (reposted from the top), I propose the article have this at the beginning:

This article is about killing of civilians for political and/or military reasons.

For criminal, personal non-political killings of civilians, see Mass murder or List of massacres

Anyone object? ---BoogaLouie (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I object. Suicide can kill non-civilians as well. Suicide as an act of war (kamikaze etc.) targets troops or equipment or supply lines and sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. new label:

This article is about suicide attacks for political and/or military reasons.

For criminal, personal, and/or non-political killings ending in suicide, see Mass murder or List of massacres

Now, any other objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Added the note 12-18-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Martyrdom operation

I want to move some part of Alleged Islamic motivation to Martyrdom operation.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hindu Suicide Squads

Can someone please explain to me what is going on here? Also, even if corroborated, per undue weight, some isolated planning cannot be given an exposition of a similar length to forms which entail massive and actual examples. Thx in advance. El_C 10:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't looked into it. I'm acting as a bot reverting edits made by User:Hkelkar. If you don't think its valid for the above reasons, its fine by me. (I'll look into it later. Relata refero (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Had a quick look. Thackeray is a very major figure, by far the most powerful person in India's largest city. These particular comments seem to have got a good deal of play at the time, especially as he made them during his speech for the festival of Dussehra. Couple of follow-ups in RSes, including one a few months ago.

That being said, the current section is far too long, and has too many quotes. Needs drastic trimming. Relata refero (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A passing mention sounds fine to me, and correctly attributed to the eccentric Bal Thackeray rather than "Hindu suicide squad", such a thing has happened by Nair Chaver warriors though this was an honor system and military tactic unique to Nairs and independent of Hinduism.Nambo (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesdale10/2287741949/

That is an interesting picture which _might_ fit well here. In any case, it seems like it would be a worthwhile picture to have on the Commons if not elsehwere. gren グレン 11:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Boomshanka (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Usage of "Suicide Bombing" and related terms

"Human-sacrifice" attack? After all, in religion, victim once meant an animal sacrifice or human sacrifice, sacrificed to a god. That of course begs the question, which god? Pawyilee (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, what about Zombie, a la World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max Brooks? Pawyilee (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Some have cited Samson's destruction of a temple

"Some have cited Samson's destruction of a Philistine temple (as recounted in the Book of Judges) as an ancient example of mass murder-suicide.[1] But it cannot qualify as such because Samson was directly dependent on God for the use of his enormous strength, as his temporary loss of it a short time earlier shows.)"

I intend to remove the second sentence above, as synthetic and to change "some" to "Boris Johnson" -- or to remove both sentences in their entirety. Comments? User:Pedant (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the 2nd sentence doesn't fit - while i'd be fine with deleting both i think changing the name is reasonable. Boomshanka (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I took it out of the lead and put it in history. It doesn't belong in the lead even if it belonged in the story at all, which it may not. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

suicide attacks were against the World Trade Center

"The most infamous suicide attacks were against the World Trade Center"

Is there a reference that states that these were attacks upon the World Trade Center ? Because the 'other article' frames them as attacks upon the United States. What is the right choice, what reference says what? User:Pedant (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda

The passage stating Al Qaeda as being a Palestinian organisation is flat out wrong. Osama bin Laden did cite the continuing occupation of Palestine as a reason for the fatwa against America, there is also a number of Palestinians that have been linked to Al Qaeda. However, Al Qaeda is committed to the establishment of a Universal Caliphate, making it fundamentally opposite to the notion of a Palestinian state. Seeing as it is controversial to label Al Qaeda as a 'Islamist' or 'Jihadist' organisation I will delete Al Qaeda from the passage. Any problems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.49.138 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Scholars on Martyrdom

I want to remove the part of Islamic scholars speaking on Martyrdom in the context of suicide bombings. This is because according to Sunni scholars, martyrdom is a great cause in the sight of God, but 'suicide bombings' do not qualify by most as 'martyrdom'. However, the text gives the impression as if there's no difference between martydom and suicide bombing. In fact, in the context in which it appears, it seems to suggest that "suicide bombing is rejected by some, but others accepted martyrdom (i.e. suicide bombings) and here're some quotes." Omer (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this if it hasn't been done. In short words, martyrdom is dying for a religious cause, - including being killed in the battlefield - and suicide bombing only applies to, well, suicide bombing. --Hamster X 12:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Refocusing this article on suicide terrorism

This article is being defined too broadly. The vast majority of the material concerns suicide terrorism. There are scattered reference to the Kamikaze, but the bulk of the text refers to Islamic terrorism and/or suicide bombings in the modern world.

The Kamikaze and a number of minor historical examples should not be allowed to dilute the focus of the page, especially as this page recieves redirects from searches on 'suicide bombing' and 'suicide terrorism'. This is the wikipedia page for suicide terrorism in all but name.

There is a very well constructed and referenced page on the Kamikaze. Suicide terrorism and the Kamikaze have different roots and different social and historical influences. They deserve seperate pages, and forcing them together in this page is mixing categories.

I am going to start to change the focus of the article to suicide terrorism. This is a major change, but it reflects the actual content in the article. Suicide terrorism covers all of the types listed on the article page except the Kamikaze, which I have boxed into its own section on the page.

Sjw-2006 (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't do it. If you want that kind of focus, make a new page entitled Suicide terrorism, but if you start taking out descriptions and analysis of suicide attacks that you don't think are terrorism, you make a lie of the title of this article. This article is not solely about terrorism, it's about the general subject. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The bulk of the content should stay, but the Kamikaze stuff should be boxed off. It is an outlier that is skewing the page, the exception in pages of other similar examples. When that happens, then it is logical to make the outlier a different category. The dedicated Kamikaze page is more rigorous, academic and better referenced than the small amount of material on it on this page.

Suicide attack as a title is also problematic- it is not usually a category independent of terrorism. One of the changes I added was a para on the complexities of defining and working with the term terrorism. 90% + of the content is about suicide terrorism, and calling it 'suicide attack' does not change that. 86.161.123.99 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, don't make a lie of this article's title. If you want to have an article that focuses on the terrorism aspect, bring the information that is here to the Suicide terrorism page, currently a redirect. This page here could serve as a quick information page which points the reader to lengthier and more detailed articles about Kamikaze and terrorist uses of suicide attack. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian suicide dogs

Do the russian suicide dogs from ww2 count in this ? The soviet forces tied an anti-tank mines to a small dogs and trained them to run under a tanks to look for a food.But as they ran under a tanks the stick connected to a bomb detonated thus killing a dog with the tank.This tactics was a failure because many dogs ran under a soviet tanks instead of german ones.Partly because they were trained on russian tank models and so the dogs found them to be more familiar than the german ones.

7.may 2009 13:25