| 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: |
| |||||||
|
Armchairanarchis Registered: 01/01/06 Posts: 288 Last seen: 13 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
I like Matt Taibbi and I value his opinion, heres an article he recently wrote. Let me know what you think.
I, Left Gatekeeper Why the "9/11 Truth" movement makes the "Left Behind" sci-fi series read like Shakespeare Matt Taibbi A few weeks ago I wrote a column on the anniversary of 9/11 that offhandedly dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "clinically insane." I expected a little bit of heat in response, but nothing could have prepared me for the deluge of fuck-you mail that I actually got. Apparently every third person in the United States thinks George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks. "You're just another MSM-whore left gatekeeper paid off by corporate America," said one writer. "What you do isn't journalism at all, you dick," said another. "You're the one who's clinically insane," barked a third, before educating me on the supposed anomalies of physics involved with the collapse of WTC-7. I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes. In fact, if there were any conspiracy here, I'd be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying. Secondly, it's bad enough that people in this country think Tim LaHaye is a prophet and Sean Hannity is an objective newsman. But if large numbers of people in this country can swallow 9/11 conspiracy theory without puking, all hope is lost. Our best hope is that the Japanese take pity on us and allow us to serve as industrial slaves in their future empire, farming sushi rice and assembling robot toys. I don't have the space here to address every single reason why 9/11 conspiracy theory is so shamefully stupid, so I'll have to be content with just one point: 9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn't offer an affirmative theory of the crime. Forget for a minute all those Internet tales about inexplicable skyscraper fires, strange holes in the ground at Shanksville and mysterious flight manifestoes. What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement? Strikingly, there is no obvious answer to that question, since for all the many articles about "Able Danger" and the witnesses who heard explosions at Ground Zero, there is not -- at least not that I could find -- a single document anywhere that lays out a single, concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why. There obviously is such a theory, but it has to be pieced together by implication, by paying attention to the various assertions of 9/11 lore (the towers were mined, the Pentagon was really hit by a cruise missile, etc.) and then assembling them later on into one single story. But the funny thing is, when you put together all of those disparate theories, you get the dumbest story since Roman Polanski's Pirates. The specifics vary, but the basic gist of what They Say Happened goes something like this: A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for the New American Century, seeks to bring about a "Pearl-Harbor-like event" that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Your basic Reichstag fire scenario, logical enough so far. Except in this story, the Reichstag fire is an immensely complicated media hoax; the conspirators plot to topple the World Trade Center and pin a series of hijackings on a group of Sunni extremists with alleged ties to Al Qaeda. How do they topple the Trade Center? Well, they make use of NORAD's expertise in flying remote-control aircraft and actually fly two such remote-control aircraft into the Towers (in another version of the story, they conspire with Al Qaeda terrorists to actually hijack the planes), then pass the planes off as commercial jetliners in the media. But it isn't the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick. For good measure -- apparently to lend credence to the hijacking story -- they then fake another hijacking/crash in the Pentagon, where there actually is no plane crash at all but instead a hole created by a cruise missile attack, fired by a mysterious "white jet" that after the attack circles the White House for some time, inspiring the attention of Secret Service agents who point at it curiously from the ground (apparently these White House Secret Service agents were not in on the plot, although FBI agents on scene at Ground Zero and in Shanksville and elsewhere were). Lastly, again apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking cover story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim that a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real-life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a convincingly self-serving paean/memoir to her dead husband, again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good! Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone: BUSH: So, what's the plan again? CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down. RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion. CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't. RUMSFELD: We won't? CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq. RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack? CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around. BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists? RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything! CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania. RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere. CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile. BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile? CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by. BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers? CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane. BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right? CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here? RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York. BUSH: Oh, OK. RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them. BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo? CHENEY: Like pulling teeth! RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose! BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices? RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"! ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah! You get the idea. None of this stuff makes any sense at all. If you just need an excuse to assume authoritarian powers, why fake a plane crash in Shanksville? What the hell does that accomplish? If you're using bombs, why fake a hijacking, why use remote-control planes? If the entire government apparatus is in on the scam, then why bother going to all this murderous trouble at all -- only to go to war a year later with a country no one even bothered to falsely blame for the attacks? You won't see any of this explored in 9/11 Truth lore, because the "conspiracy" they're describing is impossible everywhere outside a Zucker brothers movie -- unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly baroque and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever. We are to imagine that not one of Bush's zillions of murderous confederates would slip and leave real incriminating evidence anywhere along the way, forcing us to deduce this massive crime via things like the shaking of a documentary filmmaker's tripod before the Towers' collapse (aha, see that shaking -- it must have been a bomb planted by the president and his ten thousand allies!). Richard Nixon was a hundred times smarter than Bush, and he couldn't prevent leaks and cries of anguished pseudo-conscience from sprouting among a dozen intimately involved conspirators -- but under the 9/11 conspiracy theory, even the lowest FBI agent used to seal off the crime scene never squeaks. It's absurd. I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. And without that, all the rest of it is bosh and bunkum, on the order of the "sonar evidence" proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster. If you can't put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you're doing is jerking off -- and it's not like no one's ever done that on the Internet before. Whenever anyone chooses to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theorists, accusations fly; the Internet screams that you've aided and abetted George Bush. I disagree. To me, the 9/11 Truth movement is, itself, a classic example of the pathology of George Bush's America. Bush has presided over a country that has become hopelessly divided into insoluble, paranoid tribes, one of which happens to be Bush's own government. All of these tribes have things in common; they're insular movements that construct their own reality by cherry-picking the evidence they like from the vast information marketplace, violently disbelieve in the humanity of those outside their ranks, and lavishly praise their own movement mediocrities as great thinkers and achievers. There are as many Thomas Paines in the 9/11 Truth movement as there are Isaac Newtons among the Intelligent Design crowd. There's not a whole lot of difference, psychologically, between Sean Hannity's followers believing liberals to be the same as terrorists, and 9/11 Truthers believing even the lowest soldier or rank-and-file FAA or NORAD official to be a cold-blooded mass murderer. In both cases you have to be far gone enough into your private world of silly tribal bullshit that the concept of "your fellow citizen" has ceased to have any meaning whatsoever. It may be that America has become too big and complicated for most people to deal with being part of. People are longing for a smaller, stupider reality. Some, like Bush, sell a prepackaged version. Others just make theirs up out of thin air. God help us.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Excellent read. Where's the link to it?
Phred
| |||||||
|
The Innovator Registered: 05/25/05 Posts: 1,074 Last seen: 13 years, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
The thing is, you believe that every third American believes the same crazy remote control plane theory. This in my opinion takes away from what the majority believes, that the administration either looked the other way when they received intelligence of the attack or was directly involved in funding Al Qaeda. If anything, Karl Rove was scared shitless of this kind of thinking that would bring unity to a whole giant group of people that have been connecting the dots the past few years, and decided to hire some people to make a whole bunch of youtube movies to change to entire original theory.
Or it just worked out to Karl Rove's liking. Don't think that everyone of those people who e-mailed you really believe the Loose Change side of the theory. I'm sure there was quite a few, and I'm sure maybe every tenth American is now convinced due to the hours and hours of these movies now all over the internet, but the people that originally connected the dots logically are skeptical enough to know that a remote control bomb wasn't flown into the pentagon due to the fact that paying/at least letting Al Qaeda, and even possibly setting up security so they could commit their crimes (see NORAD) would be much more along the lines of this government's thinking. -------------------- I don't think for myself. I think as though I'm explaining my thoughts to someone else. I'm concerned only for those listening. Edited by beatnicknick (10/10/06 09:15 AM)
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
Very well written and highly enjoyable. The imagined conversation between Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush was hilarious.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 6 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
I love Matt Taibi.
"A large number of them (Republicans) stand for being deranged lunatics who believe that the Bible was the last book ever written, and for being intellectual cowards who hide from the terrifying complexities of modern society by placing in all their beliefs in infantile concepts like faith, force, and patriotism." - Matt Taibbi, "Spanking the Donkey"
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 3 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
|
*laugh* Thanks for the read. That was great!!!
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
Armchairanarchis Registered: 01/01/06 Posts: 288 Last seen: 13 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Heres the link.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 05/24/04 Posts: 10,920 |
| ||||||
|
I am undecided on the issue of a September 11th conspiracy. I am trying to see all sides and angles before I form an opinion. But essays like this do not help. They build up a strawman and procede to hack it to pieces. I'm not interested.
| |||||||
|
Looking for the Answer Registered: 05/04/06 Posts: 3,912 |
| ||||||
Quote: -------------------- Capliberty: "I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 980 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours |
| ||||||
|
I too have a few problems with this, although it's very well written and funny at times.
It's a terrible generalization and misrepresentation of what's out there, probably fuelled by the anger over the reactions the author got from his previous article. It completely disregards the implausibility of the official theory, while demanding a Theory of Everything from those who criticize it. This is exactly not the thing to do. The way to proceed is to determine where the official story is implausible or impossible, point it out and demand an investigation and answers. Everything the world saw on that day was only the emerged tip of an iceberg. The government gave its version of the submerged part of the iceberg, which doesn't add up. The truth movement has nothing to gain in making up another version of things that, in their majority, cannot be known. I don't see how pointing out impossibilities in the official version automatically means you have to know every detail of what happened behind the screens. Also, it portrays a satire version of how the thing would have been plotted, and the result is of course hilarious at times (and ridiculous elsewhere). But try to imagine the same thing on the other side: Osama and his aides plotting an attack in which they have absolutely nothing to gain (as subsequent events expectedly showed), with boxcutters of course, not to make things too easy for themselves, and conveniently attracting CIA attention on the future hijackers for the same reasons, etc. You get the point. But of course, in the author's mind, these people aren't rational, so there would be nothing funny or strange about their behavior. They're always presented as irrational when it comes to strategy or faith, but as superintelligent and extremely skilled when it comes to fool US intelligence and defense. You can't have it both ways. Finally, the author presents things as if everything went according to plan that day, which no-one claims as far as I know. Who knows what happened to flight 93, for instance? At least, I don't think anyone supposes it was intended to crash in the middle of nowhere. Pretending to believe this is a deliberate misrepresentation which kind of gives the author away. That's also why it's absurd to demand a Theory of Everything on 9/11. Maybe things turned out much more complicated than planned, but whatever happened, one just cannot know. The submerged part is just too great. All people can do is point out where the official story goes off the road, and there are many instances.
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 6 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
If you're saying that Osama & gang had no motive for the attack, then how would you judge the motives for the earlier WTC bombing or the OKC bombing?
I honestly can't believe that you don't see the motives in the 9/11 attack.
| |||||||
|
refutation bias Registered: 10/21/02 Posts: 4,061 Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
You're right, the idea that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition is quite the strawman. But what's worse is that '9/11 Truthers' are constantly vacillating between wacky, unsubstantiated assertions and more level headed criticisms. One week it's "the towers were brought down by controlled demo", then you back away from this and it's "OK, they let it happen. Next week it's "the alleged hijackers are still alive, they've been spotted", followed by silence when it's pointed out that you've neglected a whole other host of possibilities, like maybe they used fake names. And one day it'll be "7WTC was a command center for Roves G.O.O.N.S. and had to be demolished to destroy the evidence", and a few months down the road, you'll concede "Alright, maybe that never happened, but they knew it was gonna happen and they let it happen!"
OK! Fine! They let it happen. Now you're getting somewhere! Now why don't you focus all your research and mental effort(don't forget the critical thinking) on elucidating the concept of how 'they let it happen' if that indeed is your only solid claim. Otherwise, you're indulging in delusions, which later, once realized to be ludicrous, will become 'booby traps' for the proud movement. The shells of dead fantasies given birth to by the '9/11 Truth Movement' become the scapegoats for anyone who feels that thier '9/11 Truth' perpsective of the world has been threatened by someone who challenges their assertions. Anyone who claims that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition, this essay is directed at you. Of course, you'll probably say, "I don't know what happened, I'm keeping an open mind, and looking at all the information." Guess what? If you're not thinking critically about the information you're looking at and the ideas you're forming, you're not being open minded. In fact, you're being the worst sort of ignorant, because you so righteously believe in your paranoid thoughts that haven't even been exposed to so much as the vapors of the solvent of rationality.
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Well, on the positive side, the rampant stupidity of those who believe in the conspiracy give Taibbi something to write about.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: How is this any different from the tactics that the truth movement accuses the government of using: specifically the application of strawman arguments to assume some large conspiracy/grievance. The ASCE carried out an investigation on behalf of FEMA on the site itself, meanwhile the Justice Department carried out a criminal investigation. People weren't happy with the findings in either case, and had questions. The government responded by recommending an NIST investigation and hearings in the House. People still weren't happy. Then the 9/11 commission was formed and issued a report. People still "had questions". Now NIST has issued it's report, but there were "still questions". We're now at a point where the ASCE has commented on the NIST report, the NIST has wasted resources by giving questions about controlled demolition the time of day, immense amount of time and money were wasted by putting together a commission to "do what the Justice department couldn't". And we still have people clamoring saying "No, this one fact, this one right here, it doesn't make sense under extreme conditions, so we need a brand new investigation!" At some point it has to end. For people who wanted a congressional investigation, there were hearings in the House committee on Justice. For people who wanted a definitively bipartisan investigation, there was the 9/11 commission. For people who wanted an independent investigation, there was the work of the ASCE for both FEMA and commenting on the NIST report. For people who wanted a scientific investigation, there's the NIST report. For people who wanted a criminal investigation, there was the initial inquiries made by the justice department. The fact of the matter is, we have had all the necessary investigations whether they be independent, scientific, criminal, congressional, or otherwise. Quote: This isn't true at all. Osama and crew are perfectly rational, they're also just woafully misinformed. They also aren't extremely skilled when it comes to fooling US inelligence and defense, but rather US intelligence and defense is extremely incompetent. The findings of the 9/11 commission were quite clear: our intelligence and defense departments are grossly incompetent. There was evidence as early as 1993 that terrorists were considering flying planes into buildings. Yet during the 8 years between 1993 and 2001, no one at the FAA, NORAD, CIA, FBI, etc. et al, could come up with a good plan on what exactly to do in order to prevent this from happening. It was determined time and again that current protocol were sufficient. Then there's the staffing issue. Security staffers didn't usually graduate from the top of the class. One of the biggest post-9/11 findings was that none of the workers at Logan airport even knew what the complete and total security procedure was supposed to be in order for people to board planes. The FBI was really good at tracking terrorists, but really bad at deciding what to do with that information. The government isn't covering up anything we didn't already know: that industry recruits the best and the brightest in America and the government gets what's left. We have people who are neither the best nor the brightest who are, unfortunately, the ones in charge of protecting us from terrorists. As a result the hijackers had to be neither experts at subterfuge nor skilled at evasion.
| |||||||
|
fuckingsuperhero Registered: 06/29/04 Posts: 3,531 Last seen: 4 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: this guy Matt Taibbi sounds like your typical ranting blogger. I HAVE AN OPINION!!! READ MINE!!!! LOOKK!! PLEASE!! -------------------- No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
New 911 Truth Documentary Premieres In CA | 1,201 | 8 | 04/07/05 01:23 PM by Rose | ||
![]() |
Prominent barking moonbats who don't buy official 9/11 story | 1,150 | 4 | 10/29/04 03:32 PM by silversoul7 | ||
![]() |
9/11 truth adds in major publications! | 1,041 | 19 | 09/30/04 10:44 PM by AhronZombi | ||
![]() |
Senator Dayton: NORAD Lied About 9/11 | 448 | 0 | 09/30/04 01:24 PM by ekomstop | ||
![]() |
Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble - Part 1: The 9-11 Commission | 1,230 | 4 | 12/18/04 11:43 AM by usefulidiot | ||
![]() |
The September 11 X-Files | 1,483 | 9 | 08/17/03 01:34 AM by BleaK | ||
![]() |
New MOVIE TRAILER MARTIAL LAW: 9-11: Rise of the Police State | 1,024 | 16 | 12/04/04 08:46 PM by SWEDEN | ||
![]() |
Crossing The Rubicon | 713 | 6 | 01/12/05 09:05 PM by DNKYD |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 1,964 topic views. 2 members, 4 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||




