Hamas and the Jihadist Psychopath
How a barbaric terrorist entity is charming, seducing and devouring us.
Like any psychopath, the Jihadist Psychopath seeks to destroy and conquer. While he is following his religion’s mandates, he is spiritually empty inside. He therefore needs to steal the life force of the non-Muslims he victimizes—so he can temporarily sustain himself. His strategy is ruthless and cunning. He charms, deceives, and manipulates—and when he gauges that the moment is right, he entraps his non-Muslim victims and devours them.
To demonstrate how the Jihadist Psychopath is today achieving success in his malicious quest, we will now enter and unveil his morbid world. We encourage our readers to keep the previous chapter handy and to have its key themes in mind, for as we outline the Jihadist Psychopath’s main characteristics and his strategy for conquest, it will become clear, element by element, how his agenda is a mirror image of the traditional psychopath’s world—only with a Jihadist twist.
In his quest to subjugate non-Muslims, the Jihadist Psychopath has his obvious weapon of violent jihad, but he also has an equally—if not more—powerful weapon in his arsenal: the ploy of deception. It is vital for us to launch our story by examining this tactic, for it serves as the essential foundation for the Jihadist Psychopath’s warfare.
Our study of the Jihadist Psychopath’s trickery begins with the fact that Islam is, at its very core, a religion/ideology rooted in deception. The God of Islam, who goes by the name of Allah, proudly refers to himself as the greatest deceiver several times in the Qur’an.[1] If Allah is the father of lies, it becomes understandable why Islam teaches that lying is an obligation for Muslims if it serves the benefit of Islam. Islamic authorities have even created actual religious doctrines that mandate and justify lying. One of these doctrines is known as taqiyya, a principle that allows Muslims to lie to non-Muslims for the sake of subjugating them and empowering Islam.[2] Muslims are also encouraged to break their oaths if doing so will advance the cause of Islamic supremacism.[3] The prophet of Islam, Muhammad, who is considered the ideal model to be emulated by all Muslims,[4] led by perfect example in this department, breaking numerous oaths and treaties, including those he had made with the Jewish tribes known as the Banu Qaynuqa and the Quraysh. Muhammad violated the treaty of Hudaybiyya with the Quraysh, for instance, by refusing to return a woman of the tribe, Umm-Kulthum, back to Mecca.
Allah and Muhammad both laid out examples of deception for their followers to emulate. And while they commanded Muslims to deceive non-Muslims, they also deceived fellow Muslims themselves. Indeed, the Islamic paradise that is promised to Muslims if they die while waging holy war against non-Muslims is in itself a deceptive scheme manufactured by Muhammad, in Allah’s name, for the sake of luring Muslims into jihad.[5] Islam enforces jihad as an obligatory duty for all Muslims and, not withstanding Islamic supremacists’ taqiyya about what jihad is really about,[6] it is meant to be violent. In Islamic texts, jihad is clearly defined as “war with non-Muslims to establish the religion.”[7] As a result, Muslims are tricked and forced into fighting jihad. And not only do they have to kill and die for Allah, but it is highly problematic for them to try to escape this fate, since Muhammad commanded the killing of any Muslim who leaves the religion.[8]
What we have here is a structure in which Muslims are instructed to deceive non-Muslims while they themselves are deceived. To compound the pathology of this paradigm, Muslims are also commanded to take control of non-Muslims and to shame them, while Allah controls and shames Muslims themselves in the process.[9] Indeed, Allah is constantly threatening and humiliating not only his enemies, but also his followers.[10] Islamic law, after all, has extremely rigid religious rules, which include the mandate of praying and fasting, by which everyone must abide. Muslims are accountable to one another in this context, and a perpetual atmosphere of dread and terror hovers around the obligatory following of these rules. In societies that are governed by sharia, for example, a Muslim can easily be sentenced to death if he/she is caught not fasting properly during Ramadan.[11] What we basically have in this paradigm, therefore, as writer Daniel Greenfield points out, “is a hierarchy of deception and oppression with the Muslims being, first and foremost, slaves of Allah.”[12] As a result, Muslims are under perpetual pressure to control one another, while their main duty is to wage holy war. The end result is that sharia is imposed on everyone (who isn’t murdered), and no individuality or freedom remains.[13] A small loophole is sometimes left for those non-Muslims who refuse to convert but agree to live as second-class “dhimmis,” paying taxes and abiding by very strict rules.[14]
Thus, we begin to gauge how humans’ highest purpose in Islam is to sacrifice their lives for Allah—whereas conversely, in Christianity, God sacrifices His only son, Jesus, for humans.[15] The scholarship of author Nonie Darwish on this stark contrast between Islam’s Allah and the God of the Bible powerfully illuminates the physical and mental slavery in which Islam’s followers find themselves trapped. As Darwish documents, the Islamic faith confers absolutely no intrinsic self-worth upon Muslims. That is, Muslims have no “relationship” with Allah, nor any kind of two-way conversation with him. They are not welcome to approach Allah to discuss or confess what is in their hearts and minds. They are not entitled to any freedom of conscience or to use their own powers of reason. On this one-way street, a mean, angry, and sadistic Allah simply tells Muslims what to do and what not to do. Unquestioning obedience to Allah, therefore, under penalty of death and hellfire, is the core message of Islam. In the Bible, by contrast, God is a loving father with whom an individual can have a relationship and personal conversation—and through whom he can find salvation.[16]
These facts are crucial for us to digest in our study of the Jihadist Psychopath because they explain how and why jihadists are like robots that lack any humane or civilized human qualities, including conscience. Jihad is their main mission and, as Darwish reveals, jihad “is the ultimate tool for controlling others.”[17] The whole Islamic objective, therefore, is control. Greenfield also offers a profound reflection on this phenomenon:
Islam is fundamentally about power, not an interior life. It’s a collective relationship rather than a personal one. Power validates Muslims. Since Islam is spiritually empty, the only validation is power and power is a hollow and unsatisfying validation. The truth of Islam is demonstrated through the Muslim oppression of non-Muslims.[18]
As the Jihadist Psychopath pursues his goal of conquering his victims through deceit, violence, and control, he is also constantly shaming and blaming his victims—as a means of establishing his control. The Jihadist Psychopath’s philosophy is clear: his victims are bad, and he is good. This jihadist mindset emanates directly from Allah’s and Muhammad’s teachings that all non-Muslims are sinners, while Muslims are not sinners. In Islam, even if Muslims might sin, it doesn’t matter—as long as they make up for their transgressions by waging jihad. This reality serves as the fertile soil to the jihadists’ monopoly on victimhood, which, in turn, serves as a key gateway for the Jihadist Psychopath’s conquering path. We now take a closer look at this dynamic:
In Islam, non-Muslims are seen as evil and perverted transgressors. Muhammad made this message very clear by waging war on unbelievers and relentlessly condemning Christians and Jews for rejecting Allah.[19] As Darwish notes:
Islam is the only religion that dedicates the majority of its scriptures not to its own followers but to condemning whole groups of people outside the religion as cursed, doomed, and unforgiven sinners.[20]
To be sure, Islam defines unbelievers as the very worst of people, the guilty. Muhammad, meanwhile, as noted above, is seen as the role model of exemplary behavior, and his followers are inherently innocent. Islam sees itself as perfect, and it regards Muslims as “the best of people” who are never wrong in any way when persecuting non-Muslims.[21] Moreover, unlike for Jews and Christians in the Bible, to whom confession brings forgiveness, grace, and redemption, confessing sins in Islam is not a blessing. This is because, again, Muslims are not seen as sinners in Islamic theology, and if they do sin, they are not to confess their sins, but to conceal them.[22] For those Muslims who are guilty of wrongdoing, there is only one way to be forgiven, and that is to wage war on non-Muslims in jihad.[23] And so, since most Muslims are aware, in their own private conscience, that they are, in various ways, sinners, they know what they have to do about it. Consequently, jihad is really, in the end, all about purifying oneself not only with the blood of others, but also with one’s own blood.[24] Algerian militant Ali Benhadj crystallized this central tenet of Islam, which maintains that death and blood purify the earth:
If faith, a belief, is not watered and irrigated by blood, it does not grow. It does not live. Principles are reinforced by sacrifices, suicide operations and martyrdom for Allah. Faith is propagated by counting up deaths every day, by adding up massacres and charnel-houses. It hardly matters if the person who has been sacrificed is no longer there. He has won.[25]
The reality that emerges in this pathological paradigm is that Muslims are, essentially, taught to bring about the death of the unbelievers, and of themselves, through holy war. And they are instructed to change others, not themselves. So when anything goes “wrong,” it cannot be the fault of a perfect doctrine acted upon by the best of people, it must be the fault of non-Muslims. When jihad is waged on the non-Muslims, it is their fault, because they provoked the war on themselves by being sinners and rejecting Allah.[26] The non-Muslims are always blamed, and Muslims must never take responsibility.
Islamic theology provides yet another reason for Muslims to never be held accountable for anything in relation to the non-Muslim: unbelievers’ disbelief is regarded as being worse than murder. That is, non-Muslims’ rebellion against Allah is considered to be a greater transgression than even an act of murder committed against them.[27] The very existence of non-Muslims is regarded by Islam as offensive, and as a provocation to justifiable violence.[28] Thus, Islam is, by its very nature, a victim. As ex-Muslim writer Abu Kasem has documented, Islamic theology inspires the notion that Islam itself is offended and persecuted by any un-Islamic activities carried out by unbelievers anywhere at any time. He provides numerous examples, from a female unbeliever venturing outdoors without a hijab, to unbelievers drinking alcohol or going to a stage theatre. Anyone doing anything, anywhere, that is against what Allah wants, represents an affront to Islam. Consequently, Islam views itself as the only religion to which every person on earth must submit, and the failure to submit is considered an act of defiance against Islam.[29] And while the Jihadist Psychopath convinces us that he is the real victim, he must also convince himself. As Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina explains:
Islam is the religion of permanent victimhood. Victimhood justifies revenge. If you are a Muslim, jihad is prescribed on you against those who oppress you. This oppression need not be real. It can be as imaginary as perceiving insult on your belief. Criticizing Islam is consequently perceived as oppression and therefore, Muslims feel compelled and justified to take their revenge.[30]
Throughout the entire time that jihadists are oppressing unbelievers, therefore, they believe that they are the ones who are being oppressed. And the jihadists engaged in this behavior cannot be sinning, since, again, there is no sin in Islam and no need for Muslims to ever be contrite for their actions. Thus, we find the Qur’an giving permission to the oppressed to fight against their oppressors,[31] and the Islamic justification for jihad to eliminate disbelief.[32]
At this juncture, we are able to decipher numerous psychopathic traits that surface in the world of jihad, especially this fundamental one: never having to say you’re sorry. The Jihadist Psychopath never apologizes. Unsurprisingly, Muhammad led by example in this regard as well. Indeed, when Allah’s messenger hurt innocents, he never apologized and always painted his victims as deserving of their punishment. When he committed war crimes, Islamic theology sees him as innocent. When he had six to nine hundred male Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe beheaded, they had, in the Islamic vision, asked for this fate by refusing to convert to Islam.[33]
And so, an integral element in the Jihadist Psychopath’s playbook is crystallized right before our eyes: the I am victim charade. Indeed, while pushing the notion that the victim has brought Islamic aggression upon himself, the Jihadist Psychopath perpetually paints himself as the party that is being wronged. And yes, again, Muhammad led by example here as well, since he played the victim at every stage of his war against unbelievers. In the beginning of his mission, for instance, when Muhammad and his followers were just a small-numbered group in Mecca, and their chances of conquering unbelievers were zero, Allah’s messenger posed as a persecuted and victimized minority whose message was one of peace and tolerance (i.e., Qur’an 109:1–6: “You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”), while also proclaiming a future vengeance against his non-Muslim persecutors.[34] This set a rule of thumb for all Muslims: when you are in the minority in a country or a population, be deceitful by preaching a message of tolerance and promoting your own victim status as an oppressed minority; when you eventually grow in number and become powerful, take to the sword, as Muhammad and his followers did when they grew in number and gained power.[35]
Once Muhammad had grown in strength and was capable of subjugating unbelievers, jihad entered a violent stage, and so Muhammad waged ruthless holy war, which included his ordering of political assassinations. But even when Muhammad engaged in this terror, he still positioned himself as the victim. After all, the Jewish tribes against which he perpetrated jihad still refused to convert to Islam, and such a refusal was seen by Muhammad as an act of oppression against him and his followers—and as violence against Allah.[36] This is why Islamic commentators on Muhammed’s brutality against the Jews always stress the victimhood of the Muslims and the treachery of the Jews.[37] Author Mark Durie notes how Muhammad played the victim card:
One of the themes of Mohammed’s program was an emphasis on the victimhood of Muslims. To sustain the theological position that conquest is liberation, it becomes necessary to seek grounds to find the infidel enemy guilty and deserving of attack. Also, the more extreme the punishment, the more necessary it becomes to insist upon the enemy’s guilt. Since, by divine decree Muslims’ sufferings were “worse than slaughter,” it became obligatory for Muslims to regard their victimhood as greater than whatever they inflicted upon their enemies. The greater victimhood of Muslims became a doctrinal necessity, a feature of the “compass of faith” for Muslims.[38]
As a result, even when Muhammad commanded his followers to kill various people, he was always the victim, professing that the people whom he murdered had not only wounded him personally, but also had hurt Allah. The terrible fate of poetess Asma bint Marwan was typical in this regard. When she wrote verses criticizing Muhammad’s murder of another poet, Abu ’Afak (who was one hundred years old), Muhammad cried out about the pain she was causing him, asking: “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of Muhammad’s followers, Umayr ibn Adi, immediately went to Marwan’s house the same night, where he murdered her and her baby while she was nursing the infant in her arms. Muhammad commended him: “You have helped God and his apostle, Umayr!”[39]
Now that we see how the fundamental ingredients of the psychopath’s mindset are inherent in the personas of both Allah and his messenger Muhammad, we begin to behold the foundations of the Jihadist Psychopath’s world. We now move on to outline the other key characteristics of psychopathy that are found in the Jihadist Psychopath, and to examine how they enable him to subjugate his victims:
From the realities illuminated above, it becomes clear why, with the lack of any sense of wrongdoing, the Jihadist Psychopath possesses absolutely no shame and, in turn, absolutely no conscience. He feels no guilt, remorse, affection, or compassion. He especially does not have any sense of obligation to non-Muslims, nor is he concerned about their welfare. He is, like every psychopath, oblivious to any notion of morality, empathy, or responsibility. It is important to stress here that Islam is, as scholar Mark Durie has pointed out, an actual attack on the human conscience itself, and that it ultimately blunts any feelings of shame and guilt in its practitioners regarding the violence that their texts command them to carry out.[40] This is why the Jihadist Psychopath never apologizes. In fact, we have never seen any Muslim leaders or groups apologizing to the West for anything. Not one prominent Muslim religious or political leader, for example, has ever apologized for 9/11 or for any other jihadist attack.[41]
Meanwhile, just as the psychopath is proficient in pretending that he has a conscience and that he is a saint while wreaking his havoc, so too the Jihadist Psychopath engages in this charm offensive as well. This charade transpires through the Jihadist Psychopath’s minions—the Muslim “civil rights” groups in the West who don the nice guy mask and claim that they are separate from violent Islamic terror and totalitarian sharia jihad, and that, in so doing, they represent the real Islam. Behind this veneer, of course, these Muslim pretenders wholeheartedly support what the Jihadist Psychopath is doing because he is fulfilling Islamic obligations.
The Jihadist Psychopath’s whole matrix now comes into clearer focus: he perpetrates terror and possesses malicious goals vis-à-vis non-Muslims, while his spokespeople to the West—Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA)—throw dust into the eyes of the non-Muslim public. They camouflage their religion’s violence and its true aims with the pretense of wanting to safeguard Muslims’ “civil liberties,” combat so-called Islamophobia, and rescue unbelievers themselves from their destructive and misguided un-Islamic ways.[42] In other words, these Muslim deceivers posture as though they are acting out of compassion and empathy, and, most importantly, in the unbeliever’s own interest, the same way that the psychopath pretends he is acting in his victims’ interest—and the same way that the Serpent pretended to act on Eve’s behalf.[43]
We see, therefore, how when brave truth-tellers dare to identify the theological root cause of a jihadist attack, a certain section of what Nonie Darwish has termed the Islamic Terror Orchestra screams and whines: “We are not like that!”[44] Darwish explains how this orchestra has worked out a whole cunning symphony, with each section knowing exactly what notes to play, and at what time. She outlines how it works:
…when Islamic terrorism and beheadings anger the world and turn public opinion against Islam, that orchestra starts playing a different tune to confuse and prevent the world from uncovering their coordinated handy work. While one group proudly takes credit for the terror, another publicly denounces it. But most groups, while enjoying the power and attention the terrorists have bestowed on them, stand by with a look of victimhood saying: “I am a victim too because you condemn me and my peaceful religion when I did not do anything. That is not Islam and you are an Islamophobe.”[45]
It goes without saying, of course, that there are moderate Muslim individuals who do oppose the Jihadist Psychopath and are honest about Islamic sources of terror. Author Christine Douglass-Williams has interviewed a distinguished group of these Muslim individuals in her book, The Challenge of Modernizing Islam: Reformers Speak Out and the Obstacles They Face.[46] Some of these reform-minded Muslims, such as Dr. Tawfik Hamid and Shireen Qudosi, are truly brave, do appear sincere, and deserve the West’s support. But they are, unfortunately, small in number and remain exceptions to the rule.[47]
It also goes without saying that the argument of this work is, obviously, not that all Muslims are psychopaths. They are clearly not. As we discussed in Chapter 5, “Not All Muslims Do That,” there are many good and peaceful Muslims. The key issue here is that their peacefulness says something about their freedom and dissociation from Islam. In other words, this book’s focus is on the devout Muslims who follow Islam’s violent commands with fervent dedication.[48] Nonetheless, no matter how many times this work will emphasize this point, the Jihadist Psychopath’s minions within the Unholy Alliance[49] will definitely smear this book, alleging that it somehow labels all Muslims as psychopaths—when it is doing no such thing. This type of slander is, of course, only to be expected, since it is part of the Jihadist Psychopath’s propaganda war, which includes the tactic of making false and ungrounded accusations, which we will explore in Chapter 12.[50]
It would also be important to point out here that while many “moderate” Muslim groups pay lip service to denouncing Islamic terror and terrorist organizations like ISIS, few of them ever really actually do anything concrete about it. As author Robert Spencer has noted, we have yet to see any prominent “moderate” Muslim leaders in the United States set up, in their mosques and institutions, any honest, transparent, and inspectable programs that teach adherence to the U.S. Constitution and a rejection of jihad, sharia, and Islamic supremacism.[51] The nonexistence of such programs reveals what attitude is really at hand in a large section of the Muslim community.
All of these ingredients of the Jihadist Psychopath’s mindset make it clear that the I am victim charade is at the core of his war on unbelievers. Islamic supremacists’ manipulation of the term Islamophobia, which supposedly means an “irrational” fear of Muslims, is a central feature of this ploy. They crudely exploit this term to portray themselves as victims, while they perpetrate their aggression, and it works perfectly. Indeed, anyone who carefully observes jihadist attacks will witness that right after jihadists launch a strike, the actual victims—non-Muslims—end up bending over backwards to apologize to the Muslim world. This is because once any brave voice points to a jihadist attack and identifies its Islamic inspirations, the designated section of the aforementioned Islamic Terror Orchestra screams, “We are not like that!” and “You are an Islamophobe!” Many non-Muslims immediately get petrified, recoil, and distance themselves from the truth-tellers, profusely apologizing to their Muslim accusers so that they can prevent the labels of “racism” and “hate speech” from being affixed to them. A toxic relationship of codependence ultimately forms here, as Muslim abusers and their surrendering victims form a toxic bond. As Greenfield explains: “Muslims use victimhood and violence to create a dependent relationship in which their victims are convinced that the violence inflicted on them is caused by that victimhood.”[52]
It becomes clear why, immediately after every jihadist attack, the narrative within the West’s establishment media is quick to claim that the root cause of Islamic terror—which is not called by its name—is discrimination against Muslims. We hear endless discussions about how Muslims are the real victims, and how Islamophobia has to end because it is causing the violence.[53] Muslim Brotherhood front groups help pull the strings to enable the whole process, thereby fulfilling their role as revealed in the Muslim Brotherhood document Explanatory Memorandum, which outlines the Islamic supremacist strategy to defeat the West and the U.S. by our own hands.[54]
Some Islamic supremacists are completely open about this I am victim strategy. At the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) annual conference in Baltimore, Maryland, in June 2016, Shaykh Omar Suleiman, a member of ICNA’s Shariah Council, boasted in his keynote session speech “Quran and Islamophobia”: “Alhamdulilah [Praise be to God] for Islamophobia! …Thank God for Islamophobia that causes us to grow and develop a strong Islamic identity[.]”[55] Suleiman made it clear that the real Islamic supremacist agenda is to push Islamophobia in order to empower Islamic identity, ideology, and, therefore, power. It is important to keep in mind here that Suleiman is one of ICNA’s leaders, that the conference at which he spoke was the largest annual Muslim gathering in the U.S., and that his comments were tweeted out to over 56,000 followers.[56]
This dark feature of Islamophobia is, essentially, the Jihadist Psychopath’s central propaganda ploy for silencing those who would tell the truth about him.[57] The whole Islamophobia charade has succeeded to such an extent that now a campaign in the UN, led by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), is making headway in its quest to criminalize any truth-telling about Islam through UN Resolution 16/18.[58] Author Stephen Coughlin has documented how Islamic supremacists exploit Islamophobia in the context of the OIC. That organization, he writes:
has taken control of the term’s usage and retains control of its application for use in hostile information campaigns. The term Islamophobia has become, in effect, a brand that is managed by the OIC.”[59]
Islamophobia, therefore, is the principal vehicle through which the Jihadist Psychopath exploits his victim status to gain power, and it enables his aggression toward unbelievers. As Coughlin notes,
When we see the word Islamophobia we should instantly be aware that it represents an OIC campaign package that seeks its implantation internationally as well as in America, with support from the Brotherhood through front groups that, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, “adopt Muslims’ causes domestically and globally…and support the global Islamic State wherever it is.”[60]
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the ex-prime minister of Malaysia (known as a “moderate Muslim”), crystallized this whole jihadist victimhood game perfectly when, in the tenth summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in 2003, he stated: “We are all Muslims; we are all oppressed; we are all being humiliated.” Therefore, the solution to this problem, he stated, was for Muslims to acquire “guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships” with which to wage war on non-Muslims.[61] Ali Sina offers keen insight into the psychological dynamic involved here:
Muslims must feel victimized. The doctrine of victimhood is essential to the survival of Islam. It is the glue that binds the ummah, the entire Muslim world into one nation. Without it they will tear each other apart. With it they direct their enmity at others. As a result, peace with Muslims is impossible because the doctrine of victimhood is fundamental to their faith.[62]
Thus, after every jihadist attack today, we see how the Jihadist Psychopath’s team takes pains to stress that Muslims are the true victims. And Western leaders and media desperately embrace this deceit—hook, line, and sinker. The examples are endless: after the Orlando terror attack of June 12, 2016, Time magazine made sure to portray the jihadist perpetrator, Omar Mateen, as the victim, because he allegedly had been bullied by his coworkers.[63] Time failed to explain why no other human being in America who had been bullied didn’t go on to perpetrate the worst terrorist attack in America since 9/11. Then, a month later, after the Nice terror attack in France in mid-July 2016, the BBC reported that Muslims were the “real victims” of that attack as well. This was because the BBC had learned that local Muslims were claiming to have perceived a great deal of Islamophobia among non-Muslims after the attack. One Muslim reported the horror: “People who yesterday would embrace me warmly are now cold towards me.”[64]
And so, it becomes transparently evident that the Jihadist Psychopath is a carbon copy of the traditional psychopath—only with an added ideological component. And it likewise becomes crystal clear how Islamic supremacism’s leaders and warriors are psychopaths themselves, while their non-Muslim victims surrender to them in exactly the same manner as the victims of the textbook psychopath surrender to him.
Now that we have deciphered how the Jihadist Psychopath is the mirror image of the textbook psychopath—especially with regard to how he attempts to wield a monopoly on victimhood—it is essential that we examine further this jihadist victimhood charade, since it is at the epicenter of our enemy’s war against us. We therefore now move forward to study several specific cases of how the Jihadist Psychopath has successfully exploited the victim card to carry out his con game and lead us into his deadly trap.
No comments:
Post a Comment