Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 10:56 PM
27 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), ramoss (5 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,225 Year: 12,261/19,786 Month: 2,042/2,641 Week: 551/708 Day: 110/135 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Author Topic:   Terrorism in London
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4670 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 301 of 313 (223539)
07-13-2005 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Chiroptera
07-12-2005 10:07 PM


Re: Naw..its not Islamic religious law...
You say that the definition of Jihad is not relevant to your post. Yet, you wrote:

"But the quoted passage from Cook also suggests another implication. As I read Cook's passage, I notice that he seems to draw a picture of jihad as an expression of resistance against invasion, conquest, and imperialism."

That is a reference to Jihad, and implies it to mean "resistance" rather than war of aggression. I indicated that, in fact, through most of islam's history, and certainly during Mohammed's time, it definitely meant aggression, not resistance - as Cook pointed out.

You then go on to say that this relates to Iraq. I responded that in no way does it relate to iraq. The insurgency is not a resistance, it is war by jihadi foreigners, teamed up with the Iraqi minority Sunni Hussein loyalists. When iraqis voted in huge numbers, it was a very big deal precisely because they proved, in the act of voting, that they supported US efforts to build a democracy, and concurrently defied the violence before and terrorism threatended by the Jihadis at the poll stations. As i said before, the Jihadis (and Hussein loyalists) are desperately afraid of democracy arising in iraq, adn that is why they have poured so many people over the border from everywhere. Meanwhile, despite all their terror - suicide bombers killing over a thousand iraqis thus far - the iraqis are, pretty much, telling them to Go F'k themselves. That is, they, with determination, continue to build their democracy. Their democratically elected interim government, charged with creating a constitution, has done what no westerners thought possible: All the various interests, especially thte majority Shias, have compromised significantly so that the minorities will feel secure and well represented in teh political system. Thus, Kurds are given even more autonomy than are US states. Thus, proportional representation is assured for Sunnis, even though most of them, unlike the Shias and Kurds, were sufficiently scared of teh Jihadis and Hussein Sunni loyalists not to vote (because those terrorist groups were based in the Sunni area of teh country).

I posted an article of Amir tehari's earlier in one of these threads which discussed much of this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Chiroptera, posted 07-12-2005 10:07 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Chiroptera, posted 07-13-2005 10:50 AM CanadianSteve has responded

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4670 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 302 of 313 (223541)
07-13-2005 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Chiroptera
07-12-2005 10:07 PM


Why the bombed London: tehari
This writer is a religious Muslim, but also a moderate and passionate democrat.

AND THIS IS WHY THEY DID IT
by Amir Taheri
The Times
July 8, 2005
There is no way to reason with the terrorists, but the thinking behind their actions is perfectly clear
THE FIRST QUESTION that comes to mind is: what took them so long? The answer may be that in the past four years the British authorities have succeeded in preventing attacks on a number of occasions. David Blunkett, who was then Home Secretary, was often mocked for suggesting that this was the case.

It may take some time before the full identity of the attackers is established. But the ideology that motivates them, the networks that sustain them and the groups that finance them are all too well known.

Moments after yesterday's attacks my telephone was buzzing with requests for interviews with one recurring question: but what do they want? That reminded me of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker, who was shot by an Islamist assassin on his way to work in Amsterdam last November. According to witnesses, Van Gogh begged for mercy and tried to reason with his assailant. "Surely we can discuss this," he kept saying as the shots kept coming. "Let us talk it over."

Van Gogh, who had angered Islamists with his documentary about the mistreatment of women in Islam, was reacting like BBC reporters did yesterday, assuming that the man who was killing him may have some reasonable demands which could be discussed in a calm, democratic atmosphere.

But sorry, old chaps, you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it his divine duty to kill you.

The ideological soil in which alQaeda, and the many groups using its brand name, grow was described by one of its original masterminds, the Pakistani Abul-Ala al-Maudoodi more than 40 years ago. It goes something like this: when God created mankind He made all their bodily needs and movements subject to inescapable biological rules but decided to leave their spiritual, social and political needs and movements largely subject to their will. Soon, however, it became clear that Man cannot run his affairs the way God wants. So God started sending prophets to warn man and try to goad him on to the right path. A total of 128,000 prophets were sent, including Moses and Jesus. They all failed. Finally, God sent Muhammad as the last of His prophets and the bearer of His ultimate message, Islam. With the advent of Islam all previous religions were "abrogated" (mansukh), and their followers regarded as "infidel" (kuffar). The aim of all good Muslims, therefore, is to convert humanity to Islam, which regulates Man's spiritual, economic, political and social moves to the last detail.

But what if non-Muslims refuse to take the right path? Here answers diverge. Some believe that the answer is dialogue and argument until followers of the "abrogated faiths" recognise their error and agree to be saved by converting to Islam. This is the view of most of the imams preaching in the mosques in the West. But others, including Osama bin Laden, a disciple of al-Maudoodi, believe that the Western-dominated world is too mired in corruption to hear any argument, and must be shocked into conversion through spectacular ghazavat (raids) of the kind we saw in New York and Washington in 2001, in Madrid last year, and now in London.

That yesterday's attack was intended as a ghazava was confirmed in a statement by the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe, an Islamist group that claimed responsibility for yesterday's atrocity. It said "We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid (ghazava) in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid." Those who carry out these missions are the ghazis, the highest of all Islamic distinctions just below that of the shahid or martyr. A ghazi who also becomes a shahid will be doubly meritorious.

There are many Muslims who believe that the idea that all other faiths have been "abrogated" and that the whole of mankind should be united under the banner of Islam must be dropped as a dangerous anachronism. But to the Islamist those Muslims who think like that are themselves regarded as lapsed, and deserving of death.

It is, of course, possible, as many in the West love to do, to ignore the strategic goal of the Islamists altogether and focus only on their tactical goals. These goals are well known and include driving the "Cross-worshippers" (Christian powers) out of the Muslim world, wiping Israel off the map of the Middle East, and replacing the governments of all Muslim countries with truly Islamic regimes like the one created by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and by the Taleban in Afghanistan.

How to achieve those objectives has been the subject of much debate in Islamist circles throughout the world, including in London, since 9/11. Bin Laden has consistently argued in favour of further ghazavat inside the West. He firmly believes that the West is too cowardly to fight back and, if terrorised in a big way, will do "what it must do". That view was strengthened last year when al-Qaeda changed the Spanish Government with its deadly attack in Madrid. At the time bin Laden used his "Madrid victory" to call on other European countries to distance themselves from the United States or face similar "punishment".

Bin Laden's view has been challenged by his supposed No 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who insists that the Islamists should first win the war inside several vulnerable Muslim countries, notably Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Until yesterday it seemed that al-Zawahiri was winning the argument, especially by heating things up in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yesterday, the bin Laden doctrine struck back in London.

The author is an Iranian commentator on Middle Eastern affairs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Chiroptera, posted 07-12-2005 10:07 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 303 of 313 (223581)
07-13-2005 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Silent H
07-12-2005 6:36 PM


Re: pretzel with cheese
Whoa whoa whoa. Yes he was. Of course he was.

Actually, no he wasn't. Which is what I have been trying to say. He has clearly stated that it would make us safer, not safe. And he has indicated (as I have mentioned) that this refers towards the mid to long term.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 6:36 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Silent H, posted 07-13-2005 1:13 PM Modulous has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6702
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 304 of 313 (223583)
07-13-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by CanadianSteve
07-13-2005 1:20 AM


Re: Naw..its not Islamic religious law...
quote:
You then go on to say that this relates to Iraq.

Actually, what I meant to say is that the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East is far more the result of imperial domination by the West (continuing presently under the guise of the "War of on Terror") than it is a fundamental tenet of Islam. The very quotes that you selected seem to confirm this. Sorry I wasn't clear on this point.

My comments on Iraq were to point out that I have never read anything about the US invasion being popular -- quite the contrary, the US occupation continues to be very unpopular, and the people want the foreign troops quickly.

Neither this post nor the next one really deals with either of these points.

Added an acknowledgement that my previous post wasn't clear.

This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 13-Jul-2005 02:54 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-13-2005 1:20 AM CanadianSteve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-13-2005 11:41 AM Chiroptera has responded

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4670 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 305 of 313 (223587)
07-13-2005 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Chiroptera
07-13-2005 10:50 AM


Re: Naw..its not Islamic religious law...
If one reads the liberal press strictly, one will not at all get the impression that the democracy the US is introducing is popular. But if you read iraqi bloggers, as I have, if one reads iraqi papers (some are trnaslated), as I have, read other press, as i do, one gets a very different picture. The evidence is that 8 millipn iraqis defied the islamists and voted, despite all the threats and suicide bombings aimed at them by the jihadis.

Of course, iraqis have their pride. Any people would feel awful just to have needed a foreign nation to rescue them from a home-grown tyrant, and needed a foreign nation to being them the democracy that so innately appeals. So, sure, they want the US out...kind of. because what the polls say is that they want the US to leave asap, but NOT before then.

Islamic extremism was present at the faith's birth. It has waxed and waned over the centuries, mainly waxed - because of the Koran's War Verses. I would agree that the west's 20th century imperialism was a factor in a resurgence, as was a response to the oppression of Arab authoritarianism. And yet, one needs to realize that the ottoman Empire was islamic, and, right up to its demise not quite 100 years ago, it was intruding on Western nations. In other words, while we tend to see the west as the imperialists, we fail to understand that the Islamic world was no less, and possibly, more imperialist. The real issue is that, in the end, we won. Our victory not only was humiliating in and of itself, but to the faithful it was a religious horror: Islam is supposed to dominate the world, not the judeo-Christian west.

In any event, the US has not been an imperialist power in their world. That is, before Iraq the US hadn't invaded. So, Gulf War one was with teh agreement of other Arab nations who were afraid of Hussein. The US went to war to defend and free muslims in the Balkans, the oppositie of imperialism. After Gulf War one the US maintained troops in saudi Arabia at that regime's request, to,protect it against a possibly resurgent hussein. That excised the isalmists, because for thatr eason, and with respect to other US activities in their region, they saw, perhaps rightfully, the US as an obstacle to their goal of taking over Arabia and the rest of the islamic world.

What is true, however, is that the US has supported repressive regimes for many reasons:
* for the sake of stability to protect oil supplies,
* as an alternative to the islamists.
* as an enemy of my enemy (Communism) strategy

Bush has now repudiated that policy and says repression is not acceptable, and that democracy, not Islamism, is the alternative.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Chiroptera, posted 07-13-2005 10:50 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Chiroptera, posted 07-13-2005 12:29 PM CanadianSteve has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6702
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 306 of 313 (223591)
07-13-2005 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by CanadianSteve
07-13-2005 11:41 AM


Re: Naw..its not Islamic religious law...
quote:
If one reads the liberal press strictly, one will not at all get the impression that the democracy the US is introducing is popular.

It's interesting how anyone who presents bad news gets labelled "the liberal press" with all the implications of bias if not outright misrepresentation.

-

quote:
But if you read iraqi bloggers, as I have, if one reads iraqi papers (some are trnaslated), as I have, read other press, as i do, one gets a very different picture.

I found an interesting article about freedom of the press in Iraq.

Even with the backing of a major company, journalists in Iraq are targeted by local authorities. The Middle East's two most popular satellite TV stations have suffered: Al-Jazeera's Baghdad bureau has been shuttered for months because of government criticism, and Iraqi forces held a reporter from Al-Arabiya for two weeks because he had footage of insurgent attacks.

I wonder if government repression would have an effect on what Iraqi newspapers say and on how they say it?

Edited to add the following:

My apologies. Although I was able to read the above article directly, the link on EvC seems to bring you to a registration page.

Here is another article from the Committee to Protect Journalists.

At any rate, the very first Iraqi newspaper that a google search turned up was Azzaman. I don't know much about that newspaper, but the articles and opinions expressed are anything but positive of the occupation. Could your sources be somewhat selective of the newspapers they quote?

-

quote:
So, sure, they want the US out...kind of.

In the context of the articles I cited, it's pretty hard to say "kind of". The occupation really seems pretty unpopular among Iraqis.

This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 13-Jul-2005 04:35 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-13-2005 11:41 AM CanadianSteve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-13-2005 12:35 PM Chiroptera has responded

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4670 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 307 of 313 (223592)
07-13-2005 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Chiroptera
07-13-2005 12:29 PM


Re: Naw..its not Islamic religious law...
The liberal press is denoted by the MSM, as discussed by Bernard Goldberg, a former key CBS exec who has been writing extensively about its biased agenda.

Theer are dozens of papers in Iraq. the only ones suppressed are islamist papers.

If you care to do a complete investigation, you will find a huge muber of sources that contradict your selective ones.

And , again, consider that 8 million iraqis defied the isalmists to vote. that says it all.

Your nation is in the process of creating a miracle: turning an oppressed police state into a multicultural liberal democracy, from which a democratic revolution will sweep an entire region of the globe, bringing peace to us all. You should be very very proud. Would that my cowardly, small-minded nation had had the courage to help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Chiroptera, posted 07-13-2005 12:29 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Chiroptera, posted 07-13-2005 1:32 PM CanadianSteve has responded
 Message 310 by NosyNed, posted 07-13-2005 1:54 PM CanadianSteve has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4016 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 308 of 313 (223596)
07-13-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Modulous
07-13-2005 10:27 AM


Re: pretzel with cheese and still more cheese
He has clearly stated that it would make us safer, not safe.

Oh my apologies then. I was not aware that "safer" is not the same thing as "safe", when one is promising something has improved your safety. I guess that goes back to the 100% thing and "prevent".

You are right then, he was not trying to convince people they were "safe", he was trying to convince people it made them "safer"... Which is not 100% safe, indeed only as safe as having the "front line" of combat in another nation, a phrase taken directly from the man standing right next to him who had already said such a thing prevented attacks at home.


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 303 by Modulous, posted 07-13-2005 10:27 AM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6702
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 309 of 313 (223601)
07-13-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by CanadianSteve
07-13-2005 12:35 PM


Re: Naw..its not Islamic religious law...
quote:
The liberal press is denoted by the MSM, as discussed by Bernard Goldberg, a former key CBS exec who has been writing extensively about its biased agenda.

And yet, despite this clear bias, you have not been able to show how the articles I cited were inaccurate.

-

quote:
Theer are dozens of papers in Iraq. the only ones suppressed are islamist papers.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that CanadianSteve's usual response is to just say, "No it isn't!"

-

quote:
If you care to do a complete investigation, you will find a huge muber of sources that contradict your selective ones.

I don't claim to have done a complete investigation, but I found what I found through a pretty simple google search. None of the responses returned said anything about popular support in Iraq for the occupation. Perhaps Google is part of the biased liberal media?

--

quote:
And , again, consider that 8 million iraqis defied the isalmists to vote. that says it all.

Indeed. I think that the fact that the US supported coalition was defeated in the election, and that the parties that won have been critical of the occupation pretty much defeats your argument.

A Washington Post article has an analysis of the election:

...In one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say....
...Said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan expert on Iraq. "In terms of regional geopolitics, this is not the outcome that the United States was hoping for."
Added Rami Khouri, Arab analyst and editor of Beirut's Daily Star: "The idea that the United States would get a quick, stable, prosperous, pro-American and pro-Israel Iraq has not happened. Most of the neoconservative assumptions about what would happen have proven false."
Conversely, the Iraqi secular democrats backed most strongly by the Bush administration lost big.... Pachachi's party fared so poorly in the election that it won no seats in the national assembly.
And current Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, backed by the CIA during his years in exile and handpicked by U.S. and U.N. officials to lead the interim government, came in third.

I will give credit where credit is due, though. I expected the US occupation to rig the elections. It is clear that they didn't.

-

quote:
Your nation is in the process of creating a miracle....

Yes, indeed! Weapons of mass destruction disappear as if they were never there to begin with! A tenacious armed resistance appears among a joyous pro-American population as if by magic! This administration is certainly capable of miracles!

-

quote:
...A democratic revolution will sweep an entire region of the globe, bringing peace to us all.

Heh. Not if this administration has any say in the matter.

Edited to correct a typo.

This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 13-Jul-2005 05:33 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-13-2005 12:35 PM CanadianSteve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-13-2005 4:45 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8848
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 310 of 313 (223605)
07-13-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by CanadianSteve
07-13-2005 12:35 PM


a miracle?
Your nation is in the process of creating a miracle: turning an oppressed police state into a multicultural liberal democracy, from which a democratic revolution will sweep an entire region of the globe, bringing peace to us all. You should be very very proud. Would that my cowardly, small-minded nation had had the courage to help.

Their nation has created a breeding ground in which, right now, there is a young person who will be partially responsible for getting a nuke into an american city. It is not peace that they will bring to us all.

I am afraid that at the time one reason mentioned for us not going into Iraq was the fear of bring terrorist retribution; that is cowardly. However, we also refused because it was wrong and that, given the nature of the bully to our south, was brave and principled.

What they are in the process of doing is taking a repressive dictatorship and creating anarchy. I find it hard to figure out which is worse. The US will, both because their are not wanted there and because they are not there for principled reasons, cut an run leaving behind a horror.

I was ambivalent about them going in with reasons for doing so and not going round and round. Now that they have dismantled the governing structures I feel there is a moral responsibility to put something back in place. They are failing at that and will try to wash their hands of the whole thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-13-2005 12:35 PM CanadianSteve has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Chiroptera, posted 07-13-2005 2:43 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6702
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 311 of 313 (223610)
07-13-2005 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by NosyNed
07-13-2005 1:54 PM


Re: a miracle?
CanadianSteve is certainly positive that this is going to happen, isn't he, Ned? It is refreshing to see a conspiracy theorist that is optimistic.

But how long do you think it will take before he begins to blame the subversives and the "fifth column" on the home front for the continued failure in the Mideast?

Or do you think that this will be like the return of Jesus -- for the next two thousand years democracy will continually be just around the corner?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by NosyNed, posted 07-13-2005 1:54 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4670 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 312 of 313 (223626)
07-13-2005 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Chiroptera
07-13-2005 1:32 PM


Re: Naw..its not Islamic religious law...
You haev a remarkably insistent bias.

Here's two articles, one from july 2003, the other very recent, amongst many, that support what i said:

Iraqis Begin Warming to US Presence

By Scott Peterson
Staff writer
The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/
Tuesday, July 1, 2003

A recent poll shows nearly two-thirds of Baghdad residents want the US to stay until Iraq is stable.

MSNBC
Updated: 11:09 a.m. ET June 29, 2005

Expert: Most Iraqis want U.S. to stay
Phares says the key to winning Iraqi hearts is winning leadership minds

While Americans were President Bush's primary target audience for his nationally televised address to the nation on Tuesday, Iraqis were also very interested in what he had to say.

Walid Phares, a terrorism expert for MSNBC and senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, joined MSNBC's Amy Robach on Wednesday to discuss how Bush's words may be playing in Baghdad, Basra and all around Iraq.

"Days ago I had met with the (Iraqi) prime minister at a meeting here in Washington and a number of senior officials, both religious and secular, and they told me the same story that we found this morning in the Iraqi/Baghdad press, which was that most Iraqis are concerned about an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq, because that would cause a collapse in their security system," Phares said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8403994/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Chiroptera, posted 07-13-2005 1:32 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 313 of 313 (223628)
07-13-2005 4:48 PM


Witching Hour
This has certainly run its course. If there is an issue left to be discussed, please post a PNT.

Closing this down.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019