• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also the condemnation coming from mosques and muslim centres in the UK still isn't widespread or severe enough.
How widespread and severe do you need it to be? It's already extremely widespread and extremely severe; it's just rarely picked up in the mainstream, because they're just yet another voice condemning the violence and it's an absolute no-braimer that they DO condemn it.
 
How widespread and severe do you need it to be? It's already extremely widespread and extremely severe; it's just rarely picked up in the mainstream, because they're just yet another voice condemning the violence and it's an absolute no-braimer that they DO condemn it.

How do you know it's widespread and severe if it gets minimal coverage in the mainstream media? Have you done a nationwide tour of the mosques and muslim centres? There was a muslim led vigil the day after the Manchester attack but the main speaker spent most of his air time telling the public not to blame muslims and that the police should be notified of any hate crimes. He then walked off the stage shaking his head which was pretty appauling and insensitive.
 
Last edited:
How do you know it's widespread and severe if it gets minimal coverage in the mainstream media? Have you done a nationwide tour of the mosques and muslim centres? There was a muslim led vigil the day after the Manchester attack but the main speaker spent most of his air time telling the public not to blame muslims and that the police should be notified of any hate crimes.

In what way was he wrong to do so? Hate crime is the single biggest danger in the days following an attack, not more terrorism,

Also I don't get this narrative that normal Muslims have to "own" what terrorists do and have to prove to the rest of the world that they condemn such things. What level of acknowledgement does the average UK or US citizen give for coalition bombings resulting in the deaths of civilians? To assume that they have to do so is to start from a position of suspicion of them which is not justified by the proportion of all muslims who actually carry out terror attacks.
 
In what way was he wrong to do so? Hate crime is the single biggest danger in the days following an attack, not more terrorism,

Also I don't get this narrative that normal Muslims have to "own" what terrorists do and have to prove to the rest of the world that they condemn such things. What level of acknowledgement does the average UK or US citizen give for coalition bombings resulting in the deaths of civilians? To assume that they have to do so is to start from a position of suspicion of them which is not justified by the proportion of all muslims who actually carry out terror attacks.

He's absolutely right to say what he did but he chose to give it prominance and talk about it at length rather than attempting to making use of the time to discourage people from being drawn towards extremist online or otherwise propoganda.
 
In what way was he wrong to do so? Hate crime is the single biggest danger in the days following an attack, not more terrorism,

Also I don't get this narrative that normal Muslims have to "own" what terrorists do and have to prove to the rest of the world that they condemn such things. What level of acknowledgement does the average UK or US citizen give for coalition bombings resulting in the deaths of civilians? To assume that they have to do so is to start from a position of suspicion of them which is not justified by the proportion of all muslims who actually carry out terror attacks.
How is it? Have 7 people been killed and 40 odd injured by hate crimes since the attack in Manchester?
 
Rubbish. They will always find a reason to hate. If you think pulling all western military forces out of the Middle East your very naive.This has nothing to do with wars in the Middle East and everything to do with ideology. How many middle eastern nations were being bombed before 9/11? This is about a religious mindset that doesn't believe in our way of life driven in the most part by Saudi teachings that we as a nation allowed into the mosques here.

I'm being naive?
Look at what you've written TS. You could have lifted that word for word out of the Mail or the Telegraph and the Sun. All supporters of the status quo that will continue to bring us a production line of more attacks against the civilian population here in the UK and other western european countries.
What we are doing is creating terrorists, not stopping them.
We need to change what we are doing to get a long term outcome for safety inside our own borders.

Start asking some questions.... Why is the US 4th fleet permanently parked in the Persian Gulf?
Is it a convenient parking spot ?
Is it for the weather?
Are they having BBQ's with their Iranian counterparts?

Or is it the key military player controlling the flow of oil from Iraq through the Persian Gulf, in particular through the hotly contrsted Strait of Hormuz, and around the horn of Arabia, up the Red Sea, through the Suez canal and across the Mediterranean until going passed Gibraltar then it 's a straight run to Houston to unload and start the return journey.
America has an economy that has built it's wealth on a transport system heavily dependent on fossil fuels at a low price.
Cheap gas is essential for the US public. It wins and loses elections.
I say... Let America do their own dirty work... or, is it necessary for the UK to be involved so they can maintain a buyers banquet for UK 'security systems' at the Saudi and Bahrainian tables?
There's always a catch where money's involved.

Regarding hate, people don't 'hate' other people for no apparent reason.
Jealousy doesn't sustain hate for longer than a half an hour.
There's always a reason.
Under our capitalist system the easiest and most often accurate way of finding the answer is to?...
Follow the money.
Hate requires way too much energy to keep running, you need something major of a negative nature to occur in your life to keep a hate going.
Who is doing the bombing in the middle east over the last 55-60 years?
That would be Israel, backed by the key players in NATO, but in recent decades fundamentally the Americans.
America has not been shy to kill off a few hundred thousand Arabs and Iraqi's when they get in the way. The numbers for civilian deaths in Iraq from the Blair/Bush tag team is specified at around 116.000 by the Telegraph and around 650.000 by Lancet Medical journal, I daresay the truth is somewhere in between.
It's in the hundreds of thousands.
Just the civilian deaths, in Iraq only, from the second Gulf War.
How many families is that TS?
How many children?
How much murder and outrage do you need to create an environment for terrorists to evolve and grow?
IS did not exist in Libya until Gaddafi was forcibly removed by British Bombers who destroyed infrastructure and murdered civilians, or in Iraq before Saddam Hussein was hooked outta there.
They are there now.
The Manchester bomber was a Libyan Brit (and a demented git) he evolved from the carnage, lawlessness and mayhem left behind by David Camerons failed attempt at statesmanship.
The blood of the innocents here in the UK is firmly on the hands of UK foreign policy.
You don't get the 'twisted religious mindset' without having an environment of oppression from an aggressor.
America has led the aggression and the British and French poodles have followed suit.

Your comment on ideology exhibits nothing historical.
A thousand years ago westerners, Christians, were the sworn enemy of Islam. Destroying the Infidel on a religious Jihad was a holy and desirable course of action.
A proud way to die and join Allah etc
The ideology is as old as organised society.
There is nothing even remotely new about the IS ideology.
Fanatical zealots.

How many decades did England suffer bombings from the IRA?
It happened until there was a change in how to approach the problem that didn't involve confrontation and oppression.
America isn't going to stop exploiting Iraq et al, so I say, lets leave them to do their own dirty work.
Take ourselves out of the picture and watch the attacks come to a grinding halt.
Much like the IRA bombings.
The Irish didn't want to destroy the British way of life, they just wanted to be left alone.
When we left them alone they quickly came to behave themslves.
 
I'm being naive?
Look at what you've written TS. You could have lifted that word for word out of the Mail or the Telegraph and the Sun. All supporters of the status quo that will continue to bring us a production line of more attacks against the civilian population here in the UK and other western european countries.
What we are doing is creating terrorists, not stopping them.
We need to change what we are doing to get a long term outcome for safety inside our own borders.

Start asking some questions.... Why is the US 4th fleet permanently parked in the Persian Gulf?
Is it a convenient parking spot ?
Is it for the weather?
Are they having BBQ's with their Iranian counterparts?

Or is it the key military player controlling the flow of oil from Iraq through the Persian Gulf, in particular through the hotly contrsted Strait of Hormuz, and around the horn of Arabia, up the Red Sea, through the Suez canal and across the Mediterranean until going passed Gibraltar then it 's a straight run to Houston to unload and start the return journey.
America has an economy that has built it's wealth on a transport system heavily dependent on fossil fuels at a low price.
Cheap gas is essential for the US public. It wins and loses elections.
I say... Let America do their own dirty work... or, is it necessary for the UK to be involved so they can maintain a buyers banquet for UK 'security systems' at the Saudi and Bahrainian tables?
There's always a catch where money's involved.

Regarding hate, people don't 'hate' other people for no apparent reason.
Jealousy doesn't sustain hate for longer than a half an hour.
There's always a reason.
Under our capitalist system the easiest and most often accurate way of finding the answer is to?...
Follow the money.
Hate requires way too much energy to keep running, you need something major of a negative nature to occur in your life to keep a hate going.
Who is doing the bombing in the middle east over the last 55-60 years?
That would be Israel, backed by the key players in NATO, but in recent decades fundamentally the Americans.
America has not been shy to kill off a few hundred thousand Arabs and Iraqi's when they get in the way. The numbers for civilian deaths in Iraq from the Blair/Bush tag team is specified at around 116.000 by the Telegraph and around 650.000 by Lancet Medical journal, I daresay the truth is somewhere in between.
It's in the hundreds of thousands.
Just the civilian deaths, in Iraq only, from the second Gulf War.
How many families is that TS?
How many children?
How much murder and outrage do you need to create an environment for terrorists to evolve and grow?
IS did not exist in Libya until Gaddafi was forcibly removed by British Bombers who destroyed infrastructure and murdered civilians, or in Iraq before Saddam Hussein was hooked outta there.
They are there now.
The Manchester bomber was a Libyan Brit (and a demented git) he evolved from the carnage, lawlessness and mayhem left behind by David Camerons failed attempt at statesmanship.
The blood of the innocents here in the UK is firmly on the hands of UK foreign policy.
You don't get the 'twisted religious mindset' without having an environment of oppression from an aggressor.
America has led the aggression and the British and French poodles have followed suit.

Your comment on ideology exhibits nothing historical.
A thousand years ago westerners, Christians, were the sworn enemy of Islam. Destroying the Infidel on a religious Jihad was a holy and desirable course of action.
A proud way to die and join Allah etc
The ideology is as old as organised society.
There is nothing even remotely new about the IS ideology.
Fanatical zealots.

How many decades did England suffer bombings from the IRA?
It happened until there was a change in how to approach the problem that didn't involve confrontation and oppression.
America isn't going to stop exploiting Iraq et al, so I say, lets leave them to do their own dirty work.
Take ourselves out of the picture and watch the attacks come to a grinding halt.
Much like the IRA bombings.
The Irish didn't want to destroy the British way of life, they just wanted to be left alone.
When we left them alone they quickly came to behave themslves.

So the attacks in Germany then were because of the number of bombs the Germans have dropped on the Middle East?
 
How do you know it's widespread and severe if it gets minimal coverage in the mainstream media? .
Because there's media that isn't mainstream, there's AlJazera, there's Facebook and Twitter. These places carry a lot of condemnation of Muslim terrorists by Muslims and by leaders in the Muslim communities.
 
So the attacks in Germany then were because of the number of bombs the Germans have dropped on the Middle East?

Really mate, come on. Do I have to join the dots for you?
You're not a prop forward are you? ;-)
Have a quick squiz at this... yes the Krauts have been involved in loads of Nato offensives over the last 50 years and they also allow the chief aggressor to have loads of military bases in their sovereign territory. Germany has been supplying weapons to the Kurds who are key to fighting IS in Iraq.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/09/turk-s09.html
 
So the attacks in Germany then were because of the number of bombs the Germans have dropped on the Middle East?

You seem to want to think that 'lefties' see every terrorist as the fault of the west and a form of just desert. You'll be hard put to find many to actually believe that. However you don't need to think those things to believe that we need a new approach to fighting terrorism. Although I do think some extremist recruitment will be directly explained by terrorists witnessing attacks on their own soil and resolving to retaliate, for the most part the question is not was it our fault but is what we're choosing to do about it making things any better?

Also, nobody whatsoever will think at this point that pulling all armed forces out from the Middle East and never going there again we will be made safer; we're way past that point, the situation over there was created over a period of time and won't simply go away any time soon. When people talk about changing our approach., we're not saying that things will be immediately safer tomorrow, we're trying to think ahead and say how are we going to make things safer in 20 years from now. Bear in mind of course that most of the recent perpetrators of terrorist attacks on our soil have been in their early 20s, which would have made them how old exactly when the US invaded Afghanistan? I'm 27 now and was only 11 when 9/11 happened, and things happened pretty quickly after that. The point is the conditions were laid for the radicalisation of the Manchester bomber, way before I imagine he had his first contact with radicals - just as an example.

I'm not someone who thinks that the west have to own everything that's happened. I'm fundamentally sceptical of all religions and think that they all carry the possibility to carry out devastation such as we're witnessing right now. If things keep happening like this, it's definitely relevant to ask what it is about that religion which allows similar patterns of radicalisation and justifications for terrorist acts. But to not think that we have played a role in making things worse is to be utterly, hopeless blind. You've got to look at the conditions in which anarchy reigns amidst which groups like IS have flourished. What happens when you remove the governing structures in a country to try and tackle dangerous ideologies? Well it actually just makes it easier for those and other ideologies to germinate.
 
Look at Russia, they conducted a thoroughly repugnant war on Chechnya, they won it after brutally supressing the civilian population.
They have paid for that many times in the forms of terrorist acts by Chechen's inside Russian territory.
It doesn't matter which country bullies and oppresses, whether it's the West, Russia, China in Tibet, Malaysians in East Timor, the Myanmar govt creating a diaspora by ruthlessly crushing the muslims in former Burma, Hindhu's burning out Christians in India... the list goes on.
When one country intervenes militarily in another and doesn't leave a stable environment behind, the chaos left behind allows evil to foment within the vacuum. Broken lives, broken minds, they coalesce and sometimes you get a group like the Mujahideen, or the Taliban, sometimes you get IS.

Now there are those who believe the US is quite comfortable with leaving regions in anarchy to actively allow extremists to cultivate a following and become dangerous.
I suppose thats possible, because the Military Industrial Complex needs war in order to continue the ugly business of manufacturing and selling weapons of destruction.
However I'm inclined to think it has grown out of implementing foreign policies of unseating dictators who are no longer useful, or toeing the line, so when they are shunted all the US cares about is keeping access to the mineral wealth. They couldn't give a toss about the peasantry.
After the Blair and Bush Gulf War, how many contracts did the UK get to rebuild the bombed out infrastructure of Iraq?
Did they get any?
As I recall all of the rebuilding work went to Kellogg Brown and Root, an American company that used to be run by vice President Dick Cheney.
A subsidiary of Halliburton. Enough said...

I took this from a US War Vet who is a patriot in the real sense of the word.

"I wonder, given that everything the neocons claimed about Iraq (quick; easy; cheap -- heck, it'd pay for itself; they'd "welcome us as liberators;" it would "remake the Mideast" -- well, it did that, but not quite the way they envisioned) has turned out to be completely, totally, catastrophically wrong, and everything the harshest, most extreme critics predicted in their worst-case nightmares, and then some, came true?
The true costs of the Iraqi debacle will never be known, but...
in dollars, it's at least $2 trillion and counting;
over four thousand of our very best and bravest dead (but of course, none of them the offspring or bloodlines of any of those brave neocons);
tens of thousands more wounded, some horrifically;
literally uncountable Iraqi casualties, and even more displaced, most of them permanently;
a civil war unleashed that's destabilized the entire region, and brought Iraq under the effective control of their enemy and ours, Iran -- whose prestige and regional power have been hugely enhanced;
ditto for the influence of Al Qaeda and its offshoots in Pakistan, Afghanistan, north, east, and west Africa, and the rest of the world, including Europe and our own homeland;
the devastating loss of US credibility and standing in the world, including our known involvement in prohibited torture and the rendition of provably innocent individuals, and demonstrating again, as in Vietnam, that a bunch of local insurgents, poorly armed but well motivated, can easily tie the world's greatest military force in knots -- and not to mention that now, with our drone programs, we're creating new terrorists faster than we can kill the existing ones;
plus, of course, the radical growth of the anti-state of ISIS/Daesh, whose command-and-control now consist of the very Iraqi military whom the neocon geniuses unilaterally cut loose, without pay, position, or prospects.
And, leaving all snark aside, we literally could not have done any worse than we have...
"
 
871328428963901440
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871328428963901440

Trump said:
"At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!""
Khan's actual statement:
Khan said:
"Just like terrorists are constantly evolving, finding new ways to disrupt us, harm us, attack us, the police and experts and all of us are finding new ways to keep us safe.
Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days - no reason to be alarmed. One of the things police and all of us need to do is make sure we're as saef as we possibly can be.
"I'm reassured that we are one of the safest global cities in the world, if not the safest golbal city in the world.
But we always evolve and review ways to make sure we remain as safe as we possibly can"

Trump's follow-up tweet was:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871331574649901056
Trump said:
"At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!""
On his way to the golf course, of course


All a little reminiscent of the Trump Family's responce to the March London attack.


As for how much of this wave of terrorism is the "fault" of Islam, and much the "fault" of the West / The EU / The UK's involvement in the Middle East over the last 200 years or so; I wonder how many blame the IRA or ETA on Catholicism versus foreign policy? Does the Protestant cumminty need to take a stand against the likes of Anders Breivik? or was he just a lone nutter; along with the various other white supremacists conducting "terrorist" activity in the US (and other places)?
 
Last edited:
Rubbish. They will always find a reason to hate. If you think pulling all western military forces out of the Middle East will stop this your very naive.This has nothing to do with wars in the Middle East and everything to do with ideology. How many middle eastern nations were being bombed before 9/11? This is about a religious mindset that doesn't believe in our way of life driven in the most part by Saudi teachings that we as a nation allowed into the mosques here.
You are right, these people have a mental problem brought on by religious ideology that may have been appropriate several centuries ago when the vast majority of the world was un-educated and those that were educated used religion to control the masses.
The mentalists that perpetrate these horrendous crimes are mostly scumbags that spend their pathetic lives signing on the dole, using drugs, getting ******, watching porn and auditioning for the Jeremy Kyle show until spotted by the religious nutters who brainwash them into committing atrocities.
If the ******** don't blow themselves up or get shot trying then they should be hung as should the hate preachers who incite them.
 
How do you stop Islamic extremism though? It's got to a point where there are just too many people on the watch list. Apparently there's about 6000 or so on the watch list and to watch those people 24 hours a day it requires 8 police officers per person.
The government has clearly been very blind about it all over the last few years as in my view takes the blame. Cameron should bear a lot of it. 7 years ago when the Conservatives first came in they should have done what they could there and then to stop extremist ideas being spread. The 'watch list' would have been much less than it is today and the challenge at hand would be difficult but doable. I think this country has been too lenient with its immigration policies and there's no doubt that a lot of the people that came in had extremists (a small fraction but enough).
May has been left with a very difficult task and whoever is the next prime minister really needs to do something to combat it. Will the threat of the death penalty do it? Possibly but it won't solve it by any means. Will deportation work? Doubt it. Will more prisons work? No way, one factor in extremist ideas being spread is through prisons. It's a thankless task for anyone in the next government and the people that should bear the blame for it getting to this stage should be Cameron.
Thoughts on how to combat it if you were the next PM?
 
You are right, these people have a mental problem brought on by religious ideology that may have been appropriate several centuries ago ....

It's never been appropriate, but then neither has crushing civilian populations, or illegally invading and continuing to occupy foreign countries while you loot their mineral wealth and supply their neighbours with the latest in military hardware.
We have not seen the last of this type of low tech attack by extremists and Teresa May is not interested in solving the issue, she will only continue to try to affect the symptoms that come from our aggressive heartless foreign policy.
Teresa May cannot protect us.
 
How do you stop Islamic extremism though? It's got to a point where there are just too many people on the watch list. Apparently there's about 6000 or so on the watch list and to watch those people 24 hours a day it requires 8 police officers per person.
The government has clearly been very blind about it all over the last few years as in my view takes the blame. Cameron should bear a lot of it.
May has been left with a very difficult task and whoever is the next prime minister really needs to do something to combat it. Will the threat of the death penalty do it?
Thoughts on how to combat it if you were the next PM?

The only leader in the current race who has offered a long term solution for this issue is Jeremy Corbyn.
Of all the leaders in the race he is the only one who has directly referred to our foreign policy as being the cause of the issue.
It says in the Bible, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
If you murder, destroy and opporess a foreign population, in order to make a gain out of it, then it will come back to haunt you.
Change the foreign policy.
It's not going to stop the attacks overnight but there has to be a visible move away from the culture of aggressive military action as a first port of call.
There also has to be a move away from the USA's penchant for raping the mineral wealth from countries they are occupying/bullying.
If that means stepping away from the 'special relationship' and having a 'break' then do it.
It is not acceptable to be adopting and enacting foreign policy that gets your people murdered in cold blood in their own cities.
Tony Blair and George Bush ripped the mid east wide open and created the vacuum for terrorism to gain a stronghold.
Israel is practicing apartheid on the Palestinians.
David Cameron made a mess of Libya and we have the atrocity in Manchester to thank for that.

If there is no change in the foreign policy toward the middle east by the UK then get used to more of the same attacks we have been experiencing up close in the last month.
 
The only leader in the current race who has offered a long term solution for this issue is Jeremy Corbyn.
Of all the leaders in the race he is the only one who has directly referred to our foreign policy as being the cause of the issue.
It says in the Bible, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
If you murder, destroy and opporess a foreign population, in order to make a gain out of it, then it will come back to haunt you.
Change the foreign policy.
It's not going to stop the attacks overnight but there has to be a visible move away from the culture of aggressive military action as a first port of call.
There also has to be a move away from the USA's penchant for raping the mineral wealth from countries they are occupying/bullying.
If that means stepping away from the 'special relationship' and having a 'break' then do it.
It is not acceptable to be adopting and enacting foreign policy that gets your people murdered in cold blood in their own cities.
Tony Blair and George Bush ripped the mid east wide open and created the vacuum for terrorism to gain a stronghold.
Israel is practicing apartheid on the Palestinians.
David Cameron made a mess of Libya and we have the atrocity in Manchester to thank for that.

If there is no change in the foreign policy toward the middle east by the UK then get used to more of the same attacks we have been experiencing up close in the last month.
The only leader in the current race who has offered a long term solution for this issue is Jeremy Corbyn.
Of all the leaders in the race he is the only one who has directly referred to our foreign policy as being the cause of the issue.
It says in the Bible, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
If you murder, destroy and opporess a foreign population, in order to make a gain out of it, then it will come back to haunt you.
Change the foreign policy.
It's not going to stop the attacks overnight but there has to be a visible move away from the culture of aggressive military action as a first port of call.
There also has to be a move away from the USA's penchant for raping the mineral wealth from countries they are occupying/bullying.
If that means stepping away from the 'special relationship' and having a 'break' then do it.
It is not acceptable to be adopting and enacting foreign policy that gets your people murdered in cold blood in their own cities.
Tony Blair and George Bush ripped the mid east wide open and created the vacuum for terrorism to gain a stronghold.
Israel is practicing apartheid on the Palestinians.
David Cameron made a mess of Libya and we have the atrocity in Manchester to thank for that.

If there is no change in the foreign policy toward the middle east by the UK then get used to more of the same attacks we have been experiencing up close in the last month.
As I'm not a labour supporter I don't agree with Corbyn much but his opinion on certain foreign policies has pleased me.
Britain constantly backs the wrong side in the Middle East; in Iraq we got Sadaam Hussain out which was a big mistake and it in a way started the trouble that there is today in the Middle East. Then you have Libya as you mention which was a terrible mistake and Libya has become even worse since that (somehow). The man responsible for the Manchester bomb fought in Libya against Gaddafi (or was that his brother and father?). And now we're backing the wrong side in Syria. The rebels have got away with so much as for some reason the media doesn't want to speak against them. If Assad loses (which I doubt will happen now) then we will have only created more problems for ourselves. Why can't our country learn from their mistakes? Also, why do we have to go into these countries in the first place? We don't need to be there and really it's none of our business. Russia are allies with Syria so you can understand their position there. The West have disappointed me massively with this approach in the Middle East.
 
Rumsfeld and Cheney saw a great opportunity for themselves and their business associates in the removal of Saddam Hussein.
It didn't work out well for America though.
Too often the West have used a bludgeon when a rapier would have been the wisest weapon.
However, money talks.
Iraq has a lot of black gold.
The military industrial complex needs war to keep it solvent.
Oil and weapons are two of the cornerstones of the American economy.
Here's a scary bunch of facts...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41086.htm
 
Rumsfeld and Cheney saw a great opportunity for themselves and their business associates in the removal of Saddam Hussein.
It didn't work out well for America though.
Too often the West have used a bludgeon when a rapier would have been the wisest weapon.
However, money talks.
Iraq has a lot of black gold.
The military industrial complex needs war to keep it solvent.
Oil and weapons are two of the cornerstones of the American economy.
Here's a scary bunch of facts...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41086.htm

You speak so much sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top