| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Semper Fidelis Registered: 01/11/05 Posts: 7,523 Loc: Harmless (Mostly) Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Bad form.
You can disagree with him but why bring up alcoholism? Another ad hominem. -------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.” Edited by SirTripAlot (03/03/20 08:26 PM)
| |||||||
|
OTD God-King Registered: 08/16/03 Posts: 65,834 Loc: Uncanny Valley |
| ||||||
|
I don't drink. You've been warned about the personal attacks. Next time, it will be a ban.
The reason I haven't looked into it is that it isn't the topic of this thread. The thread is called "Shutdown Canada: The Wet'suwet'en Standoff." It's about the shutdown...not the underlying dispute. I have more than enough information to determine that many people have been harmed by the blockades, and that those people are simply innocent victims in this whole thing. Unless you can demonstrate a nexus between the actions being taken and the actual dispute, you're just making an emotional plea for sympathy for the poor victims who have no other option than to fuck random people up.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 10/27/12 Posts: 8,415 |
| ||||||
|
i edited it, my bad. i dont drink either. good for us. it feels a lot different when it's your own family being fucked up for hundreds of years and you see it happening to all other tribes and you cant do anything and then you have to try to explain..
im going to go for a walk i cant talk about this anymore right now ill be back.
| |||||||
|
בּ Registered: 02/19/09 Posts: 13,462 Loc: Turtle Island Last seen: 12 hours, 44 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: So you just glanced at the title and didn't bother to read the OP where I state "Ok so first I want to give some context." and proceed to answer the two questions you pose here plus much much more. 1. What problem are they trying to solve? 2. What have they tried so far to solve it? Find your answers here. Also I'm going to point out all the questions I've posed that you've neglected to answer: 1. What qualifies an action as just or not. You are apparently knowledgeable enough to confidently make these pronouncements so help us learn. 2. Now that, I assume, you've read the OP and have educated yourself on the history and context that brought us to this standoff, can you provide any suggestions for effective alternatives to these blockades? 3. You asked if the right to blockade was codified in Canadian law - I responded that Canadian courts recognize that Indigenous laws form part of Canada's legal system, including as a basis for Aboriginal title. The "rule of law" therefore includes both Canadian and Indigenous law - and Indigenous law includes the right to prevent trespass on their land. Perhaps you will choose to comment on this now? Your continual refusal to answer these direct questions makes it seem like you don't have any logical or moral foundation for your judgements regarding these blockades being an injust act, and that you are trying to defend an emotional value judgement on your part. So please, read the OP - educate yourself on the issue - and then answer these three questions. Because I don't believe you can without revealing the flaws in your own argument.
| |||||||
|
בּ Registered: 02/19/09 Posts: 13,462 Loc: Turtle Island Last seen: 12 hours, 44 minutes |
| ||||||
|
All along the demands of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs have been: 1. RCMP out, 2. CGL stop work, 3. When those two cease, sit down and talk with government officials about land rights.
The pressure has been immense. Everyone wants a solution. As a show of good faith, the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs sat down to talk with government officials, and what happened? CGL and RCMP are back on their lands again today. These two crucial points were not resolved. Yet I see government congratulating itself, and media headlines proclaiming a "proposed agreement on the pipeline" achieved even though it wasn't an agreement about the pipeline. The press has mislead the public to think that the issue with CGL was resolved. When the public sees people still protesting because the deal wasn't about the pipeline, it once again feeds into the FALSE narrative that the chiefs move the goal posts and don't know what they want. This all feeds into the stereotypes of Indigenous people wanting "more" or that Indigenous people are "unreasonable". The RCMP and Trudeau used the press in the same way when the RCMP first came out with a statement that they would leave Wet'suwet'en land. The impression was given to the press, by the RCMP, that the RCMP was leaving; meeting a key demand of the hereditary chiefs and the solidarity actions across the country. So the public thought "ok protests will stop now". Except the RCMP didn't leave. So the protests did not stop. And we heard again "indigenous people are unreasonable", instead of questioning why the RCMP was enforcing the ability of CGL to continue its work despite CGL failing its environmental assessment and being given a 30 day work stop order. Then Marc Miller goes to Tyendinaga. Talks were continuing for days privately. Even as Trudeau stood up at a press conference to say "talks had broken down" "we were more than reasonable" "time has run out" "Canadians are hurting" dog whistling "indigenous people are unreasonable". "Canadians are hurting" Trudeau said. Even when his minister of Transportation had brokered a deal between CN and CP that had goods flowing for weeks. And as he said it, he knew, he was tapping into pre-existing racist sentiments among Canadians. He knew and he didn't care. Why? For the same reason Bennett and Fraser couldn't come to an agreement with the Chiefs on CGL. Because the bottom line is, no matter what Canadian laws are broken by corporations or Canada, the Constitution comes second to pipelines and the corporate agenda. Somehow this is all indigenous peoples fault, that Canada disregards its own laws and international law. While dog whistling the "rule of law" to Canadians. This is what the rule of law means to indigenous people living in so-called Canada.
| |||||||
|
OTD God-King Registered: 08/16/03 Posts: 65,834 Loc: Uncanny Valley |
| ||||||
|
So, to answer your questions:
1. There have been many people to analyze this issue. There are probably as many answers as there are people on the planet. The consensus view, however, is that a moral or just action is one that, if universally applied, would maximize the good and minimize the bad. What does this mean? Well, it means that if the action is one that everyone took, would the world be a better place or a worse place for humans? If better, the action is moral/just. If worse, the action is immoral/unjust. 2. It appears that the tribes have gone through the legal process and lost. At this point, they have no legal right to stop anything. Given that, the best option is to negotiate with the pipeline proponents in an attempt to reach a win-win option. This will likely mean having to give up something in exchange for getting something. The details of that negotiation would have to be based on the individual parties and what they have of value and what they want of value. Obviously, no one here in this thread have that information, but it may very well be that no negotiation would work. 3. From my research, it appears that the rail companies have a right-of-way for the entire length of their track. This right-of-way not only gives the railroads access and use of that area, but the Railway Safety Act of 1989 makes it a trespass for others to enter that area without lawful cause. Given this, the act of blockading the rail lines is clearly unlawful, whether or not those lines cross through native territories. All of this leads us to exactly the same place we were. The indigenous people are breaking the law and harming thousands of random innocents. That is immoral. They are literally terrorists at this point.
| |||||||
|
בּ Registered: 02/19/09 Posts: 13,462 Loc: Turtle Island Last seen: 12 hours, 44 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: So what exactly qualifies as an action in your framework? For example, harming another human is an action that would be considered an unjust act - but certain ends justify this act; consensual bdsm and proportional self-defence being two examples. Except you have made the argument that the ends never justify the means, so you must be phrasing things differently. My assumption is that, instead of considering pleasure and protection as justifying ends for the act of harming another human, you consider assault, bdsm, and self-defence to be three completely different acts whose justification is an intrinsic value. Continuing with this, let's now apply it to blockades. Of course, if everyone was out blockading things, the world would likely be a worse place - it is not something that should be universally applied. Many people (40% of Canadian) would say that resisting 500 years of ongoing colonial violence and opposing the violence directed at the Wet'suwet'en people justifies the current blockades, but that's not how you phrase things. If I reapply my assumption from the former paragraph, I conclude that you wouldn't consider 'asserting Indigenous rights' as justifying ends for the act of blockading, you instead consider 'blockading to assert Indigenous rights' to be the intrinsically unjust act. Yet, earlier you made a post that used 'blockading to prevent the transport of Jews to concentration camps' as an example of a justified act. I wonder if you could better explain why you consider this act justified but not the former? There is lots of documentation (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, The Ipperwash Inquiry Report) to show that Indigenous people are being actively harmed by the policies of removing Indigenous people from their land in order to allow industrial development. Genocide is not hyperbole but a term actively used in some of these reports. So can you explain what differentiates blockades intended to prevent Jewish genocide from blockades intended to prevent Indigenous genocide in your framework? The only difference that jumps out at me is that you aren't a German citizen living in Nazi Germany, but you are a citizen of a colonial State - and maybe its easier to be critical of situations that don't require some level of self-implication. If any of my assumptions are incorrect, please correct them. Quote: Can you be clearer on what you mean by "lost"? Because Delgamuukw v British Columbia confirmed the validity of oral history as evidence. Further, the court recognized Wet’suwet’en hereditary governance and that Indigenous nations’ interests in their land predate the Crown and that these interests exist today - that they still have these land interests within Canadian law. But the bad side of this is that the court decided that at earlier stages in the case, some technical matters had gone awry. The court recognized that the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan had title - but said that due to technical errors they would have to go back to court in order to figure out where that title applied. The judge also stated that direct negotiations may be a better method of resolution instead of a new trial. This had been a 13 year long multi-million dollar expense, and the tribes did not have the resources to repeat this again. Instead of negotiating land title, the BC government chose to instead act as if it did not exist. Then, in 2004, the Haida Nation went to court and Haida Nation v British Columbia recognized that even if an Indigenous nation has not established title or rights in a Canadian court, their title and rights exist. The court said that even in that kind of case you need to have consultation taking place because at some point these rights are going to be established and then you will have to have paid attention to them somehow. So by "lost" do you refer to the technicality that deferred the legal victory of Indigenous land title? Or by "lost" do you refer to CGLs injunction - as if an injunction granted to a corporation should supersede Indigenous land title? Even with all this considered, the Hereditary Chiefs did attempt to negotiate with CGL - but CGL was in a position to unilaterally reject any alternative proposal and that's what happened. In the end negotiations amounted to 'you either get money or an injunction, but either way this pipeline is getting built' - which is closer to coercion. At this point your assumption is correct - negotiation did not work - so in response the hereditary chiefs, in accordance with Wet'suwet'en law, evicted both CGL and the RCMP from their territory - which led to the militarized police raid - which led to he blockades. So you're caught up now - what should the Wet'suwet'en have done? Legal avenues exhausted and the Canadian State isn't listening to their own legal rulings that support Indigenous land title anyways - negotiations impossible when the alternative side has all the power of the police State behind them - facing the continued genocide of their people by the Canadian State... Should they just accept this "loss" as you term it? Or should they continue to fight against this injustice? If you think they should continue to fight - what alternatives to the blockades can you suggest? Quote: Yes, that is what Canadian law says - but remember that Canadian courts recognize that Indigenous laws form part of Canada's legal system too. Using the blockade at Tyendinaga as an example, this section of railway lies on stolen land - the Culbertson Tract Land Claim - land stolen from the Mohawk Nation by Canada in contravention of Treaty 3 1/2. The Mohawks of Tyendinaga have their own law that allows them to prevent trespass on their land. What right does Canada have to impose its own laws on stolen land? Even our own courts acknowledge Indigenous land title - in this case we have a treaty that has been openly violated - but the colonialism inherent to the Canadian State means that 'rule of law' is casually ignored where it supports Indigenous rights and title. Quote: Ah yes, generous application of the label 'terrorism' - always the refuge of the neutral and dispassionate observer. Edited by shivas.wisdom (03/04/20 06:15 PM)
| |||||||
|
OTD God-King Registered: 08/16/03 Posts: 65,834 Loc: Uncanny Valley |
| ||||||
Quote: It's a fair question. After all, any act can be broken into smaller acts. Shooting someone in the head could be broken down into shooting someone. Shooting someone can be broken down into aiming a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. Is pulling a trigger, in itself morally wrong? Of course not. I absolutely understand your issue here, and I'll try to clarify as much as possible. Ultimately, we're not really talking about "acts" as much as we're talking about "means," right? That's where we're trying to get to, at least, for purposes of the analysis. So, what determines the act or acts that makes up the "means?" Earlier in this thread, I believe it was you who argued it was semantics insofar as I used the example of stopping a train full of jews from reaching the concentration camp. At that time, I totally understood your point, and I probably would have had this discussion then had we not gone so far off track (no pun intended) shortly thereafter. When we're looking at "means" as used in my postulate "the ends never justify the means," we're talking about an action or group of actions that, taken together, accomplish at least one undesirable result. The reason at least one result must be undesirable, at least from a moral standpoint, is that the postulate is meaningless if the "means" only has positive results, since such a means would not need any justification as it is wholly just in itself. Hopefully, I haven't skipped a lot of logical steps here. I'm covering a lot of ground very quickly. So, with that working definition, the act, or means, we're talking about in this thread would be the blockading of passenger and freight trains. The reason I say this is because the act of being near the tracks is victimless, as far as I can see. The act of stopping a train, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily have a victim. It's when we get to the specific act of stopping passenger and freight trains that people start to get harmed. I hope you're with me so far. Quote: For a long time in the U.S., the majority of people knew that slavery was a moral wrong, but still believed that the economic benefits of slavery justified its continued existence. Consensus does not determine the morality of an undertaking. As far as your last sentence, no...I consider the unjust act to be blockading passenger and freight trains. And I believe that the goal (or ends) of asserting indigenous rights does not suddenly make that act just. Quote: Well, let's analyze this. If the act is blockading the transport of jews to a death camp, can we universalize that? Clearly, we can. The world would undoubtedly be a better place if everyone blockaded the transport of jews to death camps. That act needs absolutely no justification, and even if people did that act for the worst of reasons, that act would still be moral/just. Quote: Okay, here we get to the real core of the issue. There is a crystal clear difference. Blockading a train from transporting jews to a death camp is directly combatting the genocide. Blockading a train full of people who just happen to be traveling that day does nothing to directly combat genocide. Surely you see this. Instead, this latter blockade punishes society for society's actions. It makes society pay a price for what society has done. That's ultimately the intention of the act. But, in the end, you're punishing random people for the actions of specific people....people that, most likely, aren't even on those trains. There's nothing just in that. Let's change the hypothetical a bit. Killing a human being is not necessarily morally wrong...you've touched on this earlier. Is killing someone in self-defense wrong? Sometimes, no. Now, if there was a particular person trampling on the indigenous people's rights, would it be okay to kill that person? Maybe... Would shooting Hitler in the back of the head be morally wrong? Maybe not. These issues depend on many factors, and we can absolutely have a difference of opinion on them...and I wouldn't be talking in black and white absolutes with any of these situations because they very much depend on many things that we may never know... But when we go back to these blockades, which are undoubtedly victimizing the innocent in order to somehow right an unrelated wrong, there's no way to get to moral justification. I'll answer the rest in another post...I'm running out of room.
| |||||||
|
OTD God-King Registered: 08/16/03 Posts: 65,834 Loc: Uncanny Valley |
| ||||||
Quote: Yes, I mean the injunction. And yes, an injunction applies regardless of the title. That is the very reason for an injunction. An injunction forces or prohibits conduct that a person or entity would normally have no obligation to do or refrain from doing. Title, without an injunction, would give the titleholder the power to stop the construction. The injunction changes that. Quote: Only political pressure is likely to change things at this point. This is, ultimately, what they are doing with these blockades. If it is true that 40% of the population support the blockades, that is a huge political force that could be wielded to get what they want. Yes, it might be harder to do it without victimizing people, but that 40% could be reached through many different avenues including media, grassroots efforts, etc. Would it take longer? Probably. Would it cost some money? Probably. Would it be harder? ABSOLUTELY! But sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. Quote:Quote: You're going to need more than some general claim about the applicability of native law in contravention of federal law. While you may be right, I doubt it. Unless you can somehow prove that territorial jurisdiction of the natives supercedes the statutory right-of-way held by the rail companies, you're just making some philosophical argument. Expansion by conquest is still expansion, whether or not it's fair or right. Quote:Quote: If you have a less offensive word to describe people who victimize random people for the purpose of achieving a political goal, I'll be glad to use it.
| |||||||
|
See er Registered: 04/02/14 Posts: 2,845 Loc: Pickin yer patch |
| ||||||
|
I don’t see any food on those trains. The terrorists put up gates, blocked travel, killed families, and displaced a people from their land. The people are just standing on earth. No gates no blood shed.
Those “terrorists” should cover the tracks in dirt and plant trees. The trees will be the gates to keep the invaders from further destruction of a garden needed for the future. If we were not a domesticated animal then we could identify our food. Food does not come from trains. It comes from the earth. As we all have come and soon shall return.
| |||||||
|
OTD God-King Registered: 08/16/03 Posts: 65,834 Loc: Uncanny Valley |
| ||||||
|
Sounds like hippie bullshit to me. Besides, if that's true, then what does it matter where they put the pipeline? We'll all be in the earth soon enough.
| |||||||
|
See er Registered: 04/02/14 Posts: 2,845 Loc: Pickin yer patch |
| ||||||
Quote: Oh you’ll be there soon enough. This has already happened. All you are experiencing is a memory.
| |||||||
|
OTD God-King Registered: 08/16/03 Posts: 65,834 Loc: Uncanny Valley |
| ||||||
|
Everything we experience is a memory. By the time we experience it, it's already the past.
As cool as the philosophical musings are, you should try to stay on topic.
| |||||||
|
Semper Fidelis Registered: 01/11/05 Posts: 7,523 Loc: Harmless (Mostly) Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Didn't Zappa one time say, (paraphrased) "you can come over to my house and we will play hide the action figure." Seriously, lol
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
| |||||||
|
See er Registered: 04/02/14 Posts: 2,845 Loc: Pickin yer patch |
| ||||||
Quote: How is this not on topic? If what has been experienced is a memory of a people how does a perceived “time” change any of the facts? We could start by looking at the area. What local are they in? I don’t know. But we could at least look at the nearest Catholic Church in the area. Get ground penetrating equipment and dig up the bones the “holy” grounds are concealing and identify the remains of the people’s. Maybe the locals are still around and remember of a time their grandfathers had a freedom and attempted to vote. Did their vote count? Does it now? Does your vote count Enlil? If
| |||||||
|
Semper Fidelis Registered: 01/11/05 Posts: 7,523 Loc: Harmless (Mostly) Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Here it is:
https://www.shroomery.org/forums Thats funny as hell. I remember himt too!. He set up secret santa! -------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.” Edited by SirTripAlot (03/04/20 09:30 PM)
| |||||||
|
See er Registered: 04/02/14 Posts: 2,845 Loc: Pickin yer patch |
| ||||||
Quote: Quote:
| |||||||
|
OTD God-King Registered: 08/16/03 Posts: 65,834 Loc: Uncanny Valley |
| ||||||
|
Wtf made you think of that?
| |||||||
|
Semper Fidelis Registered: 01/11/05 Posts: 7,523 Loc: Harmless (Mostly) Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes |
| ||||||
|
...without saying to much, I have my moments. But looking back,no, that didnt fit there. Lol
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
| |||||||
|
בּ Registered: 02/19/09 Posts: 13,462 Loc: Turtle Island Last seen: 12 hours, 44 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: I follow your reasoning up to this point, but I think you begin to create an impossible standard here. Are you suggesting that an act must be free of undesirable results in order to be just? Because I don't believe any act could make that claim. Take for example homicide in self-defence - even if this act is completely justified as a proportional response to a physical threat, it has the undesirable result of punishing the family, especially any dependents, of the person killed through no fault of their own. Would you conclude that this undesirable result makes such an act unjust; why or why not? Quote: Why do you phrase this situation as "blockading passenger and freight trains" but when referring to your concentration camp example you allow it the benefit of context, "blockading the transport of jews to a death camp"? This seems like an unfair double standard. Without context, blockading the transport of Jews to a death camp just becomes "blockading passenger and freight trains". Quote: So an antisemitic group that blockades the transport of Jews to a death camp so that they can personally torture and kill the occupants would be justified in this act? That doesn't seem like a reasonable system of morality. Secondly, you appear to be giving this example the benefit of existing in isolation, while making a significant effort to connect the indigenous-led blockades to every peripheral effect that you can. Do you think that blockading the transport of Jews by train to concentration camps wouldn't have a wider effect on the transportation of general supplies by that same railway? Many of the blockades that occurred during WW2 were hard blockades - meaning bridges were destroyed and the railways were physically and permanently disrupted. Undoubtedly this would have had harmful effects to the German civilian population - many who were not directly involved in any violence towards Jewish people. The blockades currently happening in Canada are soft blockades - no permanent damage have been done to hold them - and it's also important to acknowledge that while these blockades have definitely limited the amount of freight that can been shipped across Canada, they have not completely shut down our transport network - essential supplies are still moving. The effect is one of significant economic loss, but no Canadians are starving or freezing to death because of these blockades. Quote: I think if you truly understood the nature of colonialism and how forcing indigenous people off of their land has always been at the root of this genocide, you would understand that asserting indigenous title and land rights is the way to directly combat this genocide. One of the most powerful ways that the Indigenous people of so-called Canada can assert this title is through requiring consent before access to their land - and that's what these blockades are. If you are honestly interested in understanding this issue better I can suggest a few titles: 500 Years of Indigenous Resistance; Seven Fallen Feathers; The Inconvenient Indian; Unsettling Canada; The Reconciliation Manifesto. If you prefer a more facts-based approach, I recommend any of the government reports on treatment of Indigenous people in Canada that I included in my previous post. Quote: There aren't any death camps to shut down in Canada (although judging by the mass graves of children that we find, our residential schools probably fit that bill) - there is stolen land (and the cultures and traditions connected to the land) to reclaim. And just like shutting down the fascist State of Nazi Germany undoubtedly harmed a lot of people who were guilty of nothing more than passively benefiting from the suffering and injustice experienced by the Jews and every other undesirable, so to can we expect that shutting down the colonial State of Canada will inevitably harm a lot of people who are guilty of nothing more than passively benefiting from the suffering and injustice experienced by Indigenous peoples. That doesn't make these actions immoral. A more just society will likely always be harmful to those who benefit from the injustice, but only in the temporary - long-term everyone benefits from a more just society. Quote: I don't see how you can go from considering murder to be a morally ambiguous act without greater context, and even then allow for a difference of opinion - and in the next paragraph conclude that these blockades are unjustified with apparent certainty. Surely you see the double standard that you are constantly applying to these indigenous-led blockades in order to reach your judgement?
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Bush proposes alternative to N. Korea standoff ( |
2,203 | 41 | 10/21/03 03:38 PM by afoaf | ||
![]() |
2020 VISION What will Canada look like in 15 years? ( |
10,354 | 65 | 12/12/19 01:38 PM by JohnRainy | ||
![]() |
Is Canada still part of the British Empire? | 3,335 | 12 | 06/27/05 06:32 PM by Signo | ||
![]() |
Oh Canada ( |
3,771 | 46 | 07/07/05 10:27 PM by Phluck | ||
![]() |
SHAME ON CANADA - FREE SPEECH IN PERIL! ( |
2,336 | 39 | 08/21/02 11:50 AM by EvilBastard | ||
![]() |
The legality of cubenis in canada.(for greghimself) | 1,054 | 12 | 12/20/03 08:51 PM by Phred | ||
![]() |
Iran says open to "new conditions" over standoff | 400 | 0 | 09/14/06 12:56 AM by Dexter_Morgan | ||
![]() |
Cultivation Laws in Canada | 1,108 | 12 | 06/14/03 05:20 PM by Dogomush |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 1,995 topic views. 4 members, 5 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

