|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another one that hurts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Why aren't "Islamic Leaders" and "Leaders of Islam" synonyms? Islamic Leaders lead people in accordance with the principles derived from Islamic texts which contain the words of the Prophet of Islam. Islam is ultimately sola scriptura. The split between Shia and Sunni was primarily over who should succeed in leading the ummah. Nobody is the director of Shia or Sunni Islam. Each individual member makes their own decisions based on listening to their Imam, reading various scholars held in varying degrees of esteem, and making their own conclusions. Schools of thought inevitably appear, and these schools may have a 'most respected scholar' who is a thought leader for a time. But nobody has any claim to be the leader of anything other than Muslims. Compare and contrast with the Pope. The Pope is God's representative, divinely selected, to pass on God's message to the people and to shepherd them etc. He is a defined leader of a religion. The Queen is anointed and has a crown put on her head. The Crown is the head of the Church of England, which she so becomes through divine magic when the Archbishop puts it on her. OR something. In practice, British monarchs delegate all that to Archbishops, but that's a relatively modern evolution. The Mormon church has leadership that is able to make doctrinal declarations that are considered binding. Islam doesn't have anything of this sort. No individual, or group of people, have an basis - within their religion - to claim definitive absolute authority on the subject of Islam. Here are the best candidates I can think of: The twelfth Imam - leader of Shia Islam. But he's dead (or in occultation at least).A Caliph - kind of complex issue. A pretty good candidate, but caliph's are spiritual and political leaders of territories rather than the religion itself. Their word might be legally binding, but not binding on the Sunni faith itself. The Ottoman's might, at some periods, been credibly able to claim authority over the entire 'ummah', or at least the Sunni globally. So maybe, but it's with a bit of squinting. Aga Khan IV and other Ismaili Shia leaders - OK OK. I won't argue that these are basically identical to the Queen and the Pope - but I'm pretty sure this group was pretty far from Tangled's mind when he made his declaration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I understand there's a distinction you're trying to draw, but I think it's going to be an exceedingly fine one for most people, one that's very difficult to keep in mind and one that's a significant distraction from your main point. Can't you make your point without insisting on this distinction? I didn't insist on the definition, my initial comment was six words in a 700 word post. That was what people wanted to focus on so I have just replied to what people want to ask me. I did make my point by relenting to Tangle's point: The point is that Islamic leaders do actually want peace, that's what they'll likely believe. It is what they say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
It's clear that you've painted yourself into a very small corner over several issues here that are either flat out wrong or are of no consequence, so I'll make no further comment on the atheistic, pychopathic, Taliban non-Islamic leaders that seem to preoccupy you.
Moving on.
Modulous writes: If we are being this short sighted - nobody wants peace. We want to kill our enemies - they want to kill theirs. We all hate peace. This is getting alarming. You are now equating our actions - the actions of democratic societies following international law whose purpose is - to choose just one example - 'liberty, equality, fraternity' , with ISIS, a state with the avowed intention of massacring anyone that prevents them converting the world to their exact way of thinking and living. We do not want to kill our enemies but we do need to to stop them killing us.
How likely do you think it actually is that a sincere Muslim Taliban leader justifies the violence he commits and orders others to commit, using 'greater good' and 'for justice' and 'for peace' style rationalisations? I think it highly likely. Just as no doubt both Sunni and Shia Muslims do, when they pause from boughts of kicking holy shit out of each other. ISIS also claims to be doing the will of Allah in order to build a single Islamic world, by force. Now you have to decide which side has the better motivations and which is most likely to achieve the greater good for the most people.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It's clear that you've painted yourself into a very small corner over several issues here that are either flat out wrong or are of no consequence, so I'll make no further comment on the atheistic, pychopathic, Taliban non-Islamic leaders that seem to preoccupy you. You are the one that is challenging me. I am just responding to your challenges. For the record, you still managed to get my position wrong. Taliban leaders are Islamic leaders. Even the atheist ones, should there be any.
If we are being this short sighted - nobody wants peace. We want to kill our enemies - they want to kill theirs. We all hate peace. This is getting alarming. You are now equating our actions - the actions of democratic societies following international law whose purpose is - to choose just one example - 'liberty, equality, fraternity' , with ISIS, a state with the avowed intention of massacring anyone that prevents them converting the world to their exact way of thinking and living. Does this mean I have to spend the next 10 posts explaining that the word 'if' represents a conditional? That this condition was based on my characterisation of your position 'if we are being as shortsighted as you have just been...' means that I was actually accusing you of taking a position that ultimately equates our actions. But really, if this isn't apparent by this explanation - just give up. It's not all that important because:
How likely do you think it actually is that a sincere Muslim Taliban leader justifies the violence he commits and orders others to commit, using 'greater good' and 'for justice' and 'for peace' style rationalisations? I think it highly likely. Excellent? See? You agree with me!
quote: And my point? It's leaders do seem to agree after all, and you were both semantically and pragmatically wrong when you said this earlier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Modulous writes: Excellent? See? You agree with me! So out of all that you cherry pick this and fake agreement. How disingenous can you get? Do I agree that a non-leading, Islamic leader will tell his suicide troops that their deaths are for the furtherance of peace on earth? You bet. Do I think that that is the non-leader's motivations or that of the State sponsoring and promoting it. No. As was apparent in the next sentence.
Just as no doubt both Sunni and Shia Muslims do, when they pause from boughts of kicking holy shit out of each other. ISIS also claims to be doing the will of Allah in order to build a single Islamic world, by force. I note that whilst happy to wittle away endlessly at irrelevant and incidental issues, you remain mute on the real matter
Now you have to decide which side has the better motivations and which is most likely to achieve the greater good for the most people. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So out of all that you cherry pick this and fake agreement. Sorry, I thought you understood the argument you were agreeing with. Humans rarely think of themselves as evil. The homophobes in think they are being morally good by discriminating against homosexuality as it might help 'correct' their sinful behaviour or it is bad to give blessings to such behaviour or what have you. No doubt psychopathy reared its head in the Nazi leadership, but I am sure that many of those people really believed that the Final Solution would bring prosperity and a lasting in Europe and whatnot. Murderers often think their victim deserved death and killing them was for the better. It serves as justice, harmonizes peace between gangs, shuts that bitch up or whatever other stupid rationalization.
here is a summary Do I think that that is the non-leader's motivations or that of the State sponsoring and promoting it. No. As was apparent in the next sentence. Your next sentence was
quote: I'm not sure how this should have illuminated me that you were only talking about brainwashing others rather than their beliefs directly, but I suppose it doesn't matter.
I note that whilst happy to wittle away endlessly at irrelevant and incidental issues, you remain mute on the real matter
Now you have to decide which side has the better motivations and which is most likely to achieve the greater good for the most people. Sorry, I rejected it as stupid and pointless. The real matter here is the Parisian bombing, associated attacks and what the best response to them should be - in the short and long term. I can't speak to military strategy, but I know that a military response against ISIS cannot be the only plan in dealing with the crisis. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Modulous writes: Sorry, I rejected it as stupid and pointless. No you didn't, you avoided it because it causes a problem for you. Throughout this entire thread you've equivocated on issues, attempting to distance Islam from those that are acting in its name - 'Islam has no leaders'. You attempt to equate the West's actions with those of ISIS, claiming that each side is fighting for peace and you brush away obvious facts demonstrating that one side has objectives that deny this utterly. You say that ISIS has atheists disguised as Muslims filling its ranks alongside psychopaths in an attempt to avoid the issue that the core problem has nothing to do with either. And you ignore - as stupid and pointless - any discussion about whether the ideas such. 'Equality, freedom and fraternity' are more likely to be for the greater good of the peace and wellbeing of the world than ISIS's ideas of a global religious caliphate where extreme Islam is the only option available. Your entire contribution here has been a veiled attempt to equate ISIS's vile actions and motivations with our own actions in defending ourselves against them. Like I said way back, you're just an closet apologist for ISIS.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Tangle writes: You say that ISIS has atheists disguised as Muslims filling its ranks alongside psychopaths in an attempt to avoid the issue that the core problem has nothing to do with either. I could easily be wrong, but I think Modulous originally mentioned the possibility of atheists in positions of Islamic leadership as a way of making the point that some might have the same goals (e.g., peace) but non-Islamic motivations. He later argued as a sort of side note that organizations the Taliban would be very attractive to psychopaths, who probably exist in similar numbers in Islamic regions as in the west.
Your entire contribution here has been a veiled attempt to equate ISIS's vile actions and motivations with our own actions in defending ourselves against them. Again, I could easily be wrong, but I think Modulous was saying that most people do not think their actions evil, that those in positions of Islamic leadership, and indeed even the rank and file, believe that what they're doing is for the ultimate betterment of the both themselves and the world. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No you didn't, you avoided it because it causes a problem for you. Wrong.
Throughout this entire thread you've equivocated on issues Wrong.
attempting to distance Islam from those that are acting in its name Partial credit.
You attempt to equate the West's actions with those of ISIS Wrong.
claiming that each side is fighting for peace Wrong.
you brush away obvious facts demonstrating that one side has objectives that deny this utterly. Wrong.
You say that ISIS has atheists disguised as Muslims filling its ranks alongside psychopaths in an attempt to avoid the issue that the core problem has nothing to do with either. Wrong.
And you ignore - as stupid and pointless - any discussion about whether the ideas such. 'Equality, freedom and fraternity' are more likely to be for the greater good of the peace and wellbeing of the world than ISIS's ideas of a global religious caliphate where extreme Islam is the only option available. Wrong.
Your entire contribution here has been a veiled attempt to equate ISIS's vile actions and motivations with our own actions in defending ourselves against them. Wrong.
Like I said way back, you're just an closet apologist for ISIS. Wrong. And given that this is about something you said - that's pretty amazing. I am speaking English and you have direct access to interrogate me. Not only do you have my position wrong, but you have it wrong in places where I have already told you have it wrong, and explained to you the correct understanding of what I am saying. You can't even seem to remember what you are saying, let alone what I am saying. You ask me to pick a side and when I decline you accuse me of refusing to discuss ideas. This is a degree of disconnect from reality that makes discussing something as complex as Syria with you impossible. For instance. The Alawites face an existential threat in ISIS. The Alawites are Shia - but they are also a particularly weird form of Shia that, for instance, does not pray 5 times a day. If ISIS gets their hands on them, they're dead. All of them. So do we help the Alawites? Well there are other factions helping the Alawites. Iran, noticeably, as well as Russia. If we help the Alawites, we are entering a de facto military alliance with the Shia and Russia. On the other hand, if the Alawites fall, then so does Damascus for sure. The internally displaced civilians will become refugees and the refugee crisis will be three times as worse as it is today. Of course, the Alawites HAVE to fall. We want them gone. But if it happens now - we're fucked. If we do attack ISIS we strengthen the Alawites for now, but what happens if they are attacked by the many other militant groups that want them dead as soon as ISIS is pushed back enough to stop fighting the militant groups? Or do we contain for now, and push from Iraq? Yet more Shia alliance here, which is messy and risks pushing them straight at Assad, destroying what's left of Syria's stability entirely. Honestly if you can't get your head round the notion that most people involved in this aren't evil but actually trying to defend themselves and create a land where their families can once and for all, live in peace - then I really can't get expect you to come up with a cogent path through this geo-political nightmare dreamscape.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Percy - I understand the points you make and also understood what Modulous was saying at the time.
But it's a big 'so what?' Whether there are some atheists (extremely doubtful) and psychopaths (definately) in the Taliban or other extremist groups is irrelevant. It's also irrelevant - and obvious - that hardly anyone thinks that they are evil. It's the underlying theme that I'm objecting too. This 'there are no Islamic leaders' nonsense is not just a small technical or semantic point - it a statement used to assert that Islam is not the problem. It, and the other nonsenses, are said so as to deny or ameliorate the core motive of ISIS - holy jihad - which originate in the core beliefs of Islam - an unreformed and dangerous belief system. He also attempts to equate our actions with theirs, our motivations with theirs and avoids taking any position that might show our values as 'better' than theirs. It's a kind of appeasement: minimising of an extreme position. He's saying we're all the same, just people, they're no better and no worse than us. Well the evidence of Paris says otherwise.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I understand the points you make and also understood what Modulous was saying at the time. Then you were being disingenuous?
Whether there are some atheists (extremely doubtful) and psychopaths (definately) in the Taliban or other extremist groups is irrelevant. I know. That's why I said:
quote:Message 232 quote:Message 240 quote:Message 248 quote:Message 254 Then you said
quote:Message 258 but then you said
quote:Message 262 and finally
quote:Message 265 So, can it be? Have we finally reached agreement that this is not a point worth spending any time on?
It's the underlying theme that I'm objecting too. This 'there are no Islamic leaders' nonsense is not just a small technical or semantic point - it a statement used to assert that Islam is not the problem. It, and the other nonsenses, are said so as to deny or ameliorate the core motive of ISIS - holy jihad - which originate in the core beliefs of Islam - an unreformed and dangerous belief system. You are simply reinforcing the voice of the jihadists. I think this is a bad thing to do. I'd prefer to reinforce the voice of the moderates and liberals.
He also attempts to equate our actions with theirs, our motivations with theirs and avoids taking any position that might show our values as 'better' than theirs. I am arguing that we are all humans, and we share universal behavioural characteristics. I am in favour of avoiding dehumanizing people. You seem to think that this boils down to me equating the various factions' idiosyncratic motivations and value. This is mistaken.
It's a kind of appeasement: minimising of an extreme position. I'm more interested in developing a more holistic picture of the millions of people of varying positions in the region that are affected or will be affected by the events rather than painting them with a broad brush. If you had spent time talking to me rather than railing against over unimportant issues you may have learned something. When I see someone making general statements, I try to introduce them to nuance. Unfortunately, some secular extremists are immune from such considerations.
He's saying we're all the same, just people, they're no better and no worse than us. Well the evidence of Paris says otherwise. Well we are all the same, just people. If we lose sight of this primary point, we risk becoming monsters too. I think it's ridiculous to waste our time establishing that we all agree murder and rape are bad things and the perpetrators are bad people, but apparently one still has to occasionally spell this out to people. If you don't, you evidently open yourself up absurd cheap shots.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Modulous writes: I'd prefer to reinforce the voice of the moderates and liberals. I am arguing that we are all humans, and we share universal behavioural characteristics. I am in favour of avoiding dehumanizing people. You seem to think that this boils down to me equating the various factions' idiosyncratic motivations and value. This is mistaken. I know what you're arguing - as I said, it's obvious. You're trying to say that we're all the same, we have the same weaknesses and same values, the same hopes and dreams et etc etc. The terribly moderate, tolerant extreme tree hugging blindness that allows all sorts of abhorrences to grow undisturbed for fear of being labelled racist. I seem to remember similar arguments being presented by you over the asian child abuse scandals and FGM, you just could bring yourself to accept that institutions looked the other way and were too frightened of racial accusations to protect their citizens from harmful practices. These issues need to be confronted for what they are - bad and destructive behaviours that will destroy our societies if we tolerate them.
I'm more interested in developing a more holistic picture of the millions of people of varying positions in the region that are affected or will be affected by the events rather than painting them with a broad brush. If you had spent time talking to me rather than railing against over unimportant issues you may have learned something. When I see someone making general statements, I try to introduce them to nuance. Unfortunately, some secular extremists are immune from such considerations. This is one of the most patronising few sentences I've seen written on these boards and the competition is intense. You assume I need introducing to these concepts, that I'm not thoroughly aware of the stupidity of demonizing whole races? You think you have said anything that hasn't been said many times here and elswhere and that you have the perfect and unique insight? What hubris. We've gone beyond your simplistic 'we are the world' arguments and beginning to recognise that some ways of organising societies are better than others, that some ideas are bad and that some religious ideologies and cultural practices must be outlawed if we're to advance our socities further and get along together. It's not that Muslims are bad - they are just like everyone else, but that some Islamic dogma is bad and needs to be reformed. What we're seeing now is those bad Islamic ideas being exposed. We need to do more to encourage Muslims to change how their religion deals with modern society and adapt to it rather than look the other way and tolerate things that repell us. It took a couple of centuries for Christianity to reform into a more-or-less harmless belief system. We need to move faster with Islam. It starts by standing up for our values and being intolerant of behaviours and activities that oppose them - no matter where they originate.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
You're trying to say that we're all the same, we have the same weaknesses and same values, the same hopes and dreams et etc etc. No. I'm saying we share a common humanity and losing sight of that is bad news.
The terribly moderate, tolerant extreme tree hugging blindness that allows all sorts of abhorrences to grow undisturbed for fear of being labelled racist. You see? You make assumptions about me and you end up saying things which are blatantly wrong. You should ask me, rather than assuming. Did you know that I consider there is a viable argument that ethnic cleansing might be a solution to the problems in the long term? Do you consider ethnic cleansing a policy of a 'blind tree hugger afraid being labelled racist'? I'm not advocating it, but I'm afraid it may be the route that saves the most lives in the long term.
I seem to remember similar arguments being presented by you over the asian child abuse scandals and FGM, you just could bring yourself to accept that institutions looked the other way and were too frightened of racial accusations to protect their citizens from harmful practices.
I seem to remember you not listening to me and making up stories about me then, too.
These issues need to be confronted for what they are - bad and destructive behaviours that will destroy our societies if we tolerate them. Our societies are not at threat from the behaviours of Islamist extremists. Theirs are.
This is one of the most patronising few sentences I've seen written on these boards and the competition is intense. If only you had long term memory and you'd remember the mess we got in when I spoke to you like a peer.
You assume I need introducing to these concepts, that I'm not thoroughly aware of the stupidity of demonizing whole races? No, I'd be very surprised if you didn't. I was explaining my actual motivations because you had impugned them as a debate tactic.
We've gone beyond your simplistic 'we are the world' arguments and beginning to recognise that some ways of organising societies are better than others Yes. And there is disagreement over that. Do we force our version of organising societies on other peoples at gunpoint?
that some ideas are bad and that some religious ideologies and cultural practices must be outlawed if we're to advance our socities further and get along together. I absolutely agree. I tried to argue for the criminalization of circumcision for instance, but apparently slicing children's genitals is a parent's decision but two adults can't choose to settle their civil matters through a religious court or arbitration method, if that religious court is Muslim especially. I don't really understand how the rules work for other people, but I've been on board with this since my adulthood began.
It's not that Muslims are bad - they are just like everyone else, but that some Islamic dogma is bad and needs to be reformed. Exactly.
We need to do more to encourage Muslims to change how their religion deals with modern society and adapt to it rather than look the other way and tolerate things that repell us. Close, but be careful. The Muslims here? We need to work on mutually integrating with them. We learn to tolerate the beliefs we disagree with, and they learn to play by the rules in so far as advocating their beliefs. Over there? We've tried this at gunpoint. You know what happened? The Tamil Tigers lost their place as the number one suicide attack group to Islamists. So we need a better plan, yes?
It took a couple of centuries for Christianity to reform into a more-or-less harmless belief system. We need to move faster with Islam. Agreed, and things were going quite well as far as Islamic reform in the 19th Century. But then the Ottoman Empire fell and Europe tried to replace it with nation states. Then we ended up with minoritarian governments ruling with an iron fist over the majorities which is tentatively stable, but as we have seen - can collapse into absolute chaos and bloodshed. So let's promote moderate Islam, which we can only do by being careful not to blame Islam for the violence.We need a response to Saudi Arabia that is effective. We need to pull out our military units from Muslim lands. It means we sacrifice control of the situation, but one key feature repeats itself in martyrdom videos and jihadist propaganda: Military forces in their lands. As for ISIS? I have no clue, it's a mess of the war class and it's way too messy for me to be confident in the best steps. But you know what? We won't do the right thing. There's too much money in doing the wrong thing. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Third Stade de France suicide bomber 'snuck into Europe via Greece after posing as asylum seeker with fellow Paris jihadi'
The third jihadi to blow themselves up near the Stade de France has been pictured and named tonight as it is revealed he entered Europe via Greece with a fellow attacker. Paris police issue photograph of the third Stade de France bomber | Daily Mail OnlineReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
Let in tens of thousands of "refuges," almost all of whom are young Arab/muslim males and you expect something different? What was that definition of "insanity" again? Right, because a band of religious fanatics engaged in conflict in Syria and Iraq pose an existential threat to the most powerful, well-armed, and technologically advanced military the world has ever known. You're falling for the knee-jerk paranoia that both ISIS propaganda and the media establishment want you to feed into. Selection bias is quite a powerful force, isn't it? That's why, for example, you probably didn't know that white supremacist terrorism has been -- in the past ten years -- more of a threat to U.S. lives (on the homeland) than radical Islamists. See here: Redirecting Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024