Talk:2008 Abu Kamal raid

Approach

Is it just me, or does the structure, the approach, of this article seem somehow backwards? It offers vague and limited information about the purpose and target of the raid, and that only in the second paragraph, offering nothing at all about the target or purpose in the opening sentences. LordAmeth (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

An anon user added the following: It is generally accepted that the US Forces, came, saw, and cleaned up. I think this should be deleted, as it is unhelpful and uncited. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to list all participants involved in the box off to the side? While I am certain that there will be a fact check later, the US is currently claiming that they were looking for an insurgent support network, and I am certain that they would claim not to be the "instigators" as listed. I'm just trying to find a way to express this with an appropriately NPOV. Aderksen (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Syrian news???

Is a Syrian news network really verifiable enough to source for an encyclopedia article? The soldiers wouldn't have just killed civilians for no reason, anyone who believes they would is in need of a good ass whuping58.107.179.146 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See Haditha killings and My Lai Massacre. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, where's the fox news article when you need it? HUR DUR ASS WHOOPIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.3.243 (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to represent their viewpoints too. The reader is supposed to draw the conclusion; we don't draw it for them. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Though it would be nice to find out how the civilians were killed. Wrong place at the wrong time? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It is still unfolding. But according to the Syrian govmt, the only people who were killed are civilians. Intelligence mistake?! hmmm. Yazan (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How likely is the Syrian gov't to admit that the dead were insurgents-to-be ready to cross the border into Iraq? Not likely! A²Kafir (and...?) 23:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)\

How likely is the US military to admit that they weren't? And four of the dead are children, two were a married couple.76.27.212.74 (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

An eye witness report over at Joshual Landis' blog [1] -- Yazan (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why regardless of what we personally think, all casualty counts should have their ref mentioned in the text as well. Joshdboz (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Syrian news is a usable source as long as we say "Syrian news service says". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, state Syrian news is a source worth of citing. An usual way would be to write "As reported ...", "As stated by Syrian news channel ..." ellol (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also i do not believe the Syrian news source claims they were killed deliberately, modern assult rifle rounds go a long way and through a lot of walls before stopping. They could just as easily died from a round from an AK-47. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rifle rounds can indeed travel far and go through walls, but to me that would only explain one or two civilian casualties involving families. A better question is, why would four children, their father, and another married couple be near a construction site? If they were standing on the side watching the construction crew (which sounds reasonable), why would they stay after military helicopters came into view?

I suspect that Syrian news might have embellished the details. Government-controlled news agencies everywhere do that almost as a matter of routine. Especially when that government is openly hostile to one of the parties in the incident. I hope more verifiable facts can come to light that don't originate with the Syrian or American governments. Bouncey (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No idea on most of that as i was not thier or member of the Syrian press. One point is that on the BBC report i watched half an hour ago they had Syrian state TV showing an injured women who got shot according to her as she ran into open ground durring the firefight to rescue her child. She also stated that the airbourne helicopters fired at the ground. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Map

Considering there's a lack of photos, does anyone think it would be fine to simply put in a Syrian map with Abu Kamal marked on it for the time being? Joshdboz (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

CIA factbook map, anyone? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There's one right on the Abu Kamal page but I don't know how to put the map point on the generic Syria image. Joshdboz (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, but its layout is kinda messy. Travisl (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Time of attack

According to the info box, the time was 13:45, but the article says 16:45. Which is right? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

From the BBC [2], 1645 local time and 1345 GMT. Joshdboz (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the info box Eiad77 (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

neutrality

The article quotes official Syrian versions of the event. The U.S. government position should also be stated. If they don't exists then it should be so stated. Wikipedia cannot be the mouthpiece of Syria nor the United States. Spevw (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. —Cesar Tort 19:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU, I only had to have my edits reverted like five times before anyone else said this. It doesn't matter what your POV is, rules are rules. 69.112.66.134 (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"unauthorized raid"  ??

Presumably this wording in the article means "unauthorized by Syria".

But if that's what it means, the word "unauthorized" seems unnecessary. Clearly Syria does not authorize raids on Syria.

CBHA (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Syria could choose to authorise america to attack insurgents in Syria, they are just stating that this did not happen and the USA violated Syrias airspace. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, unauthorized makes it clear that Syria did not consent. Eiad77 (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

October Surprise

Is this really an appropriate link at the bottom of the page?I deleted it pending some discussion in the main body of the article that comments on the media's analysis of the motives attack including influencing the November U.S. elections. TheHammer24 (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I was just about to remove when I see that you already did so. Coemgenus 03:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not yet but i'm sure a source will turn up saying just that. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So, did John McCain just win the election? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not unless Syria declares War on the USA for this act of aggression on its teritory. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Types of helicopters

Does anyone know what types of helicopters were involved? Most likely UH-60 Black Hawks which were used in similar operations. --Mozyr (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some expert will identify them from the video, otherwise we'll just have to wait and see if new info comes out. Joshdboz (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibily MH-60s or MH-47s from the 160th SOAR. Planenut (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Al-Jazeerah just showed mobile phone footage of the actual raid (supposedly), from Syria: they were four Black Hawks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.10.108 (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerned about undue weight

I am concerned that this article, as it develops, is starting to give too much space for the official American view on what the raid was about. Nothing that I would change in it yet, but I am concerned because this subject resembles a lot the Operation Orchard, and on that article undue weight for the American/Isreali opinion was, I think, evident.

The problem is, that the Syrian point of view is stated only once, in one paragraph, where as the American view is iterated multiple times. Right now 4 of the 5 paragraphs in this article describe the American view, where as only 1 paragraph is about the Syrian view. I suspect, that as the US releases more information (probably from multiple sources, such as the Army, CIA, officials, etc.) that ratio will start to resemble more like 10 to 1. The problem for us editors is, of course, that there isn't that much to say about the Syrian view, as they have said (and probably will say) much less than the Americans, who will release a lot of information in different variations and from multiple officials. I hope that people will keep this problem in mind when editing the article. Offliner (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Although I understand that the need for an article of this scale, it's far to early for something like this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "Something happened 4 hours ago and needs to be on Wikipedia right now!" Right now, the article is about 6 paragraphs long, and each reads just like a news report from CNN. This article needs restructured and rewritten, not just more information dumped into it when a new source is found. IMHO, this article in it's current state is NOT worthy of being mentioned on the front page. Mjf3719 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely the article can be improved. But "In the News" is supposed to be current events, and and a military operation by a superpower that violates sovereign territory is kind of a big deal. Joshdboz (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am satisfied now that the article has a {Current war|date=October 2008} tag. I know the raid is over, but there is far more to warfare than just helicopters, bullets, and pain. Reports on this incident are still subject to the fog of war. Mjf3719 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• The summary on the news section of the main page says "United States Special Forces carry out a raid on a foreign fighter logistics network", as if it was a fact, it should be made clear that it is only claimed that it was a "foreign fighter logistics network". FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a little more balance to the summary section -- Yazan (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't been changed on the main Wikipedia page yet, still says: "United States Special Forces carry out a raid on a foreign fighter logistics network near Abu Kamal, Syria, killing eight. " FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not completely on topic, but I added a quote where Iraq denounces the attack because the article indicated that they supported it, when in fact they did/do not. Eiad77 (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image(s)

Can someone with a grip on uploading images correctly decide whether the picture of troops involved in the raid in this LA Time's blog posting can be used in the article? Not terribly informative, but it is something. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Syria News has obtained photos of the victims, and the site. Very violent and nasty photos in there though, not for the faint hearted. -- Yazan (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The images aren't free, and they aren't really significant for understanding the article, so they'll probably be deleted if we upload them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the LA photo is just a stock image. Joshdboz (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Death count

Were the 8 civilians killed the targets? The infobox lists the death count at 8, and the article refers to the eight as civilians. It also describes the killed Abu Ghadiyain as an Al Qaeda senior coordinator. I understand that Al Qaeda members are technically civilians, but I usually see them distinguished, or at least labeled, as combatants. Louis Waweru  Talk  20:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any consensus. I've seen 8 mentioned, 7 elsewhere, and none mentioning possible al-Qaeda deaths. As for al-Qaeda, this article even suggests that there were multiple kills besides the main leader. Joshdboz (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see...I just wanted to avoid having this part of the article being interpreted differently by different readers. But looks like the article has developed some more and will continue to. So, I guess the current warfare template serves as a type of disclaimer to any ambiguity. Louis Waweru  Talk  01:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to consider any of the accounts of death tolls to be credible. Syrian news has every reason to embellish and fabricate information concerning the event, especially if it really was a government sponsored insurgent ring. There's no particular reason to accept the US version of events as particularly credible either except that their story at least makes logical sense. The Syrian reports on the matter only seem to make sense from the 'Americans are all insane and eat babies' point of view. When credible third parties have something to say about what really happened, we might actually start hearing some truth. 24.23.207.45 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What I was getting at was whether or not the Al-Qaeda operative was counted as a civilian. My concern was the solid number in the infobox which matched the number of civilians, and then mentioning Ghadiyain. I see now that the infobox source says civilians were among the eight dead. And any other reference to "eight dead" is preceeded with something like "The Syrian goverment says..." So whether or not Ghadiyain was counted as a civilian wouldn't change what the article is, or isn't, saying. Louis Waweru  Talk  01:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral?

Opening paragraph:

The Syrian government, however, maintains that it was an unprovoked "criminal and terrorist aggression" on its sovereignty that left eight civilians dead.

Maintains? Sounds like that's biased against them to be honest. The phrasing of some sentences ought to be carefully examined. --➨Candlewicke  ^{:) Sign/Talk} 00:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem yet. The other options are asserts, argues, states all imply lack of verifiable truth. Until it is undisputed, maintains is an appropriate word 71.182.144.115 (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC) TheHammer24 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

nice article:

[3] Grey Fox (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting look at the legal defence for this action. This should be added with links to the other cases mentioned in the article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You should also mention that this press report is based on anonymous leaks to IHT and the US administration refuses to say anything. Now, why would that be, if they actually did what the article claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.10.108 (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The US government often doesn't discuss some special forces operations for long periods of time. As such, it doesn't bear mentioning in the article. Oh, and do me a favor- talk about how to improve the article, not your own opinions.70.131.211.219 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not my opinion that the US refuses to even confirm in principle that something happened. Given the international furore that emerged, it is a legitmate question why the Pentagon refuses to comment. The "special forces" argument just doesn't wash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.104.53 (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It does wash if you know anything about how the government talks about special forces missions. So yes, it does wash. And like i said, THIS IS NOT A FUCKING FORUM. DISCUSS SOURCES TO BE USED TO IMPROVE THE ARTICLE. If you can find a reliable and noteworthy source, then by all means include it.

Ahum

"Russia condemned the attack,[25] and refused "the use of force against independent sovereign states under the disguise of combating terrorism".

[4] this, as well as the raids in the pankisi gorge in georgia completely contradicts Russia's stance on cross-border raids. Should we include that info? Grey Fox (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this article is about the US' cross border raid to Syria, not about Russia's stance on foreign affairs or its contradictory statements. --Hamster X 06:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to say that Hamster. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's quite cynical to include Russia's response like that though, especially as the first on the list. The arab countries should probably go first. Grey Fox (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with that. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Legality in terms of international law?

I have next to zero knowledge on this subject, but how does international law cover cross border attacks without consent of the other nation? Would this attack be considered illegal? I can't help because as I have mentioned, I barely know anything about this subject. Thanks. --Hamster X 06:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just added some info on that to the article, hope that helps you. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Legality of the raid

The Syrian Government has called this "terrorist aggression" and a violation of thier sovereignty. The American Administration defends these actions as self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. In a speech before the UN General Assembly President George W. Bush said "As sovereign states, we have an obligation to govern responsibly, and solve problems before they spill across borders. We have an obligation to prevent our territory from being used as a sanctuary for terrorism and proliferation and human trafficking and organized crime.

I think it should be stated that the statement was made one month prior to the attack. I think the article makes it seem like the statement was made after the attack. Eiad77 (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 07:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Plus, there is no right to invade other countries: this is a blatant lie to use the self-defence argument of the UN Charter. Sovereignty of national territory is inviolable, whatever Loser Bush may think. Besides, the USA does not own Iraq: its presence there is tolerated by the UN after the illegal invasion that the USA and others engaged in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.10.108 (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually your wrong, self defence applies to the troops as well as bits of dirt, hence why Russia claimed self defence when its troops were attacked in S.Occetia by Geogian troops. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum. Discuss the article only. 70.131.211.219 (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Readded -->The same reason was used for U.S. raids into Pakistan a few months before as part of the War on Terror. Turkey has also used this argument for its raids against PKK rebels in northern Iraq, while Colombia has used this defence for cross-border attacks against FARC.

As this info provideds context to these actions and shows they are not a uniquely american justification. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that Turkey legally owns the territory of Turkey whereas the USA does not own Pakistan or Iraq. And the idea that countries can breach the rules of international sovereignty because they have troops there has no legal force at all. Russia did not justify its actions because it had troops there: it claimed that it was defending Russian citizens in South Ossetia. Did the USA give US passports to the residents of Iraq?? Haha, not likely! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.104.53 (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Russia claims that conflict started because Georgian troops fired on Russian peace keepers but that is beside the point. The sources says America claims this as thier right, so we say America claims this right. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Timing of the raid

I think something should be said about the timing of the raid. Just 10 months ago the border at Abu Kamal was reopened because of increased security that the US gave credit for. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/02/africa/ME-GEN-Syria-Iraq-Border.php Eiad77 (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly: see also my comment above in Terrorist Raid?. It has more to do with the current bitter negotations with the Iraqi regime about the future of US forces in Iraq than it has to do with Syria, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.10.108 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that could be a reason, find an RS and add it to the article or place the source here if you can't edit. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is from a BBC interview with an American commentator, but I don;t find it online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.104.53 (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Update

An interesting update can be found here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5062848.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.174.217 (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Abu Ghadiya/Ghadiyah/Ghadiyain

The target's nom de guerre is spelled at least three different ways throughout this article. For consistency's sake, I'm going to change all to Abu Ghadiya. --RDavi404 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed a weird sentence and an anti-Bush paragraph

I removed two things in two edits while not logged in, and a Wikipedia user on an anti-vandalism bot reverted it within minutes. Here's the details of my edits. First, I removed this sentence:

Furthermore, it was speculated that the attack would heighten fears Syria and Jordan that an increased of permanent US military presence in the Middle East can be a base for future operations against the two states.

Then, I removed this entire paragraph below. It struck me as very out of place and seemed to be here only for the purpose of bashing Bush. If pared down some, it can still be extremely relevant, but at best it is poorly worded at the moment. I'm not quite sure how to fix this, so here is what I surgically removed from the end of the article:

The United States government has refused to acknowledge the attack, feeding fears that the Bush Administration could be trying to provoke further conflict in its remaining months in office. According to The New York Times the raid appears to reflect an intensifying effort by the Bush administration to find a way to attack militants beyond the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan. Robert Dreyfuss sees the build-up and increasing employment of US Special Operations Forces as a, "potentially major escalation of the war on terrorism just at the declining days of the Bush administration". Comparing the raid to the incident of September 3, 2008, when American forces crossed from Afghanistan into Pakistan and conducted an on-the-ground raid inside Pakistan, Dreyfuss asks whether the United States might consider similar raids into Iran.

The portion in bold is what I did not remove. I reworded it and added a to it. I have made these edits again now that I am logged in. I have not seen the bot-user comment on this Talk Page, so I don't know if he'll see this discussion. FFLaguna (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ianwYiLFrnJxFSAgjT1DqydYeinQD942EFR80
  • In History of Syria on 2011-03-30 03:08:10, 410 Gone
  • In 2008 Abu Kamal raid on 2011-06-16 12:00:42, 410 Gone

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2008 Abu Kamal raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081029/ts_nm/us_syria_usa1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030223126/http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=105137 to http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=105137
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028232602/http://siyobik.info/misc/abu_kamal.wmv to http://siyobik.info/misc/abu_kamal.wmv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2008 Abu Kamal raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C444199%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081101041758/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/54828.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/54828.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-ussyria27-2008oct27%2C0%2C897757.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C444825%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081029/ts_nm/us_syria_usa1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)