Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Terrorism in London
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 121 of 313 (222787)
07-09-2005 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Ooook!
07-09-2005 4:57 AM


Civil liberties have always been tempered by their effect on society as a whole.
Granted, but that was not the position. The position to which I was replying was the curious concept that owning something like a firearm, which they had in England far longer than we've ever had them in America (where do you think the colonists got them), isn't a civil freedom at all. I don't think that's accurate. We can debate the necessity of firearm restrictions as a tool for social order, or preventing crimes, or whatever, but to assert that civil freedom never includes firearm ownership, or that it doesn't restrict your freedoms to prevent you from owning something, seems flat-out silly to me.
If you can't have guns, you're less free. Similarly, if you can't speak out against your government, or you can't worship freely, or you can't have an orderly assembly, you're less free. (I don't choose these examples because they're in our Bill of Rights, but because they seem like pretty basic freedoms, which is probably why they're in our Bill fo Rights.)
Do I take it that it would be OK for someone in the states to own a jet fighter?
But it is ok for someone in the states to own a jet fighter. They're expensive, and the only affordable ones are decommissioned trainer models from the Vietnam-era, but you can have one if you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Ooook!, posted 07-09-2005 4:57 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Ooook!, posted 07-09-2005 5:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 313 (222788)
07-09-2005 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by CanadianSteve
07-08-2005 11:10 PM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
quote:
You made a weak, obfuscatory argument, one so vague that you can deny having said anything you did, because you didn't actually say anything....
And now let me remind you what started this line of converstation.
In this post you made the comment:
What motivated 9/11 was that the US was in the Islamists' way with respect to their plans to take over islamic nations. They thought they could scare the US out of the Middle East so they'd be freer to march on, as they had been.
In reply I made this statement:
And what motivated the invasion of Iraq was that Hussein was in the way of the US plans to exert control over international petroleum production. The US thought that they could scare the regimes of the middle east into being more conducive to US interests so they would be freer to march on.
You seem to missed that I merely took your wording, simply substituting different persons in the subjects. It is interesting that you refer to this statement as obfuscatory. My statement is an exact mirror of your statement. It is no more nor no less obfuscatory.
-
quote:
time for the homegrown conspiracists to move on too, and find another batch of rationalizations for their hate-on for Bush and conservatives.
Since your entire schtick has been to rant about a world-wide Islamist conspiracy to put the entire world under Sharia law, including quoting others who clearly share this paranoid delusion, I suspect that the reader of this post are highly amused by this.
-
quote:
Warning: History will judge you badly for that....
Why would history judge me for the fact that you cannot substantiate a single claim that you have ever made? If there is some sort of Islamic conspiracy, I think that you are an Islamic plant whose mission is to lull the rest of us into complacency by making the idea of an Islamic threat seem ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-08-2005 11:10 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 11:33 AM Chiroptera has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 123 of 313 (222789)
07-09-2005 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by crashfrog
07-09-2005 9:02 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
Hold on a minute - I don't know how it was sold to you guys but here in the UK, it was clearly the WMDs. The human rights stuff was tacked on months later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2005 9:02 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Chiroptera, posted 07-09-2005 11:08 AM CK has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 124 of 313 (222796)
07-09-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Silent H
07-09-2005 8:15 AM


Re: Blair resign? Why?
The point of the very quote which you did not deal with, is that Britain was at risk, the leader proposed a mechanism to alleviate that risk, and it has been shown quite clearly not to have worked.
The risk that was put forward with regards to Iraq was that they might fund terrorists, create WMDs and generally do nasty things. Whether or not that risk was present of course is irrelevant. We were never told by Blair that we should attack Iraq to prevent some small time crooks letting off some home made bombs on public transport.
How could the pretext to invade Iraq be that we have to finish the job?
Obviously it wasn't. The pretext was that Iraq had WMDs or was being generally nefarious. It was not to prevent terrorists attacking London. If I remember rightly, the probability of 'vengeance' strikes by terrorists was openly discussed in parliament before the vote to go to war was made.
If you had not heard him, or members of his administration, back Bush's argument of this I am not sure what I can say. I was laughing when yesterday a BBC segment said exactly what I just did, that their claim Iraq had acted to create a front line had been demolished. Apparently someone at BBC has heard the same commentary.
As I said, this idea that a front for terrorists was certainly not something that was massively pushed as an idea, even if it did come up. The biggest thing that pushed in the build up for was the 45 minute thing. There was plenty of commentary that the war in Iraq would probably help create more terrorists, but it wasn't about fighting terrorism, it was about preventing Saddam getting hold of WMDs.
I got this from both BBC and CNN who were discussing that with security experts, and if I am in error then I apologize and stand corrected.
I believe that it is worst only in 'injuries', as far as deaths go, it pales.
I will note that they specifically did not include IRA nonmainland bombings (or other acts), and were discussing lives lost to terrorist acts on ground targets. So limited to ground attacks that killed people in England. Do you find that an odd criteria?
I find it odd that they limited to 'ground targets' and 'England'. Putting bombs on planes and them crashing into a Scottish village (killing over three times as many the London bombs did) doesn't count as the worst terrorist incident? Its a fine criteria, but it is odd. I agree, that it is probably the worst incident to happen to England but it is not the worst to happen to Britain...and I find it a little odd that one would discount Scotland and Wales, since they are both on the mainland.
Again, please read my posts. I specifically answered this question earlier. My argument is 100% not that he should resign "because of this". Indeed there are much more important reasons. The POINT I MADE is that this... one of the worst terrorist attacks on mainland England, coming after his gambling his reputation on the success of Iraq making Britain SAFER... ought to be a sign to himself that it is time to step down.
I understand that. However, few people in Britain that voted for Labour in the first place would agree with you (I didn't vote for Labour and I don't agree with you). There has been zero talk of getting Blair to resign here.
The point of attacking Iraq was not to make Britain safer from al-Qaeda but to make the West safe from Iraq and Saddam Hussein's WMD. Since Iraq has not attacked the UK, Britain, or England, and Hussein is behind bars...there isn't a problem. The fact that no WMDs were found has been politically dealt with.
The war on terror was designed to make Britain safer from al-Qaeda, and more attacks have been thwarted by security measures than have not.
any decent leader would opt out at this point.
To be honest, nobody I've spoken with, and no paper or news report I've seen, or 'people on the street' chats have mentioned anyone considering this a failure of Blair's. If he should have resigned it was after the WMD failure. If anyone, Charles Clarke should be the one to resign
I have liked some of your posts, so please do me the courtesy and read my posts first to learn my position before replying. If you are coming in late on a subthread then read back a few.
If I misunderstood, I apologize, I had read through the thread, and thuoght I had a grasp of what you were saying. I hold my hands up if I was wrong. In truth the principle reason I replied was to remind you of Lockerbie.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 09-July-2005 04:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Silent H, posted 07-09-2005 8:15 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Silent H, posted 07-09-2005 11:28 AM Modulous has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 125 of 313 (222800)
07-09-2005 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Silent H
07-09-2005 7:42 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
There is no evidence or sound reasoning that will convince you. I see in you an emotional conviction that Bush and anything a Republican government would do as bad.
If a President Dore had precisely followed Bush's policies with respect to islamism, you'd be cheering as loudly as anyone. So would conservatives. But because it was Bush, the conservatives stand alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Silent H, posted 07-09-2005 7:42 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Silent H, posted 07-09-2005 11:43 AM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2005 12:20 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 313 (222801)
07-09-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by CK
07-09-2005 9:19 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
In the US, it was ocasionally mentioned in passing. The main selling point was that Hussein had WMD and that he was actively supporting Al Qaeda. Then, sometimes, as an afterthought, someone might mention in passing, "Oh yeah, he's a tyrant, too."
But the overwhelming message was WMDs and Al Qaeda. The human rights issue was not a real issue until it became clear that there were no WMDs or substantial links to Al Qaeda. Remember, the important point is that Hussein was a threat to American lives -- Iraqi lives were never much of a consideration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by CK, posted 07-09-2005 9:19 AM CK has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 127 of 313 (222802)
07-09-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Chiroptera
07-09-2005 8:40 AM


Re: Muslim dissent
Yes, there is a great deal more published and broadcast information on democracy now in the Arab world. In fact, a large group of Islamic intellectuals published what was a shocking paper on the mess of their region and the need of democracy. A number of Arab nations have liberalized a bit since the war, and others are now speaking more about it - led by intellectuals. Rice's speech in cairo was presented by the media, with most of its criticisms left unedited, and its call for democracy only somewhat edited. Such would not have been the case not long ago, when nothing of it would have been published. As for iran, what you believe to have been a reform movement was nothing more than an illusion, as tehari as repeatedly written. A reformer in government or running fopr office was someone pre-approved by the mullahs to run for office (after they rejected all the true reformers, or simply imprisoned or killed them). Such reformers accepted as a given an Islamic theocracy. They merely requested a bit more freedom and a somewhat less antagonistic foreign policy approach - because they considered that a better means of accomplishubf foreign policy aims: Like getting nuclear weapons to foment further islamist revoltuion without earning international approbation. That is why iranians largely ignored the last two elections. That is, they saw the illusion for what it is. tehari reported that many who showed up to vote did so becasue they were coerced, but left blank ballots behind rather than play along with the game.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Chiroptera, posted 07-09-2005 8:40 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Chiroptera, posted 07-09-2005 12:16 PM CanadianSteve has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 128 of 313 (222803)
07-09-2005 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Chiroptera
07-09-2005 8:58 AM


Re: ability to carry out attacks
You are immune to reason, frankly, on this matter. You claim I've provided none, which is nothing other than claim itself.
Of course no one can provide you with ironclad proof that Iraq has deterred terrorist attacks on the US. But surely you realize that bin laden (and any other Islamist terrorist oprganzaitions) was bound and determined to enact many more than just 9/11. That he has not obviously indicates that either he realized that was unwise (i.e. he didn't want to unify Americans against the war - bring people like yourself onside with others - nor incite the US into another invasion and to create yet another democracy in the ME) or has been unable to carry them off. (Not that sooner or later there won't be more.)
That the Islamists have poured so many Jihadis into iraq, obviously means that those same people are unable to fight elsewhere. That they are spending so much money on weapons and support for these Jihadis in Iraq, obviously means that that money cannot be spent elsewhere. That is not rocket science. And, given that the US has staunched much of the money flow they previously had, obviously that means this expenditure in Iraq weakens them with respect to operations elsewhere. It's elementary arithmetic.
That is not to say that they cannot carry out any operations elsewhere. They can, as evidenced in spain and GB. But given their desires, so few attacks indicates their limitations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Chiroptera, posted 07-09-2005 8:58 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 07-09-2005 11:32 AM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 134 by Chiroptera, posted 07-09-2005 12:19 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 129 of 313 (222806)
07-09-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Modulous
07-09-2005 9:56 AM


Re: Blair resign? Why?
If I misunderstood, I apologize, I had read through the thread, and thuoght I had a grasp of what you were saying. I hold my hands up if I was wrong. In truth the principle reason I replied was to remind you of Lockerbie.
You did, and amazingly you continue to be mistaken about my position, though I will accept your apology.
I think the rationale to not count Lockerbie is that the target was a plane and the ground fatalities incidental to the act. This was a plan to attack ground targets in a coordinated way to produce a specific result on the ground which was achieved.
I was personally surprised to see both CNN and BBC discount deaths by IRA attacks in order to make the claim they did. However, I was only echoing that particular point that as far as mainland Englanders go, this was the worst they've seen in a planned attack on them specifically.
Here is my position stated once more and trying to be very clear:
Schraf noted that Blair was probably feeling shaken because of this event. I added to this sentiment that if he was a decent leader he'd step down soon.
I did not say that this was the worst mistake he made. I did not say that people have or should call for his resignation. And to repeat one more time in all caps: I DID NOT SAY THAT HE SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS EVENT OR STEP DOWN OR FORCED OUT BECAUSE OF THIS EVENT. It is just that I personally believe after his numerous errors, as an individual, if he were a decent leader he'd realize that the policies he has chosen have not been working, and that this event is a tragic symbol of their failure. He should be feeling bad in general, and he should be making way for more credible leadership.
I also did not claim that he used this type of an event as pretext to invade Iraq before the invasion. I am quite clear that the hysteria he fostered was about WMDs. When that fell apart he did begin to back Bush's other contentions, creating post hoc pretexts for why it had been a good idea. And yes his larger claims for staying there were about not failing in Iraq now that we are there. That does not erase the fact that while Bush started inventing other pretexts for the invasion itself Blair did defend them as valid.
The point is that this event underscores the ad hoc nature of policy development by the Bush and Blair on Iraq. They keep switching to whatever is unknown or hasn't happened in order to defend that policy. A soundbyte in the US is that since Iraq we have not had a terrorist attack... well now there was one in Britain. Blair defended that argument, he has been shown to be wrong. He is making it up as he goes along, this should be a wake up call. If he was a decent leader it would be and he'd step down.
I doubt he will, and I have no idea if there will ever be a public outcry based on this. I myself would not use this as a rallying cry for such a movement. I would be mentioning all the other things he himself screwed up all by his lonesome. All I did was backup someone saying Blair was probably feeling shaken, to say he should go with that feeling and step down.
Whew. Can anyone not understand my position at this point?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Modulous, posted 07-09-2005 9:56 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Modulous, posted 07-10-2005 9:10 AM Silent H has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 130 of 313 (222807)
07-09-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by CanadianSteve
07-09-2005 11:24 AM


What is the connection?
Let's examine your assertions.
That the Islamists have poured so many Jihadis into iraq, obviously means that those same people are unable to fight elsewhere.
How then have the terrorists been able to carry out a near continuous string of successful attacks such as in Russia, Madrid and London?
That they are spending so much money on weapons and support for these Jihadis in Iraq, obviously means that that money cannot be spent elsewhere.
How much money are they spending in Iraq?
And, given that the US has staunched much of the money flow they previously had, obviously that means this expenditure in Iraq weakens them with respect to operations elsewhere.
How is that effort connected to invading Iraq? Could the money flow have been attacked without invading Iraq?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 11:24 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 12:28 PM jar has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 131 of 313 (222808)
07-09-2005 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Chiroptera
07-09-2005 9:13 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
The islamists flat out tell you that they intend to takeover the world for islam. That is not my conspiracy story, but theirs. have you not read anything at all that they've written adn issued and broadcast? That theme is their obsession; it is all they talk about. And well they should, but that is precisely what the war verses demand.
As for: "And what motivated the invasion of Iraq was that Hussein was in the way of the US plans to exert control over international petroleum production." Yes, that's what you said, and that is what i replied to. what evidence have you that the US has gained control over international production? The US did not want oprices to rise. had they control, they wouldn't have allowed it to happen. The US has given total control over Iraqoi oil to Iraqis. Again, even the Arab press has let such talk slide. But that you subscribe to such a conspiracy shows you are immune to reason, and overwhelmed with cynicism that prevents you from seeing your president and his admin rationally.
Again, I say, had this been Gore, you'd be cheering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Chiroptera, posted 07-09-2005 9:13 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Chiroptera, posted 07-09-2005 12:30 PM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 141 by Chiroptera, posted 07-09-2005 12:34 PM CanadianSteve has not replied
 Message 147 by Meeb, posted 07-09-2005 2:47 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 132 of 313 (222810)
07-09-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by CanadianSteve
07-09-2005 11:04 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
There is no evidence or sound reasoning that will convince you.
Sure there is. You have provided nothing but a list of events and claimed they are connected to one other specific event, without indicating any mechanisms or evidence for those mechanisms.
I see in you an emotional conviction that Bush and anything a Republican government would do as bad.
That isn't true at all. I have been very forward that I preferred Bush perhaps slightly more than Gore in 2000, and am certainly able to vote for a Republican in 2008. I have also agreed with a few things that Bush has done.
I do admit that since 2000 my opinion of Bush has fallen such that I dislike almost everything he does. That is his fault because he has deviated from his platform as well as putting in a very poor performance in general. His inability to be factually straightforward and an increased adherence to neocon principles over conservative principles finishes him as a credible leader.
I am also on record arguing in another thread that as he stands now with neocons he actually is not a traditional Republican.
If a President Dore had precisely followed Bush's policies with respect to islamism, you'd be cheering as loudly as anyone. So would conservatives. But because it was Bush, the conservatives stand alone.
Do you mean Gore? I sure wouldn't be cheering. I've been jeering that jerk for years, as well as Clinton's policies. And get real that conservatives would be cheering Gore you ignorant partisan hack. Clinton and Gore DID have the strategy Bush is using now and were roundly condemned.
Maybe you didn't get good reception in Canada during the 2000 election, but Bush ran on the popular conservative platform that nationbuilding exercises which stretch the military needlessly was something that he would NEVER do. Indeed he and most Reps criticized Kosovo, which is about the only possible parallel to this.
If Gore had won and done what Bush is doing now, they'd say the same damn thing they said before when it was done before.
Next you'll tell me if Gore went into deficit spending the Reps would be right behind him.
This message has been edited by holmes, 07-09-2005 11:44 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 11:04 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 12:30 PM Silent H has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 313 (222814)
07-09-2005 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by CanadianSteve
07-09-2005 11:13 AM


Re: Muslim dissent
quote:
Yes, there is a great deal more published and broadcast information on democracy now in the Arab world.
That may very well be true. But you have supplied not statistical information to that effect, nor have you demonstrated that the invasion of Iraq is responsible for this.
-
quote:
A reformer in government or running fopr office was someone pre-approved by the mullahs to run for office (after they rejected all the true reformers, or simply imprisoned or killed them).
This, again, is simply a claim that you have not been able to demonstrate. It directly contradicts the record of Khatami and the Iranian parliament which passed reform legislation only to see them vetoed by the Revolutionary Council. It also has little to do with the fact that before the war reformers and pro-democracy activists were struggling against the oppressors in speaking for democracy and attempting to publish newspapers.
Finally, this is a side-issue, used as an example against your claim that suddenly intellectuals are less afraid to speak for democracy. Not only have you not successfully refuted this example, you still have only asserted that there is more open discussion of democracy, and that this can be attributed to the invasion of Iraq.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 11:13 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 12:32 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 313 (222815)
07-09-2005 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by CanadianSteve
07-09-2005 11:24 AM


Re: ability to carry out attacks
quote:
You are immune to reason, frankly, on this matter.
Actually, you have been the one immune to reason in this entire discussion. Both jar and I have given some good reasons to think that the invasion of Iraq has not prevented terrorism, in the US or anywhere else.
I am not asking for proof. I am simply asking for a good reason to think that the invasion of Iraq has prevented terrorist acts on US territory. Your claims that you understand how Osama bin Laden thinks is not a good reason.
Edited to add a comment.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 09-Jul-2005 04:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 11:24 AM CanadianSteve has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 135 of 313 (222816)
07-09-2005 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by CanadianSteve
07-09-2005 11:04 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
I see in you an emotional conviction that Bush and anything a Republican government would do as bad.
It's not so much that everything they would do is bad; it's more that everything that they have done is bad.
Bush's policies have, by any objective measure, made us less safe and undermined the mission to eliminate Islamist militant fundamentalism. If anything they've actually strengthened it.
The only "emotional conviction" here is yours; a partisan obsession that doesn't allow you to see Bush's actions in anything but a positive light. I say this as someone who voted for Bush. Let that sink in. If I hate the guy so much, why did I vote for him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 11:04 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 12:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024