Latest Stories
Most recently published stories in The Swamp.
“I Don’t Want to Live in an American Empire”: Greenlanders Bristle at U.S. Threats. AI-Generated.
When people think of Greenland, they imagine glaciers, polar bears, and endless white landscapes. What they don’t imagine is a small population suddenly thrust into the center of global power politics. Yet that is exactly what has happened — and Greenlanders are not happy about it.
By Aqib Hussain2 days ago in The Swamp
Iran Edges Closer to a Revolution That Would Reshape the World. AI-Generated.
For decades, Iran has existed in a state of controlled tension — balancing public dissent, economic pressure, and rigid political authority. Today, that balance appears more fragile than ever. From widespread protests and economic collapse to generational defiance and geopolitical strain, Iran is edging closer to a revolutionary moment that could dramatically reshape not only the Middle East, but the world.
By Aqib Hussain2 days ago in The Swamp
New Year’s Blitz Reveals Trump’s Limitless View of Power. AI-Generated.
The New Year, the Same Pattern As the calendar flipped into the new year, Donald Trump’s political maneuvers reminded the nation—and the world—why he remains a controversial figure. Recent actions and statements reveal a limitless view of power, showing a willingness to act unconstrained by norms, precedents, or legal boundaries. Whether through public messaging, political appointments, or maneuvering within party structures, Trump’s approach demonstrates a consistent strategy: push limits, challenge established systems, and reshape rules to fit his ambitions. The “New Year’s blitz” is not just a flurry of announcements; it’s a window into how he perceives authority itself. Testing Institutional Boundaries One defining feature of Trump’s approach is his readiness to test institutional limits. From executive orders to public declarations, he signals a belief that power is something to be seized and stretched rather than exercised within strict boundaries. Observers note that his recent statements about potential electoral strategies, use of executive influence, and public pressure on party officials suggest a willingness to bypass traditional safeguards. In other words, Trump’s view of power is not about checks and balances—it’s about what he can achieve with bold, sometimes unprecedented actions. A Strategy of Aggression and Influence Trump’s “blitz” tactics are deliberate. By flooding media cycles with announcements, statements, and claims, he dominates attention and shifts narratives. This approach works on multiple levels: Mobilizing supporters with urgency and drama Pressuring political opponents into reaction Setting the agenda before rivals can respond The result is a concentrated display of authority, which reinforces his perception of himself as untouchable—or at least capable of redefining political norms at will. Historical Echoes Trump’s strategy is reminiscent of previous leaders who saw power as a flexible tool rather than a set of constraints. Yet unlike historical examples, his methods are amplified by modern media, social platforms, and a polarized political environment. The New Year’s activity highlights a continuation of long-standing patterns: he challenges institutions, courts norms, and relies on both spectacle and loyalty to assert influence. What is striking is how unabashed this approach is—he operates without the usual self-limiting filters most political figures observe. Implications for Governance A limitless view of power is not merely a personal trait—it has tangible consequences for governance. When a leader signals that rules are malleable, it can: Erode public trust in institutions Encourage political polarization Create conflicts between branches of government Influence how allies and opponents strategize The New Year’s blitz underscores that Trump’s approach is not passive or symbolic; it actively reshapes political calculations. Whether in party politics, media influence, or legal challenges, his actions are designed to assert dominance and test boundaries simultaneously. Supporters and Critics React Trump’s supporters view these moves as bold, necessary, and reflective of a leader who refuses to be constrained by bureaucracy. They admire his assertiveness and ability to command attention, framing it as strength and determination. Critics, however, see a dangerous precedent. A leader who treats limits as optional can destabilize democratic norms and erode accountability. They argue that unchecked assertions of authority, even in routine political maneuvers, signal a willingness to prioritize personal power over institutional integrity. Power in the Age of Media Amplification Modern media makes a “blitz” strategy uniquely effective. Every statement, tweet, or public appearance spreads instantly, creating pressure on opponents and shaping public perception in real-time. For Trump, this amplification magnifies the perception of boundless power, giving even routine actions a sense of urgency and impact. It also highlights a key aspect of his influence: control over the narrative. By dominating headlines and social media feeds, he frames discussions and forces responses on his terms. Lessons for the Political Landscape Trump’s New Year’s blitz offers several lessons for the broader political arena: Power is as much perception as authority – controlling the story can be as effective as passing legislation. Institutional limits require constant reinforcement – unchecked ambition can stretch norms quickly. Polarization can amplify influence – supporters rally around perceived boldness, while opponents scramble defensively. For political leaders, strategists, and citizens alike, these lessons underscore how concentrated, unrestrained action can reshape politics even without new laws or official powers. Final Thoughts The New Year’s blitz is more than a collection of announcements—it is a window into Trump’s worldview. His actions show a leader who sees power as flexible, expansive, and something to be tested rather than constrained. Whether this limitless view will serve him, destabilize norms, or redefine political strategy is an open question. What is certain, however, is that the pattern is clear: Trump operates on his own terms, and the political system around him must adapt—or respond—to the scope of his ambition. As the year progresses, observers will be watching closely to see whether these displays of power signal bold leadership, unchecked overreach, or a mixture of both.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in The Swamp
Meta Blocks 550,000 Accounts Under Australia’s Social Media Ban. AI-Generated.
Australia’s Social Media Ban Hits Hard Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has blocked more than 550,000 accounts in response to Australia’s new social media regulations. The move comes as the government enforces stricter rules designed to combat misinformation, online harassment, and harmful content, including material deemed illegal or unsafe. While this is the largest enforcement action of its kind, it reflects a growing trend: governments are no longer treating social media platforms as free-for-all spaces. Regulators are increasingly holding tech giants accountable for what happens on their platforms—sometimes forcing them to act quickly and decisively, even at scale. What Australia’s Social Media Ban Entails Australia’s legislation, aimed at protecting citizens online, gives authorities the power to demand removal or restriction of content considered illegal, unsafe, or harmful. Social media companies that fail to comply face heavy fines. The law targets a range of issues, including: Misinformation and fake news Content promoting self-harm or suicide Hate speech and harassment Material that violates national security or public order For Meta, compliance meant identifying, reviewing, and blocking hundreds of thousands of accounts—a task of unprecedented scale. How Meta Responded Meta confirmed it had blocked over 550,000 accounts, including both individual users and pages, primarily to comply with government orders. The company also ramped up automated systems and human moderation teams in Australia to monitor content and enforce the new rules. The scale of the action highlights how governments can now influence the digital landscape, especially when platforms operate within their borders. However, Meta’s approach has sparked debate about accuracy, fairness, and free expression. Critics argue that large-scale account blocking can inadvertently silence legitimate users alongside harmful actors. Free Speech vs. Safety: A Delicate Balance Australia’s social media ban raises challenging questions about the balance between free expression and online safety. Supporters argue that strict enforcement is necessary to protect citizens, prevent the spread of dangerous misinformation, and curb online harassment. Critics warn that sweeping measures can unintentionally suppress legitimate voices, limit public debate, and give tech companies enormous power to decide what is acceptable. This tension is not unique to Australia—it reflects a global debate over how much control governments should have over online platforms. The Human and Technical Challenges Blocking over half a million accounts is no small feat. Meta relies on both automated systems and human moderators to identify content that violates laws. While technology can flag obvious violations, subtle issues like satire, context, and regional differences require human review. This raises questions about errors and fairness. Could legitimate accounts be blocked? How transparent is the process? Meta says it tries to balance compliance with user rights, but incidents of overreach or mistakes are almost inevitable at this scale. International Implications Australia’s social media ban is likely to influence other countries considering stricter regulation of digital platforms. Governments in Europe, Asia, and North America are watching closely to see how social media companies respond to legal pressure. The action by Meta signals to regulators worldwide that tech giants can and will comply with national laws, even when it involves mass enforcement. At the same time, it highlights the challenges of global platforms operating under multiple jurisdictions, each with different legal and cultural standards. Meta’s Broader Strategy Meta’s large-scale blocking of accounts is part of a broader strategy to adapt to increasing regulation worldwide. Over the past few years, governments have enacted laws targeting misinformation, online harassment, hate speech, and data privacy. Companies like Meta face a delicate balancing act: comply with local laws, protect users, and maintain global platform consistency. Australia’s enforcement highlights how reactive and adaptive tech companies must become in a rapidly changing regulatory landscape. Public Reaction and Controversy The public reaction has been mixed. Many Australians support strong measures to curb online harm, especially after high-profile cases of online abuse or misinformation. At the same time, some worry about overreach, censorship, and the lack of transparency in mass account blocking. Social media users, advocacy groups, and legal experts are calling for clearer guidelines and appeals processes, so that users whose accounts were mistakenly blocked can have their voices restored. This conversation is likely to intensify as governments continue to regulate online speech more aggressively. Looking Ahead: What This Means for Social Media Australia’s social media ban—and Meta’s response—marks a turning point in the regulation of online platforms. Governments now have tools to enforce compliance, while social media companies must adapt quickly or face legal consequences. For users, it signals a changing landscape where content is increasingly monitored and regulated. For companies, it demonstrates the high stakes of non-compliance and the operational challenges of moderating millions of accounts worldwide. The broader implication is clear: social media is no longer a free-for-all environment. National laws, safety concerns, and global scrutiny now dictate how platforms operate, shaping the way millions of people interact online. Final Thoughts Meta’s blocking of 550,000 accounts under Australia’s social media ban is a powerful example of how governments and tech companies are grappling with the complexities of online regulation. Balancing safety, legality, and free expression is a high-stakes challenge that will only grow as the digital landscape evolves. For Australia, it is a test of regulatory power. For Meta, it is a test of operational capacity and ethical responsibility. And for users worldwide, it is a reminder that the rules of the online world are changing—and that compliance, safety, and governance now shape how we experience social media every day.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in The Swamp
Denmark’s Prime Minister Warns Greenland Showdown Is at a ‘Decisive Moment’. AI-Generated.
A Warning That Signals Rising Tension When Denmark’s Prime Minister said the Greenland situation has reached a “decisive moment,” it was more than a dramatic turn of phrase. It was a clear signal that the world’s largest island—long viewed as remote and strategically quiet—is now at the center of intensifying global attention. Greenland has become a focal point where great-power rivalry, Arctic security, climate change, and self-determination collide. For Denmark, which governs Greenland as an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, the stakes are unusually high. Decisions made now could shape the island’s future for decades and redefine Denmark’s role in Arctic geopolitics. Why Greenland Suddenly Matters So Much Greenland has always been strategically important, but melting Arctic ice has transformed its value. As climate change opens new shipping routes and access to natural resources, Greenland’s geographic position between North America and Europe has become more significant than ever. The island sits along vital transatlantic air and sea routes and hosts critical military infrastructure, including a key U.S. base used for missile warning and space surveillance. At the same time, Greenland holds deposits of rare earth minerals essential for modern technology and defense systems—resources that global powers are eager to secure. What was once a frozen frontier is now a strategic prize. Denmark’s Balancing Act Denmark faces a complex challenge. On one hand, it is responsible for Greenland’s defense and foreign policy. On the other, Greenland has its own elected government and a strong movement advocating for greater independence—or eventual statehood. The prime minister’s warning reflects concern that external pressures, particularly from major powers, could exploit this delicate balance. Denmark must reassure Greenlanders that their autonomy and interests are protected, while also signaling to allies and rivals that sovereignty is not negotiable. This balancing act has become more difficult as international interest intensifies. The Role of the United States The United States has long had a military presence in Greenland, but its interest has grown more visible in recent years. Former President Donald Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. should buy Greenland was widely ridiculed at the time, yet it underscored a serious strategic calculation. Washington sees Greenland as essential to Arctic defense, early-warning systems, and countering rival influence in the High North. Denmark, while closely allied with the U.S. through NATO, has made it clear that Greenland is not for sale and that any cooperation must respect Greenlandic and Danish sovereignty. Still, the episode revealed how exposed Denmark feels when powerful allies publicly express interest in its territory. China’s Quiet Presence Raises Alarms While U.S. interest is open and military-focused, China’s approach has been more subtle. Beijing has sought to invest in Greenland’s infrastructure, mining projects, and research initiatives. Though many proposals have been blocked or scaled back, they raised red flags in Copenhagen and Washington. Denmark’s leadership fears that economic influence could translate into political leverage over time. For a small population spread across a vast island, foreign investment can be tempting—but it also carries long-term risks. The prime minister’s remarks reflect growing urgency to ensure Greenland’s development does not come at the cost of strategic vulnerability. Greenland’s Own Voice in the Debate Crucially, Greenland is not a passive observer. Its leaders have increasingly asserted their right to decide the island’s future. Many Greenlanders support gradual independence from Denmark, driven by cultural identity, economic ambition, and a desire for greater control over resources. However, independence raises difficult questions. Can Greenland sustain itself economically? How would defense and foreign relations be managed? And how can it avoid becoming overly dependent on powerful external partners? Denmark’s challenge is to support Greenland’s aspirations while ensuring decisions are made freely, not under pressure from global competition. NATO and Arctic Security Concerns Greenland’s strategic importance has also elevated its role within NATO’s Arctic planning. As Russia expands its military presence across the Arctic and China deepens its regional ambitions, alliance leaders increasingly view Greenland as a critical node in Northern defense. Denmark’s prime minister has emphasized that Greenland’s security is inseparable from European and transatlantic security. The “decisive moment” she refers to may involve strengthening defense cooperation, increasing investment, and clarifying responsibilities before tensions escalate further. In this context, inaction could be more dangerous than decisive leadership. Climate Change as a Geopolitical Force Climate change is not just reshaping Greenland’s environment—it is reshaping global power dynamics. Retreating ice makes mineral extraction and shipping more viable, accelerating interest from foreign governments and corporations. For Denmark and Greenland, this creates both opportunity and risk. Economic development could support independence ambitions, but it could also attract unwanted influence and environmental damage. The prime minister’s warning suggests recognition that climate-driven change is moving faster than political frameworks can adapt. What Does “Decisive Moment” Really Mean? The phrase points to a narrowing window for action. Denmark must now: Reaffirm its commitment to Greenland’s autonomy and welfare Set clear boundaries for foreign involvement Strengthen security cooperation without escalating tensions Support sustainable development that benefits Greenlanders first Failing to act decisively could allow external powers to shape outcomes by default. A Test of Leadership and Sovereignty Greenland’s future will not be decided overnight, but the pressure is unmistakable. Denmark’s prime minister is signaling that this is a moment requiring clarity, unity, and long-term vision. For a small country managing a territory of enormous strategic value, the challenge is immense. Yet it also offers an opportunity—to show that sovereignty, cooperation, and respect for self-determination can coexist, even in an era of great-power rivalry. Final Thoughts Denmark’s warning about a “decisive moment” in the Greenland showdown captures the urgency of a rapidly changing Arctic. What happens next will shape not only Greenland’s destiny, but also the balance of power in the High North. As ice melts and interest grows, Greenland is no longer on the margins of global politics. It is at the center—and Denmark knows it must act now, before decisions are made for it.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in The Swamp
Two Men Died After Falls at an Overstretched A&E. AI-Generated.
A Tragedy That Raises Urgent Questions The deaths of two men following falls at an overstretched Accident and Emergency (A&E) department have sent shockwaves through the healthcare community. While hospitals are places of healing, these incidents highlight a harsh reality: when emergency departments are under extreme pressure, patient safety can be compromised in ways that are both tragic and preventable. These cases are not just about individual mistakes or isolated failures. They point to deeper, systemic problems facing emergency healthcare—problems that demand urgent attention, accountability, and reform. Understanding What Happened According to reports, the two men suffered fatal injuries after falling while receiving care in an overcrowded A&E unit. Investigations suggest that extreme pressure on staff, long waiting times, and limited supervision played a role in the circumstances surrounding the falls. Importantly, these incidents did not occur in a vacuum. They happened in a setting already struggling to cope with rising patient numbers, staff shortages, and limited physical space. While the precise details are subject to formal inquiries, the broader context is painfully familiar to both healthcare workers and patients. A&E Departments Under Relentless Strain Across the UK, A&E departments are facing unprecedented demand. Seasonal illnesses, an ageing population, and delays in social care have all contributed to overcrowded emergency rooms. Patients often wait hours—or even days—on trolleys for beds to become available. When departments become overstretched, the risk of accidents increases. Staff must monitor dozens of patients simultaneously, many of whom are elderly, confused, injured, or at risk of falling. In such conditions, even the most dedicated professionals can struggle to provide the level of observation each patient needs. Falls in Hospitals: A Known Risk Falls are among the most common patient safety incidents in hospitals. They are especially dangerous for older adults and those with underlying medical conditions. Hospitals typically have protocols in place to assess fall risk, such as mobility checks, regular monitoring, and the use of bed rails or alarms. However, these safeguards rely heavily on adequate staffing and time—two resources often in short supply in overcrowded A&E units. When corridors are filled with trolleys and staff are stretched thin, maintaining consistent fall prevention becomes far more difficult. The Human Cost Behind the Headlines Behind statistics and policy discussions are real people—families who entrusted their loved ones to the healthcare system and now face unimaginable loss. For them, explanations about “system pressure” offer little comfort. Families often ask difficult questions: Why wasn’t someone there to help? Were warning signs missed? Could these deaths have been prevented? These questions underscore the emotional toll such incidents take, not only on relatives but also on healthcare workers involved, many of whom experience guilt and distress even when systemic failures are to blame. Staff Under Pressure, Not at Fault It is crucial to distinguish between blame and responsibility. Frontline NHS staff repeatedly warn that unsafe conditions are becoming normalized. Doctors, nurses, and support staff frequently work long shifts with insufficient breaks, managing more patients than guidelines recommend. In many cases, staff raise concerns internally long before tragedies occur. When those warnings go unheeded due to funding constraints or workforce shortages, risk accumulates. The deaths of these two men highlight what happens when pressure reaches a breaking point. Investigations and Accountability Formal investigations into the deaths are now underway, aiming to establish exactly what went wrong and whether protocols were followed. Such reviews are essential—not to assign individual blame, but to identify systemic weaknesses and prevent future harm. Coroners, hospital trusts, and regulatory bodies all play a role in ensuring transparency. Past cases show that meaningful change often follows public scrutiny, especially when failings are clearly linked to overcrowding and under-resourcing. However, families and patient advocates argue that lessons are too often “learned” without being fully implemented. The Wider NHS Context These incidents come at a time when the NHS faces one of the most challenging periods in its history. Recruitment struggles, staff burnout, and funding pressures are combining with record demand for emergency care. Delayed discharges—patients medically fit to leave hospital but unable to do so due to lack of social care—create bottlenecks that spill back into A&E. The result is a system where emergency departments become holding areas rather than rapid-response units. In such an environment, safety risks multiply. What Needs to Change? Experts and healthcare leaders point to several urgent priorities: Increased staffing levels, especially in emergency departments Better-designed A&E spaces that reduce crowding and fall risks Stronger early-warning systems for vulnerable patients Investment in social care, to ease pressure on hospitals Listening to frontline staff, who often identify risks before harm occurs Without structural reform, similar tragedies are likely to recur. Public Trust and the Cost of Inaction Public trust in emergency healthcare depends on the belief that hospitals are safe, even under pressure. When deaths occur in circumstances linked to overcrowding, that trust is shaken. The danger lies in normalizing crisis conditions. If overstretched A&E departments become accepted as the standard rather than the exception, patient safety will continue to suffer—and avoidable harm will follow. Final Thoughts The deaths of two men after falls in an overstretched A&E are a stark reminder that healthcare systems have limits. Compassion, professionalism, and dedication cannot substitute for adequate resources and safe working conditions. These tragedies should not fade quietly into statistics. They must serve as a catalyst for honest reckoning and decisive action. Patient safety depends not only on the skill of healthcare workers, but on the systems that support—or fail—them. Until overcrowding and understaffing are addressed at their roots, stories like this will continue to emerge, each one a painful reminder of the human cost of systemic strain.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in The Swamp
Too Much Screen Time May Be Shrinking Toddlers’ Vocabulary. AI-Generated.
Screens Are Everywhere—Even in Early Childhood In today’s digital world, screens are impossible to avoid. Smartphones, tablets, televisions, and smart devices are now part of everyday family life. For many parents, screens feel like a helpful tool—keeping toddlers entertained, calm, and occupied during busy moments. But child development experts are raising a growing concern: excessive screen time may be limiting toddlers’ vocabulary development. Language growth in the first few years of life is critical. These early words form the foundation for communication, learning, and social skills later on. When screens begin to replace human interaction, experts say, toddlers may miss essential opportunities to learn language naturally. Why the Toddler Years Matter So Much Between the ages of one and three, children experience rapid brain development. During this period, toddlers learn new words at an astonishing pace—often several each day. This learning happens best through real-life interaction, such as talking, singing, reading, and responding to facial expressions and gestures. Vocabulary doesn’t grow simply by hearing words. It develops through back-and-forth communication—when a toddler babbles, points, or asks questions, and an adult responds. These “serve and return” interactions are essential for building strong language skills. Screens, experts warn, cannot fully replicate this process. What Experts Are Warning About Pediatricians and child psychologists increasingly report a pattern: toddlers with high screen exposure often show delayed speech or smaller vocabularies compared to peers who spend more time in interactive play. The concern is not just about screens existing, but how much time they occupy. When screens dominate a toddler’s day, they can crowd out activities that naturally encourage speech, such as imaginative play, shared reading, and simple conversation. Experts emphasize that language learning is social by nature. A screen may talk at a child, but it rarely talks with them in a meaningful way. Passive Watching vs. Active Learning Not all screen time is equal. Educational programs are often marketed as language-boosting tools, but research suggests that passive viewing—where a child watches without interaction—offers limited benefits for toddlers. Even high-quality educational content struggles to replace real engagement. A video cannot adjust its responses to a child’s tone, interest, or confusion. It cannot pause to encourage a toddler to try a new word or celebrate their attempts at speech. In contrast, a caregiver can instantly respond, repeat words, simplify language, and provide emotional feedback—all crucial for vocabulary growth. The Hidden Cost of Background Screens One overlooked issue is background screen exposure. Even when a toddler is not actively watching, a TV playing in the background can reduce the amount and quality of conversation in the home. Studies show that adults tend to talk less to children when screens are on. Fewer words spoken by caregivers means fewer words heard by toddlers. Over time, this reduction can have a measurable impact on vocabulary size. In this way, screens affect language development indirectly as well as directly. Screen Time and Attention Skills Language learning requires focus. Toddlers need time to observe, listen, and process sounds. Fast-paced screen content—filled with quick cuts, bright visuals, and constant stimulation—can make it harder for young children to sustain attention during slower, real-world conversations. Experts worry that excessive screen exposure may condition toddlers to expect constant stimulation, making it more difficult for them to engage in activities like listening to a story or having a conversation. This doesn’t just affect vocabulary—it can influence broader learning habits later in life. What Do Experts Recommend? Health organizations and child development specialists generally advise very limited screen time for toddlers, especially under the age of two. When screens are used, they recommend: Choosing slow-paced, age-appropriate content Watching together with the child rather than leaving them alone Talking about what’s on the screen to turn it into a shared activity Balancing screen time with plenty of real-world interaction The goal is not to ban screens entirely, but to ensure they do not replace human connection. The Power of Simple Everyday Interaction The good news is that boosting a toddler’s vocabulary does not require expensive tools or structured lessons. Everyday moments are powerful learning opportunities. Talking through daily activities—like cooking, dressing, or walking outside—exposes toddlers to new words in meaningful contexts. Reading aloud, singing songs, and playing pretend games all encourage language use. Even short conversations, when repeated often, can have a lasting impact on vocabulary development. Parental Guilt vs. Practical Balance Many parents feel pressure or guilt around screen use. Life is busy, and screens often feel like a necessary break. Experts acknowledge this reality and stress that moderation matters more than perfection. The key is awareness. Understanding how screen time affects language development allows parents to make small, intentional changes—such as turning off background TV, setting screen-free times, or replacing some screen use with shared play. Language growth is resilient, especially when children are given consistent opportunities to interact and communicate. Looking Ahead: Why Early Vocabulary Matters A strong early vocabulary is linked to better reading skills, academic performance, and social confidence later in life. While screens will always be part of modern childhood, experts caution against letting them dominate the most important years for language development. Toddlers don’t just need words—they need people who talk, listen, and respond. No app or video can fully replace that human connection. Final Thoughts Excessive screen time may seem harmless, but experts warn it can quietly limit toddlers’ vocabulary by reducing meaningful interaction. The solution isn’t fear or strict bans—it’s balance. By prioritizing conversation, play, and shared attention, parents and caregivers can support healthy language development while still navigating a digital world. In the end, the most powerful learning tool a toddler has isn’t a screen—it’s a responsive, engaged human voice.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in The Swamp
