Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 Chespirito
Stranger
 
Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,223
|
 Re: US support of Israel [Re: Shins]
#11319309 - 10/25/09 02:42 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America.
Sometimes rendered : The Jews work more effectively against us than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America.
Both of these are doctored statements that have been widely disseminated as genuine on many anti-semitic websites;
They are distortions derived from a statement that may be authentic, and was attributed to George Washington in Maxims of George Washington (1894) about currency speculators during the Revolutionary war, not about Jews: "This tribe of black gentry work more effectually against us, than the enemy's arms. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties, and the great cause we are engaged in. It is much to be lamented that each State, long ere this, has not hunted them down as pests to society, and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America." More information is available at Snopes. com: "To Bigotry, No Sanction""
Also you have listed on those quotes a series of known anti-semites. Ford? Lindbergh? Luther? Are you kidding me?
"I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. If I were an atheist of the other sect, who believe, or pretend to believe that all is ordered by chance, I should believe that chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization.
John Adams"
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jews
|
 Shins
Fun guy
Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 5,772
Last seen: 12 days, 12 hours
|
Re: US support of Israel [Re: zappaisgod]
#11322219 - 10/25/09 11:27 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Well are they or are they not anti-semitic? Or are you just playing the anti-semite card? You can certainly criticize Israel without being anti-semitic. But it quite often devolves into anti semitism. For instance your complaint that they consider themselves the Chosen People. Every religious group thinks they are better or preferred by god. Even atheists such as myself think they are better because they aren't dumb enough to waste any energy worshiping the Sacred Flying Spaghetti Monster. To single out the Chosen People for that is anti-semitic. Why do you attack Jews for doing exactly the same thing as every other religion?
You do know that Jesus was a Jew don't you? You also realize that the Torah is part of the Christian bible and sacred to Muslims, don't you? Next you'll be quoting from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and alleging that Jews use Palestinian baby blood to bake matzoh.
The chance of me watching that video is zero.
I dont think i can honestly say that post was not "using the anti-semite card"
It's hard not to criticize a religious national state without also criticizing the religion, especially in the case of Israel since religion was the whole premise to it's inception. but i get your point. criticize the ideas not the person (or state).
Okay. maybe i'm singling out jews here, but i think it's relevant to the thread
Are jewsish people not anti-non-semite?
mostly everyone in Israel way back when was jewish. i understand jesus was killed for blasphemy.
Is every part of the talmud embraced by islam and christianity? i'm really not an expert to be honest. this is a learning process for me. so basically they all follow the same scripture only Christians and Muslims follow "blasphemers" in the eyes of jews, and muslums are blasphemers in the eyes of christians?
Edited by Shins (10/25/09 11:43 PM)
|
Shins
Fun guy
Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 5,772
Last seen: 12 days, 12 hours
|
Re: US support of Israel [Re: Chespirito]
#11322239 - 10/25/09 11:33 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for the link Chespirito, and i appreciate the counter-argument.
--------------------
Truth - Love - Courage
|
Shins
Fun guy
Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 5,772
Last seen: 12 days, 12 hours
|
Re: US support of Israel [Re: Shins]
#11322332 - 10/26/09 12:35 AM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
about a previous topic; "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is the idea pretty much that, although jews may be egotistical, and perhaps they are involved a lot with finance, government, media etc, they are not really an immediate threat to western society and they perhaps helped build it? Whereas extremist muslims and followers of "oppressive" or disagreeable islamic schools of law are a detriment, and being such makes marginalizing them globally an objective?
on the topic of jerusalem; basically, muslims and their occupation of Jerusalem are blasphemous and jews prophetically "belong" in Israel according to them and were kind of screwed out of it by the romans? Muslims managed to get it from rome (byzantine,) and mostly ruled over it for about 1500 years excluding short periods of byzantine and crusader control?
fast forward to 1900's; Jews allied with "the west" have retaken jerusalem and here we are today.
Jews believe they prophetically own jerusalem, but muslims detest the fact it was taken from them after 1500 years of rule, and believe that their prophets and laws are legit?
so this is put simply a conflict of prophecy? US nationalism be damned, it's us or them?
tough shit this is!
--------------------
Truth - Love - Courage
Edited by Shins (10/26/09 12:57 AM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,515
Last seen: 14 hours, 49 minutes
|
|
Quote:
EntheogenicPeace said:
More Arabs & Muslims have been killed in their homelands by American weapons than Americans in their communities by Muslims... to contest this you would have to claim that the death toll of Arabic/Muslim civilians from American bombs & bullets was less than 3500, which even the U.S. government has acknowledged more than that were killed in the first couple of weeks of the 2003 invasion... excluding all the other instances before & after.
That's it. BLAME THE BULLETS. Forget about who pulls the trigger. And you continue to express the ludicrous notion that being successful in stopping murdering thug scum is unacceptable unless you can do it with a magical unicorn ray that doesn't hurt anybody.Quote:
Kuwait was defended from Saddam's aggression only because they a) had a pro-Western government & b) exported something valuable to the West.
Which has nothing to do with anything. Unless you're trying to make a case that we should intervene in ALL conflicts. Which I doubt.Quote:
P.S. I still patiently await that Brazilian casualty list at the hands of Muslims.
Hold your breath. It's coming. I promise. Keep holding it. Hooooold it.Quote:
P.P.S. Not you but somebody else said something about Kosovo/Serbia intervention being motivated by altruism; It wasn't. It was to get rid of a pro-Moscow, anti-neoliberal Serbian leader & to get Kosovo out of their hands. If it was altruism, the U.S. would have been in many parts of Africa also (where, in a number of them, Western, including America, arms were being used to commit every atrocity under the sun.)
If Western nations were to entirely cease production of weapons do you think that it would end any conflict? Because, mighty unicorn warrior, that is demonstrably absurd. On the contrary it is far more likely that strength prevents many conflicts. Just like a police force prevents burglaries. Not all of them but a lot of them.
--------------------
|
Simplicitry
Just another mushroom lover
Registered: 05/23/09
Posts: 798
Last seen: 1 day, 17 hours
|
|
Quote:
EntheogenicPeace said:
More Arabs & Muslims have been killed in their homelands by American weapons than Americans in their communities by Muslims... to contest this you would have to claim that the death toll of Arabic/Muslim civilians from American bombs & bullets was less than 3500, which even the U.S. government has acknowledged more than that were killed in the first couple of weeks of the 2003 invasion... excluding all the other instances before & after.
Yes we are more effective when it comes to warfare. What's your point? Just because they have more casualities means that their ideologies are right, and that they haven't done anything wrong? That makes no sense.
Quote:
EntheogenicPeace said:
Kuwait was defended from Saddam's aggression only because they a) had a pro-Western government & b) exported something valuable to the West.
Everyone knows that. We look out for our interests like everyone else on the planet. I think the real question is why wouldn't we help a pro-western goverment that exported oil that we want? Especially when the illeagal entry by Suddam gave us world support in doing so.
Quote:
EntheogenicPeace said:
P.S. I still patiently await that Brazilian casualty list at the hands of Muslims.
Your really stuck on this one aren't you. Just because Brazil is not involved in the conflict doesn't mean that America started the conflict. It also does not immunize the Muslims for their side of the agression. So what's your point?
If your trying to say America throw the first stone, it probably has something to do with the fact that you are so stupid, you tried telling me that Muslim agressions toward western influence started in WW2 in one of you previous posts.
--------------------
  
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I think we should cut all the social parasites from their welfare checks. Then they will either find a means to support themselves or starve to death, either of wich is good for the economy and society.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
Edited by Simplicitry (10/26/09 02:32 PM)
|
Simplicitry
Just another mushroom lover
Registered: 05/23/09
Posts: 798
Last seen: 1 day, 17 hours
|
Re: US support of Israel [Re: Shins]
#11324768 - 10/26/09 01:08 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shins said:
about a previous topic; "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is the idea pretty much that, although jews may be egotistical, and perhaps they are involved a lot with finance, government, media etc, they are not really an immediate threat to western society and they perhaps helped build it? Whereas extremist muslims and followers of "oppressive" or disagreeable islamic schools of law are a detriment, and being such makes marginalizing them globally an objective?
I would only like to add to your statement above. Muslim retoric against the west, and Muslim violence toward the west, along with deep Ideoligical differences(their hatred of gays, and religious freedom) make them the enemy of the west, and the Jew a friend of the west.
Quote:
Shins said:
fast forward to 1900's; Jews allied with "the west" have retaken jerusalem and here we are today.
Jews believe they prophetically own jerusalem, but muslims detest the fact it was taken from them after 1500 years of rule, and believe that their prophets and laws are legit?
so this is put simply a conflict of prophecy? US nationalism be damned, it's us or them
I don't care about any of the prophacies, and I support Israel for secular reasons. Many Americans feel the same.
--------------------
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I think we should cut all the social parasites from their welfare checks. Then they will either find a means to support themselves or starve to death, either of wich is good for the economy and society.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 6 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
the fact that your so stupid,
Laderrrrr
|
the_conservatarian
Stranger
Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 104
Last seen: 2 years, 28 days
|
Re: US support of Israel [Re: Redstorm]
#11349946 - 10/30/09 01:07 AM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shins said:
This post was derived with objectivity in mind, and the author hopes the reader will view it with the same.
Really? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm... I could have sworn that this post began with:
Quote:
Why does the USA support Israel's oppressive, racist, elitist regime?
I'd like to know your opinion.
This is important because it's why "the terrorists" don't like the USA, and it ties in to world war one, two, and possibly three.
Objective? Sure....................
If there is an argument to be made, then Zappa, DieCommie, and Simplicitry make the most logical points.
You suggest that it's possible for WW3 to occur simply because "the terrorists" don't like the USA - which speaks mouthfuls. Your point is very true... fascists have always attempted to destroy what they "don't like" ("hate") with relentless force.
Now you may wish for Israel (and/or the U.S.) to be annihilated by its neighbors. Many fascist religious sociopaths share that opinion.
You ask why the U.S. supports Israel. I guess it's since the U.S. prefers to deal with peace-loving, non aggressive entities.
So to answer your question, the U.S. supports Israel, so that Israel may survive the relentless attacks from brutal, violent fanatical fascists.
And why do you think this is such a bad thing?
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
|
|
Quote:
the_conservatarian said:
So to answer your question, the U.S. supports Israel, so that Israel may survive the relentless attacks from brutal, violent fanatical fascists.
And why do you think this is such a bad thing?
Relentless attacks? Remind me when Israel was attacked in the last 35 years. Unless you're just talking about Palestinians trying (unsuccessfully) to protect their Arab land from Israeli settlements.
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
 
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,515
Last seen: 14 hours, 49 minutes
|
|
What makes it the Palestinian's land? Nothing. They regularly launch rocket attacks into Israel. See that word, there? "Attacks". Yep, they count.
--------------------
|
GI_Luvmoney
Vote Republican!
Registered: 05/10/09
Posts: 939
|
Re: US support of Israel [Re: zappaisgod]
#11352482 - 10/30/09 01:59 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Edited by GI_Luvmoney (10/30/09 02:00 PM)
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 6 months, 12 days
|
|
|
GI_Luvmoney
Vote Republican!
Registered: 05/10/09
Posts: 939
|
|
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60905
Six clichés you are likely to hear constantly in the coming days, and why they’re false
Yigal Walt
1) “Israel’s response in Gaza is disproportionate”
Since when is war a mathematical equation? The basic objective of any warring party is to inflict maximal damage on the enemy while minimizing its own casualties. Was there anything proportional about the US war in Iraq? Or about Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait for that matter? Or about Russia’s recent war against Georgia? Israel is doing exactly what any other country has done in the past. This is how war works.
Would a British citizen complain that “too few” British soldiers are being killed in Iraq? Probably not.
And on a more elementary note: Palestinian military inferiority is not an indication of moral superiority. Palestinian insistence on resorting to violence despite this military weakness is an indication of poor judgment perhaps – yet it is by no means an indication of moral virtue. Being militarily weak does not make the Palestinians right.
2) “But Qassams don’t kill”
Actually, Qassams do kill. Not too often, perhaps, but dozens of Israelis were killed and wounded by rocket fire in recent years. Moreover, at this time the Palestinians are firing long-range Grad rockets with even greater explosive power. Such rockets killed 2 Israelis Monday.
Yet beyond the casualty figures, the psychological damage caused as result of living under an ongoing rocket threat is immeasurable. Would anyone in the West agree to have their family live under constant rocket attacks and be regularly woken up by sirens in the middle of the night? Would anyone living under such conditions appreciate being told that “these rockets don’t kill?” Probably not.
3) “It’s all because of Israel’s siege. Israel should allow aid into Gaza.”
Israel has allowed goods into Gaza regularly throughout the “siege”. Palestinians have been able to complement these deliveries with supplies smuggled through hundreds of tunnels (of course, they would likely be able to bring in even more food had they not used the tunnels to smuggle in missiles.).
The day before operation “Cast Lead” got underway, Israel allowed dozens of trucks carrying aid to enter the Strip. On Tuesday, another 100 trucks – double the normal number –are expected to enter Gaza after Defense Minister Barak approved the move.
In short, Israel is allowing aid into the Strip (but guess who has kept Gaza crossings mostly closed thus far? That’s right, Egypt.)
4) “Why didn’t Israel just agree to renew the Gaza truce?”
First, what truce? Terror groups continued to fire rockets throughout the lull, even if somewhat infrequently, and even if the world didn’t seem to care too much. Nonetheless, Israel clearly declared that it is interested in extending the truce. Our top officials made it clear time and again.
Yet Hamas leaders clearly declared that the truce has ended on December 19th, and proceeded to bombard southern Israeli communities with dozens of rockets daily. In short, it is no wonder that even the Egyptians are blaming Hamas this time.
5) “But Hamas was elected democratically – why can’t Israel accept it?”
Although Hamas won the Palestinian elections, it took Gaza by force, in the process hurling rival Fatah members down to their death from high-rises and shooting others in the knees with the declared aim of maiming them. Some democracy.
In any case, Israel in fact “recognizes,” de facto, Hamas’ rule in Gaza, which is precisely why it is justified in attacking the Hamas-ruled Strip, recognizing that it is indeed being governed by a terror entity. Israel did not launch the operation because Hamas is in power there – rather, it did so because Hamas is a terrorist organization that has deliberately targeted civilians with thousands of rockets over the past 8 years.
6) “Israel is targeting civilians”
You mean to say that “one of the most powerful armies in the world” has been bombing Gaza for days, deploying massive air power, dropping hundreds of bombs, and ultimately killing a grand total of 50 civilians or so in the “most crowded place on earth?”
There are two options here:
A) The Israeli army is not targeting civilians, or
B) Israeli pilots suck.
We tend to go with option A.
Indeed, Israel goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, by deploying precise ammunition and specialized techniques. In fact, nobody in the world does this better than the Jewish State.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60905
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
|
Re: US support of Israel [Re: zappaisgod]
#11355588 - 10/31/09 12:25 AM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
What makes it the Palestinian's land? Nothing. They regularly launch rocket attacks into Israel. See that word, there? "Attacks". Yep, they count.
C'mon now. I'm sure you've heard of UN Resolution 181. Don't like the rocket attacks? Then tell Israel to quit settling on Arab land.
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
the_conservatarian
Stranger
Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 104
Last seen: 2 years, 28 days
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Relentless attacks? Remind me when Israel was attacked in the last 35 years. Unless you're just talking about Palestinians trying (unsuccessfully) to protect their Arab land from Israeli settlements.
Seriously...?
Have you read a newspaper or book in the last 35 years?
Ever heard of Egyptian Islamic Jihad? Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya? Abu Nidal Organization? Hezbollah? Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade? HAMAS? PFLP? al Qaeda?
These groups in "support of Palestine" are operating outside of Palestine and have nothing to do with Palestine, besides their religious agreement of world domination.
I hate to say it, but as long as the racist Palestinians would prefer to die than share peace with Israel, they will have to continue to massacre themselves.
It's all a very sad situation. I hope the world improves...
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
|
|
Quote:
the_conservatarian said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Relentless attacks? Remind me when Israel was attacked in the last 35 years. Unless you're just talking about Palestinians trying (unsuccessfully) to protect their Arab land from Israeli settlements.
Seriously...?
Have you read a newspaper or book in the last 35 years?
Ever heard of Egyptian Islamic Jihad? Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya? Abu Nidal Organization? Hezbollah? Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade? HAMAS? PFLP? al Qaeda?
These groups in "support of Palestine" are operating outside of Palestine and have nothing to do with Palestine, besides their religious agreement of world domination.
I hate to say it, but as long as the racist Palestinians would prefer to die than share peace with Israel, they will have to continue to massacre themselves.
It's all a very sad situation. I hope the world improves...
Some would prefer to die than give up their land to Israel settlers. It is a very sad situation. I hope Israel quits stealing land.
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
the_conservatarian
Stranger
Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 104
Last seen: 2 years, 28 days
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Some would prefer to die than give up their land to Israel settlers. It is a very sad situation. I hope Israel quits stealing land.
Not only would they like to die, but they would prefer to ensure the complete murder of Israel along the way. These groups have vowed that:
"Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
That's the very first of the fascist Charters of HAMAS, by the way.
HAMAS and other anti-Israel groups subscribe to the slogan of "Death to Zionists. Death to Infidels."
|
GI_Luvmoney
Vote Republican!
Registered: 05/10/09
Posts: 939
|
|
Liberal cry babies don't care when muslims kill muslims. That's just their culture. Muslims stole all of the land that they claim is theirs.
Taken from www.jihadwatch.org
Quote:
Ban Ki-Moon, call your office: Egyptians open fire on Palestinians
All these Palestinians were trying to do was get out of Gaza. They lobbed no rockets into Egypt. They indulged in no genocidal rhetoric about wiping Egypt off the map and driving all the Egyptians into the sea. They never celebrated as heroes the murderers of Egyptian civilians on buses and in restaurants. Yet when the Egyptian border guards opened fire on these Palestinians, they could be secure in the knowledge that the world would not utter a peep of protest. Everyone will be fine with this. Only the Israelis engage in "disproportionate violence."
Quote:
"Egyptians open fire on Palestinians," from The Press Association, December 28 (thanks to Andrew Bostom):
Egyptian border guards have opened fire on Palestinians who breached the border to escape Israel's assault on Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
An Egyptian security official said there were at least five breaches along the nine-mile border and hundreds of Palestinian residents were pouring in.
At least 300 Egyptian border guards have been rushed to the area to reseal the border, the official added on condition on anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the press.
A resident of the Gaza Strip side of the border, Fida Kishta, said that Egyptian border guards opened fire to drive back the Palestinians.
Residents have also commandeered a bulldozer to open new breaches.
Palestinians reported several people were wounded by the gunfire....
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60853
Edited by GI_Luvmoney (10/31/09 11:09 AM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,515
Last seen: 14 hours, 49 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
What makes it the Palestinian's land? Nothing. They regularly launch rocket attacks into Israel. See that word, there? "Attacks". Yep, they count.
C'mon now. I'm sure you've heard of UN Resolution 181. Don't like the rocket attacks? Then tell Israel to quit settling on Arab land.
That might be of some relevance if the rocket attacks were coming from the West Bank. They are not, they are coming from the Gaza Strip, which the Israelis vacated and which is controlled by a completely different faction of Palestinian governance. Nice try, though.
As for the UN they have long ago been co-opted by the sheer number of Islamic members.
UN member nations by religious affiliation:
Islamic 57
Jewish 1
Quote:
In a crushing blow to the freedom of speech worldwide, the United Nations Human Rights Council last Thursday approved a resolution calling upon member states to provide legal “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”
While the resolution speaks of religion in general, the proposal came from Pakistan and had the backing of the powerful 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the UN’s largest voting bloc – so it was clear that Islam was the only religion the drafters of the resolution had in mind. This is underscored by the fact that Muslim states have worked energetically to make “Islamophobia” the focus of Durban II -- the UN’s upcoming second World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. A draft declaration declares that “defamation of Islam” should be a criminal offense, even when it takes place under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.”
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34589
--------------------
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1
2,940 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Anonymous