Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Things not looking too good for Iranian president
Topic Started: Jan 18 2007, 05:31 AM (3,710 Views)
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Falcon
Jan 21 2007, 01:24 PM
We could have purchased oil from Saddam at a cheaper rate than it cost to have a war.

The things stated before the war were mostly true, the WMD we knew he had have never been accounted for.

The only thing I remotely agree upon is that I don't condemn terrorism as a tactic, only the goals of these specific terrorists.

Quote:
 
The things stated before the war were mostly true, the WMD we knew he had have never been accounted for.


Maybe because the government was going off of the same piss-poor logistical information the Bush regime used to invade Iraq.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
严加华
Jan 22 2007, 11:18 AM
Falcon
Jan 22 2007, 11:28 AM
Ñϼӻª
Jan 22 2007, 02:37 AM
Falcon
Jan 21 2007, 09:24 PM
I don't condemn terrorism as a tactic[...]

You really do make this too easy.

Care to explain why you disagree that terrorism is a legitimate tactic of war, or are you going to keep sniping safely from the shadows hoping that no one will catch on to your intellectual bankruptcy?

Just comparing the "oh, I'm so harmless because of turn the other cheek" vs. "killing innocents is a legitimate tactic" and laughing my ass off.

The fact that you have to even ask why I'm pointing it out betrays your total amorality. Again, I mean.

I've already explained this. Separation of Church and State. What I believe in my own personal character and how I conduct my own life has no bearing on how the secular state should be run or the realities of war. Do you really want me to try to use the government to force my morality on the rest of society, or would you rather that I leave religion at the door when I discuss secular policy?

Also, you dodged my challenge to you. Why do you disagree that terrorism is a legitimate tactic of war?

Killer Bee - We knew he had WMD because in some instances we sold them to him. We've never found those WMD, nor any record of their removal, destruction, etc... They just disappeared. I posted the New York Times article reporting it a while back, if you'd like I can go find it again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
Also, you dodged my challenge to you. Why do you disagree that terrorism is a legitimate tactic of war?


Can I answer this Falcon? Anyways, terrorism means using fear to disrupt normal life. Remember 9/11? Gaining this fear requires blowing up things mainly crowded shopping malls, train stations, possibly churches and mosques, anywhere that large crowds of people will be. And there is the newer tactic, running planes into skyscrapers. Is killing innocent people by targeting them specifically a way to fight a war? Remember, the U.S. has the most advanced military on the face of the planet. So again, is terrorism, as far as the U.S. goes, a good military tactic to use? I'll answer it myself. NO.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You have to remember that terrorism and guerilla warfare often get confused as well.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
piercehawkeye45
Jan 22 2007, 05:47 PM
You have to remember that terrorism and guerilla warfare often get confused as well.

Right, guerilla warfare is street tactics in combatting a larger and more powerful army. Terrorism is purposely targteting innocent civilians to cause terror. I hope Falcon is one who got the two confused. If not, then he'll shoot any credible arguement about world affairs he has in the ass.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Killer Bee
Jan 22 2007, 03:26 PM
Quote:
 
Also, you dodged my challenge to you. Why do you disagree that terrorism is a legitimate tactic of war?


Can I answer this Falcon? Anyways, terrorism means using fear to disrupt normal life. Remember 9/11? Gaining this fear requires blowing up things mainly crowded shopping malls, train stations, possibly churches and mosques, anywhere that large crowds of people will be. And there is the newer tactic, running planes into skyscrapers. Is killing innocent people by targeting them specifically a way to fight a war? Remember, the U.S. has the most advanced military on the face of the planet. So again, is terrorism, as far as the U.S. goes, a good military tactic to use? I'll answer it myself. NO.

I disagree.

First, there is no such thing as an innocent civilian. Those people in the World Trade Center were all either tax paying American citizens or else individuals who deliberately inserted themselves into the stream of American commerce and thus opened themselves up to whatever military action might be taken against us. The government is the instrument of our collective will, funded by our collective wealth, that derives its powers and authorities from the consent of the governed. Without us there would be no foreign policy and no army. This holds true with any society. The armed movements that arise from such societies by and large operate at the pleasure and on behalf of those societies. Sure, there may be some individual dissenters, but especially in America we all agreed long ago to be governed by the set of rules that gives rise to every action our government takes.

We used to recognize this reality without debate or dispute. We firebombed civilians routinely in WWII because we realized that they were far more dangerous in the long run than any army in the field. Civilians are what create the army, arm it, sustain it, and direct it to execute their will. You can fight an army endlessly without victory, like we did in Vietnam, for example, but if you break the backbone of the citizens who are projecting that army your victory will be far more swift.

For the weak to fight the strong terrorism is an indespensible weapon that those who need it will never cease to use. Once upon a time we used it ourselves. Patriots in the revolution burned down the properties of Torys and forced them to flee into Canada. Raiders in the Civil War targeted civilians and Sherman burned a thick swath through the south deliberately targeting civilians as punishment as much as for military necessity. The Germans built the Paris gun in WWI in an attempt to demoralize and injure French civilians. The Germans tried again in WWII with the V series rockets, not to mention conventional bombings in London, whilst the Allies bombed at will all across Europe and Japan, using everything from conventional weapons to firebombs designed to burn out civilians all across their cities. How is it any different now for terrorists to blow up busses with bombs in bags? Just because they don't have bombers doesn't make their strikes against enemy civilians any less justified or a necessary part of war than us dropping them from ten thousand feet.

Also, just to be clear, you didn't answer my question. War is about defeating your enemy. What makes terrorism an illegitimate tactic of war as opposed to other "conventional" tactics? Also, if you intend to maintain that some civilians are "innocent," I'd like some kind of criteria as to how we decide who is innocent and who is not. Is a taxpayer innocent? How about a weapon's designer? How about someone who works on software that has many applications in satellites including military and civilian satellites? I think any objective analysis will soon reveal that such a notion is unworkable. We decided by fiat one day to declare some people "innocent" based on the desire of the gentleman armies of Europe to butcher each other without risking the total destruction of their civilizations. Unfortunately, we're not fighting those aristocratic wars anymore and new rules and realities need to take hold.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mister Sinister
Member Avatar
Delusional Granduerist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
He's right, The US has NEVER distinguished civilians and Soldiers. As far as Roosevelt was concerned, the Japanese deserved the fire-bombings, much like Sherman thought that southerners deserved to be burned out. It is a hard fact of war, but beating a man to death with a stick, Burning him out, shooting him to death, fire-bombing him, or nuking him is no more amoral than the 9/11 attacks on the WTC. All are done to push a political agenda, and in every scenario, someone dies, does it really matter that much whether they were making dresses or bombs? A life was still ending for political gain.

Falcon is right, we invented it in the Revolutionary war. The difference between Guerilla warfare and Terrorist tactics is the person labeling the action.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...icle2177982.ece
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
During the twelve month period from August 2003 to July 2004 three suicide bombers launched attacks from areas where the fence has been completed which resulted in no deaths or injuries. In contrast during the preceding twelve months, from September 2002 to August 2003, 73 attacks were successfully carried out from these areas, in which 293 Israelis were killed and 1,950 were wounded. The decrease in casualties was not due to a decrease in attempted terrorist attacks; from August 2003 to July 2004 Israeli security forces prevented dozens of planned attacks in the final stages of their implementation and uncovered 24 explosive belts and charges intended to be used for these attacks. From July 2004 to October 2004 only one suicide bombing has resulted in casualties in areas where the barrier has been built.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
严加华
Member Avatar
Magister Ludicrous
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Falcon
Jan 22 2007, 10:52 PM
I've already explained this.  Separation of Church and State.  What I believe in my own personal character and how I conduct my own life has no bearing on how the secular state should be run or the realities of war.


That has been your traditional cop-out when faced with your utter lack of anything resembling morals, yes. The other is your imaginary friend in the sky who will beat everybody up who disagrees with you.

Quote:
 
Do you really want me to try to use the government to force my morality on the rest of society, or would you rather that I leave religion at the door when I discuss secular policy?


It would be nice for you to not leave your humanity at the door when discussing policy. Only, being a completely amoral sociopath, you can't take your humanity with you, can you? Seeing as you have none whatsoever.

Quote:
 
Also, you dodged my challenge to you.  Why do you disagree that terrorism is a legitimate tactic of war?

Because it is counter-productive? Every civilised person -- hint, this doesn't include you -- will be repulsed by it and, despite your flag-waving and rah rah rah hooray antics, being isolated is not good nor sane policy.

Also, let's look at it from the position you purport to hold now. Your "all-loving" imaginary friend will send people into eternal torture from which there is never any respite if they don't ketou to him in exactly the right way as stipulated in the internally inconsistent (and phenomenally badly written!) book he's decided is the One True Way.

Now let's imagine a world where Falcon is a terrorist. (The fact that this does not strain anybody's imagination even slightly is beside the point.) Falcon straps on the bombs. He walks into, say, a train station. He ignites the bomb.

In that station, a mere metre away from him, is a baby. Pre-verbal. Has never heard even one of the words of God, not to mention the whole book. Has never had the ability to make the free-will choice to obey said words or to (correctly) scoff at them as worthless pieces of shit.

You, Falcon, have condemned this child to an eternity of suffering (or so you purport to believe). An. Eternity. Of. Suffering. All in the name of the all-too-finite USA.

It doesn't matter how long your bomb will make the USA last in the face of the enemy. If it makes the USA last for a billion years, this is still absolutely nothing in the face of eternity. Because anything compared to infinite is effectively zero.

The only thing I can conclude given your support of terrorism (or, for that matter, the slaughter of civilians in general, whether done by suicide bombing or by F-16) is that either:

a) You are lying about your belief in God and know that you're just snuffing out a life instead of condemning it to an eternity of torture at the hands of your loving God; or

B) You truly are the monster you deny being.

So which is it? Are you a hypocritical monster or are you just a plain old monster?
LC Sez: Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
严加华
Jan 23 2007, 05:20 AM
Falcon
Jan 22 2007, 10:52 PM
I've already explained this.  Separation of Church and State.  What I believe in my own personal character and how I conduct my own life has no bearing on how the secular state should be run or the realities of war.


That has been your traditional cop-out when faced with your utter lack of anything resembling morals, yes. The other is your imaginary friend in the sky who will beat everybody up who disagrees with you.

Quote:
 
Do you really want me to try to use the government to force my morality on the rest of society, or would you rather that I leave religion at the door when I discuss secular policy?


It would be nice for you to not leave your humanity at the door when discussing policy. Only, being a completely amoral sociopath, you can't take your humanity with you, can you? Seeing as you have none whatsoever.

Quote:
 
Also, you dodged my challenge to you.  Why do you disagree that terrorism is a legitimate tactic of war?

Because it is counter-productive? Every civilised person -- hint, this doesn't include you -- will be repulsed by it and, despite your flag-waving and rah rah rah hooray antics, being isolated is not good nor sane policy.

Also, let's look at it from the position you purport to hold now. Your "all-loving" imaginary friend will send people into eternal torture from which there is never any respite if they don't ketou to him in exactly the right way as stipulated in the internally inconsistent (and phenomenally badly written!) book he's decided is the One True Way.

Now let's imagine a world where Falcon is a terrorist. (The fact that this does not strain anybody's imagination even slightly is beside the point.) Falcon straps on the bombs. He walks into, say, a train station. He ignites the bomb.

In that station, a mere metre away from him, is a baby. Pre-verbal. Has never heard even one of the words of God, not to mention the whole book. Has never had the ability to make the free-will choice to obey said words or to (correctly) scoff at them as worthless pieces of shit.

You, Falcon, have condemned this child to an eternity of suffering (or so you purport to believe). An. Eternity. Of. Suffering. All in the name of the all-too-finite USA.

It doesn't matter how long your bomb will make the USA last in the face of the enemy. If it makes the USA last for a billion years, this is still absolutely nothing in the face of eternity. Because anything compared to infinite is effectively zero.

The only thing I can conclude given your support of terrorism (or, for that matter, the slaughter of civilians in general, whether done by suicide bombing or by F-16) is that either:

a) You are lying about your belief in God and know that you're just snuffing out a life instead of condemning it to an eternity of torture at the hands of your loving God; or

B) You truly are the monster you deny being.

So which is it? Are you a hypocritical monster or are you just a plain old monster?

You gave two choices. I choose the second as my answer.

Falcon, the only response to your post riddled with examples of terrorism is the fact that the examples you gave are military actions, not slaughtering civilians because of a political agenda. In WWII we didn't go into Europe or Japan with our only mission to kill civilians. Vietnam was just poor military planning all the way around. What criteria determines "innocent civilian"? Think, maybe someone who isn't in the military carrying around an M-16 trying to kill you. Using your logic, the Muslim extremist has every right to slaughter Christians because what's good for one evil is good for all. You say the rules of war have changed, maybe they have, so the suicide bombings happening in Israel are justified. You said so yourself in stating that terrorism is a legitimate warfare tactic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
How can you say that terrorism is not a legitimite war tatic? It is bascially equivilant to a shot in the balls but it is still a tatic, however dirty it is.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
piercehawkeye45
Jan 23 2007, 02:35 PM
How can you say that terrorism is not a legitimite war tatic? It is bascially equivilant to a shot in the balls but it is still a tatic, however dirty it is.

It's slaughtering civilians, nothing less. If this is the case, then all of the war criminals from WWII should be freed and not brought up on charges.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Falcon
Jan 22 2007, 10:52 PM
I've already explained this.  Separation of Church and State.  What I believe in my own personal character and how I conduct my own life has no bearing on how the secular state should be run or the realities of war.


That has been your traditional cop-out when faced with your utter lack of anything resembling morals, yes. The other is your imaginary friend in the sky who will beat everybody up who disagrees with you.


If God doesn't exist then my arbitrary set of morals are just as legitimate as yours so you still have no position.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Do you really want me to try to use the government to force my morality on the rest of society, or would you rather that I leave religion at the door when I discuss secular policy?


It would be nice for you to not leave your humanity at the door when discussing policy. Only, being a completely amoral sociopath, you can't take your humanity with you, can you? Seeing as you have none whatsoever.


I'm not leaving my "humanity" at the door, just my religion. I haven't advocated a position that could be described as "amoral" or "sociopathic" either. My position rests on historical examples and logical reasoning as to why my policies best conform to the realities of the current situation. As usual you're tossing around unsubstantiated claims to hide your own intellectual deficit.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Also, you dodged my challenge to you.  Why do you disagree that terrorism is a legitimate tactic of war?

Because it is counter-productive? Every civilised person -- hint, this doesn't include you -- will be repulsed by it and, despite your flag-waving and rah rah rah hooray antics, being isolated is not good nor sane policy.


A baseless claim founded on your own narrow perspective and judgment. If your position were so easily defended then you would do it. Of course you realize that if you actually state a position it will get ripped apart so instead you line up the insults and pretend that a real discussion is beneath you. The typical tactics of a blowhard high school student; I'm surprised that someone who claims to be a teacher would dip so low.

Quote:
 

Also, let's look at it from the position you purport to hold now.  Your "all-loving" imaginary friend will send people into eternal torture from which there is never any respite if they don't ketou to him in exactly the right way as stipulated in the internally inconsistent (and phenomenally badly written!) book  he's decided is the One True Way.


Did you have a point, or did you just want to beat your chest some more about how you're a hard core non-believer? Does this have anything to do with a thread on terrorism? Nope. Does it have everything to do with you trying to argue style over substance? Bingo.

Quote:
 

Now let's imagine a world where Falcon is a terrorist.  (The fact that this does not strain anybody's imagination even slightly is beside the point.)  Falcon straps on the bombs.  He walks into, say, a train station.  He ignites the bomb.

In that station, a mere metre away from him, is a baby.  Pre-verbal.  Has never heard even one of the words of God, not to mention the whole book.  Has never had the ability to make the free-will choice to obey said words or to (correctly) scoff at them as worthless pieces of shit.

You, Falcon, have condemned this child to an eternity of suffering (or so you purport to believe).  An.  Eternity.  Of.  Suffering.  All in the name of the all-too-finite USA.


Incorrect; a baby has not yet reached the age of accountability and thus there is no indication that they are condemned. After all, how would Jesus condemn an individual that doesn't have the mental ability to choose between good and evil? I don't know for sure though, because the Bible doesn't say explicitly.

Ecc 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil.

The only person who is condemned there is the person committing suicide since they're taking a life, their own, and we're prohibited from murder, which inherently includes self-murder (I'll trust I don't need to source that).

So far you're batting a zero. I can't even give you points for somehow working me into a terrorist operation because it was just too uninspired.

Quote:
 

It doesn't matter how long your bomb will make the USA last in the face of the enemy.  If it makes the USA last for a billion years, this is still absolutely nothing in the face of eternity.  Because anything compared to infinite is effectively zero.


Again, did you have a point? By that logic no one should do anything because everything means nothing in the face of eternity.

Quote:
 

The only thing I can conclude given your support of terrorism (or, for that matter, the slaughter of civilians in general, whether done by suicide bombing or by F-16) is that either:

a) You are lying about your belief in God and know that you're just snuffing out a life instead of condemning it to an eternity of torture at the hands of your loving God; or

B) You truly are the monster you deny being.

So which is it?  Are you a hypocritical monster or are you just a plain old monster?


C) Someone who understands the realities of war and how this world works.

I could repeat all my arguments here, but since you haven't attempted to even address them it would be pointless. Continue forth on your crusade of defamation and insults; that's the only card you've got to play.

Killer Bee
Quote:
 

Falcon, the only response to your post riddled with examples of terrorism is the fact that the examples you gave are military actions, not slaughtering civilians because of a political agenda. In WWII we didn't go into Europe or Japan with our only mission to kill civilians.  Vietnam was just poor military planning all the way around.


Military actions are political agendas, just by force instead of reason. In WWII we went in to accomplish a goal; we could probably have accomplished that goal purely by targeting military targets only, but instead we realized that we could win faster and with fewer losses by targeting civilians. Of course, sometimes you would lose a war by targeting only military forces, but yet might prevail were you to target civilians. That is the state the terrorists are in now. If they only attacked military targets they wouldn't have any hope of winning.

Quote:
 

What criteria determines "innocent civilian"? Think, maybe someone who isn't in the military carrying around an M-16 trying to kill you.


The guy fixing lunch in the barracks for the guy with the M-16 is an innocent civilian? The guy assembling the M-16 in a factory or bullets for the M-16 is an innocent civilian? The guy who voted to send the guy with the M-16 to your nation to kill you is an innocent civilian? The guy who payed the sum of money needed to send the guy with the M-16 to kill you is an innocent civilian? Without all those people the guy with the M-16 wouldn't be there. In fact, the guy with the M-16 might be a draftee who doesn't even want to be there, much less kill you. The guy who wants you dead just coerced him into doing his dirty work for him. By striking at the guy with the M-16 only you've not done anything against the person who has the real intent to kill you, but in fact killed someone with an innocent mind that was merely following orders.

Quote:
 

Using your logic, the Muslim extremist has every right to slaughter Christians because what's good for one evil is good for all.


Why would saying that terrorism is a valid tactic therefor imply some kind of blanket right for one person to kill another? Whether an act of violence is "right" depends on everything except the type of violence used. It is of no consolation to me if I'm killed in a terrorist attack or a missle strike by a world power; dead is dead. What matters to me is the aims of the terrorists. The terrorists of today are wrong because of their goals, not because they use terrorism to achieve their goals.

Quote:
 

You say the rules of war have changed, maybe they have, so the suicide bombings happening in Israel are justified. You said so yourself in stating that terrorism is a legitimate warfare tactic.


You're confusing justification for an attack from an moral or legal standpoint with the validity of a particular war tactic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
Military actions are political agendas, just by force instead of reason.  In WWII we went in to accomplish a goal; we could probably have accomplished that goal purely by targeting military targets only, but instead we realized that we could win faster and with fewer losses by targeting civilians.  Of course, sometimes you would lose a war by targeting only military forces, but yet might prevail were you to target civilians.  That is the state the terrorists are in now.  If they only attacked military targets they wouldn't have any hope of winning.


The way to disable and conquer a nation is to disable it's military. How is only targeting civilians going to accomplish this. Reason gives way to logic at some point in time and eventually have to either strike or go home.

Quote:
 
The guy fixing lunch in the barracks for the guy with the M-16 is an innocent civilian?  The guy assembling the M-16 in a factory or bullets for the M-16 is an innocent civilian?  The guy who voted to send the guy with the M-16 to your nation to kill you is an innocent civilian?  The guy who payed the sum of money needed to send the guy with the M-16 to kill you is an innocent civilian?  Without all those people the guy with the M-16 wouldn't be there.  In fact, the guy with the M-16 might be a draftee who doesn't even want to be there, much less kill you.  The guy who wants you dead just coerced him into doing his dirty work for him.  By striking at the guy with the M-16 only you've not done anything against the person who has the real intent to kill you, but in fact killed someone with an innocent mind that was merely following orders.


It doesn't matter who is fixing lunch or paying taxes for who. What would matter is you have a person holding an automatic assult rifle shooting at you. Now, with that scenario who is it more wise to take out, the person who built the gun or the person hunting you down with it?

Quote:
 
Why would saying that terrorism is a valid tactic therefor imply some kind of blanket right for one person to kill another?  Whether an act of violence is "right" depends on everything except the type of violence used.  It is of no consolation to me if I'm killed in a terrorist attack or a missle strike by a world power; dead is dead.  What matters to me is the aims of the terrorists.  The terrorists of today are wrong because of their goals, not because they use terrorism to achieve their goals.


I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm implying that these extremist are killing Christians because they have to use questionable tactics to win a war.

Quote:
 
You're confusing justification for an attack from an moral or legal standpoint with the validity of a particular war tactic.


No, no confusion here. Legality or morality doesn't come into play here. If terrorism is a legit and fair war tactic, then suicide bombings of Israel should be expected. Still, bombing busses or nightclubs isn't getting these terrorist any closer to their ultimate goal. If not, then how is what they're doing "legit"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Made by Sionthede of the IFSZ.