Pages: 1 … 20 21 22 23 24 … 35

 

2010-06-06 17:41:04
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6804|Πάϊ

FEOS wrote:

Just what the fuck do you mean "people like you"? I suggest you check your fucking generalizations. Now. Or would you rather be lumped in with those who apologize for terrorists who strap bombs to kids with Down Syndrome and blow up cafes full of innocent women and children? I thought not. Remove your emotions from the equation and try some critical thinking, oug.

We are talking about the actions of governments here. It is all about what governments do. Nothing else. What's right and what's wrong is determined by the applicable laws. Everything else is subjective and relative. Law is not. That's why it's there.
As you can see I did underline the word "governments"...
We both know who the laws are written by. So no. What's right and wrong are not always defined through the laws. Many a time the laws are created to suit specific needs of powerful interests and in that sense, they too are subjective and relative on many occasions.

FEOS wrote:

It was pretty clearly explained a couple of pages back. A defined blockade zone doesn't have to be in the blockading country's territorial waters. In fact, that makes no sense whatsoever. The blockade zone must be where the blockade needs to be in order to be effective (again, see the Cuban Missile Crisis). The blockade zone is defined and clearly announced. Anyone who enters it knows they are entering a blockade zone and what the rules are. Even in international waters.
So any nation can define any blockzone it wants under the pretext that it is engaged in hostile action with a percentage of its population? I don't think so. And the Cuban Missile Crisis is no example I can take under consideration seriously because who would go up against the US over a matter such as this? (Again let me say I have no idea what exactly the law says about this, it just doesn't sound right at all...)

FEOS wrote:

So there should be punishment without investigation, proof beyond reasonable doubt, etc? Doesn't sound like a biased position at all...
Unfortunately for Israel, there's plenty of proof to go round this time my friend.

FEOS wrote:

The "fuss" is about agreements. And living up to them. That means actions, not just signatures.
Um, no. The fuss is about nuclear weapons FEOS.


FEOS wrote:

The US doesn't know that Israel has nukes any more than any other country knows that Israel has nukes. Of course, we suspect it just as much as anyone else does, but that is a state secret--it's not like they share it with others.
Quit hiding behind your finger whenever it suits you.

FEOS wrote:

Again, why should anything be done about it? There is no reason to do anything about it at all. There is no statutory reason or limitation on Israel developing or proliferating nuclear weapons--because they didn't sign/agree to the NNPT. I'm not saying that they should from a moral standpoint. I'm saying that there is no legal foundation to stop them or say dammit to them about it.
There is no legal foundation to stop them because Israel was never pressured into signing the NPT unlike other nations. It's what I was saying about the laws... The fact of the matter is that the NPT was created out of a need to control nukes and limit them as much as possible. But hey, that need magically doesn't apply for Israel! So while everyone else is supposedly making an effort, they can go about their business untouched! How nice. And fair.

Anyway I know already that this is leading nowhere with you, because you know what is being discussed and you're deliberately avoiding the real issue. So I will ask you this. Where do you stand from a moral standpoint?
ƒ³
2010-06-06 21:31:24
rdx-fx
...
+955|6877

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Someone should tell these protesters that, Dilbert - they appear to be off-message then.
They also apparently didn't get the official party line memo that threats of genocide don't go over very well with the Hebrews.
Again, they aren't calling for genocide, just the end of Israel.
riiiiiight.

because the posters above, with captions like "God will send the mushroom cloud on Israel", and "Death to Israel", and 'Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth' (I know I've the wording slightly off on the last one) in bold print, have, in the tiny small print at the bottom;

"* After a UN approved 30 day evacuation period, to allow the much loved and honored Israelis to peaceably vacate the premises in an orderly fashion"
2010-06-06 22:18:49
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS
Yeah the "God will send a mushroom cloud" one is mildly alarming.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-06-06 22:21:13
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6834|San Diego, CA, USA
Update: Gaza blockade: Iran offers escort to next aid convoy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ju … aid-convoy

Oh this can't end well...
2010-06-06 22:28:16
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS
Okay it became clear long ago that there aren't all that many people who are actually interested in getting aid to Gaza.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-06-06 23:38:17
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX

rdx-fx wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Someone should tell these protesters that, Dilbert - they appear to be off-message then.
They also apparently didn't get the official party line memo that threats of genocide don't go over very well with the Hebrews.
Again, they aren't calling for genocide, just the end of Israel.
riiiiiight.

because the posters above, with captions like "God will send the mushroom cloud on Israel", and "Death to Israel", and 'Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth' (I know I've the wording slightly off on the last one) in bold print, have, in the tiny small print at the bottom;

"* After a UN approved 30 day evacuation period, to allow the much loved and honored Israelis to peaceably vacate the premises in an orderly fashion"
Calling for a country to be bombed =/= genocide.
If they're calling for the Israelis to leave first it certainly isn't.
Fuck Israel
2010-06-06 23:40:53
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX
Israel's navy has shot and killed four Palestinians wearing diving gear off the Gaza coast, officials say.
The Israeli military says it believes those on board were planning a "terrorist attack".

Hamas officials in Gaza say four bodies have been recovered and two people are missing.
It comes a week after nine pro-Palestinian activists died in an Israeli raid on an aid flotilla trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza.

Israel controls and occupies the sea off the coast of Gaza despite having withdrawn its forces from the territory in 2005.
The country's Haaretz newspaper quoted an Israeli army source as saying the incident took place at about 0430 local time (0130 GMT) and that the boat was heading north to Israel from waters off the Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza.

Israeli media is reporting that helicopters were involved in the operation.
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) said there were no Israeli casualties.

The BBC's Jon Donnison, in the West Bank town of Ramallah, says it is not yet clear exactly what has happened.
But it is not uncommon for the Israeli navy to open fire on fishing boats it feels are too far out at sea, he adds.

There has also been sporadic rocket fire out of Gaza into Israel since that raid a week ago.
https://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48008000/gif/_48008752_gaza_nuseirat.gif
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle … 252229.stm
So the Israelis can just shoot up whoever they like now, off the shore of territory which isn't theirs, on suspicion of planning something?
Fuck Israel
2010-06-07 01:35:01
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7052|UK
"But it is not uncommon for the Israeli navy to open fire on fishing boats it feels are too far out at sea, he adds. " Where was the outrage before Dilbert?
2010-06-07 01:36:54
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6609|New Haven, CT

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


Again, they aren't calling for genocide, just the end of Israel.
riiiiiight.

because the posters above, with captions like "God will send the mushroom cloud on Israel", and "Death to Israel", and 'Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth' (I know I've the wording slightly off on the last one) in bold print, have, in the tiny small print at the bottom;

"* After a UN approved 30 day evacuation period, to allow the much loved and honored Israelis to peaceably vacate the premises in an orderly fashion"
Calling for a country to be bombed =/= genocide.
If they're calling for the Israelis to leave first it certainly isn't.
Why would they nuke Israel if all the Israelis abandoned it for them?
2010-06-07 01:42:54
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX

Vilham wrote:

"But it is not uncommon for the Israeli navy to open fire on fishing boats it feels are too far out at sea, he adds. " Where was the outrage before Dilbert?
Hasn't gone anywhere.
Fuck Israel
2010-06-07 01:50:16
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6609|New Haven, CT

Beduin wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Beduin wrote:

Yes, depends on the teaching of different sects in Islam. You see, you cant use it on all muslims, but you can however use the Quran, cause it is only ONE book, the words of Allah.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims consider hadith to be essential supplements to and clarifications of the Qur'an, Islam's holy book, as well as in clarifying issues pertaining to Islamic jurisprudence.
Is wikipedia wrong? You might want to edit that, then.
Read? The importance of them depends on the school of law within Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_sc … d_branches
Okay. You know this better, obviously.

nukchebi0 wrote:

First of all, it obviously doesn't, because you just tried to claim the hadith only governs judgement day, yet it seems the hadith are seen as essential aspects of the Muslim faith by the majority of its adherents.
That specific hadith is about one of the signs of judgement day, look it up.
It has nothing to do with how muslims should treat non-muslims, at all.
Why does it mention the trees revealing Jews so Muslims can kill them?

nukchebi0 wrote:

Secondly, read the following source's section on "Arab world's historical subjugation and mistreatment of Jews
attributed to the Prophet Muhammad": http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/koran.html#3
Note all the Quran verses. Does sharia cover those?
what? What should I get from this? If you read anything from the Quran, put it in here, plz
The Quran verses located in that link under the heading I told you to look at seem to indicate a rooted hatred of Judiasm.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-07 01:52:16)

2010-06-07 02:18:03
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6609|New Haven, CT

oug wrote:

Defining someone you've never met as extremely religious and conservative is not factual reporting, it's a load of bollocks. Especially when you've never met the person you're referring to.
Honestly? Are we serious right now? You ask other people about a certain person, you consider their background and personal affiliations, and you are able to get a reasonable picture of who they are, in an accurate manner. That is exactly what the reporter did.

Not to mention the fact that their religious beliefs have nothing to do with the case at hand and they're just mentioned to portray them in a negative light - specifically what the reporter is trying to do is link those men with religious fundamentalists and extremists although nothing in their behavior suggests that.
Perhaps, if you cared to analyze the reporter's words, you'll see she was trying to minimize the emphasis on their religious beliefs and conservatism throughout the interview, concluding with her subjective statement describing them as just humanitarians. The guy interviewing her had to tease out some of the details regarding their religious views.

As for the "simple people providing humanitarian aid", it is subjective only as far as the epithet "simple" goes. The rest is fact.
That's touching. It's just that the "they're just" completely alters the implicit meaning of the statement, moving it from factual observation regarding their actions to subjective conclusions regarding the entirety of their motives. (In other words, she stops her factual reporting and substitutes a personal opinion intended to minimize the effect of the reality she just presented.)

Regarding the rest of your post, all I have to say is that you probably haven't read your own links because they provide no evidence at all. Instead they're hughly speculative and they reach no conclusion.
If you'd bothered to read, you'd understand I'm using their background as factual evidence (which they are, see above for a reread in case you still can't comprehend it) to buttress my belief the activists were looking for a fight, and to use such an incident to malign Israel. I can't know for sure, but my conclusion seems reasonable in light of the facts we know. The pictures released today by IHH seem to confirm Israel's story of the events, lending further credence to my theory.

In fact your second link - which seems as the most reliable of the two - despite the initial sentiment it tries to bestow, concludes by saying the exact opposite of what you're supposing.
I trust the difference between factual reporting and a compromise of journalistic integrity is now discernible to you, so I'll leave it to you to understand how this statement is inaccurate.

As for reasoning, let's see how yours works. You're always assuming things. You take it for granted for some reason thet the Israeli government is incapable or erring,
No. It just doesn't seem likely given the obvious ability to analyze outcomes of the situation.

you seem certain as to how a "normal" activist would act in the given situation,
What is a normal activist? It certainly seems people more concerned with aiding the Palestinians would assent to the offer of berthing in an Israeli port in order to undergo cargo inspections. The MV Rachel Corrie is a nice contrast, isn't it?

and worst of all you seem certain that these people would easily sacrifice themselves in order to make Israel look bad.
Again, honestly? Do we lack the historical basis for the plausibility of such a concept?

All those assumptions you make just seem to me like a desperate attempt to take the blame off the Israeli government and I can't help but ask why.
It's not a desperate attempt to take the blame of the Israeli government, it's an attempt to inject some critical thought into the assessment of the incident. It pains me to see so many normally intelligent people lose all semblance of reason as they seize every opportunity they can get to spew irrational hatred of Israel. I'll happily blame Israel for things they deserve to be criticized for, and those certainly exist, but it doesn't seem as if this current "crisis" is cause for the zealous vilification so ubiquitous in the Israel and Palestine debate.
2010-06-07 02:39:43
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|6035|شمال

nukchebi0 wrote:

Why does it mention the trees revealing Jews so Muslims can kill them?
We believe that Prophet Jesus (PBUH) will return and lead a war against the non-believers. He will be the general of the believers.

After the prayer Prophet Jesus will say, ''Open the gate''. The gate will be opened and the Dajjal will be waiting behind it accompanied by an army of 70,000 Jews, each armed with a sword and shield. The Dajjal on seeing Prophet Jesus among the Muslims will begin to dissolve like salt in water and will begin to flee. Prophet Jesus will say to him, ''You will remain alive until I strike you with my spear, ''He will catch up with him at the Eastern gate of Ludd (Ludd is a mountain in Syria. Some say that it is a village in Jerusalem, and some say that it is a village in Palestine) and then Prophet Jesus will kill him with a small spear.
  The Muslims will thereafter defeat and wipe out Dajjal's army. The Jews will not be able to hide behind anything on that day. Every time they try to hide behind a stone, a wall, a tree (except a boxthorn tree), or animal. Allah will make these things speak and they will say, ''O servant of Allah there is a Jew hiding behind me. come kill him"

Read more: http://www.inter-islam.org/faith/Majorsigns.html
You can dig into it yourself anytime you wont. One thing is for sure, it is all sign of judgement day/end of the world. It has nothing to do with how muslims should treat non-muslims -notice how many times I wrote that now, cause am still thinking of your main point which you have not proven yet.


nukchebi0 wrote:

The Quran verses located in that link under the heading I told you to look at seem to indicate a rooted hatred of Judiasm.

nukchebi0 wrote:

You're religion...

The point was to illustrate how a desire to kill the Jews is ingrained in the teaching of Islam.
have you read them? If yes, post them here. It will certainly prove your point....
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
2010-06-07 03:36:43
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX
So basically the three middle-eastern religions believe they will slaughter the other two - at some point - and ascend to heaven.

Can't see how thats likely to cause any friction....
Fuck Israel
2010-06-07 03:56:17
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|6035|شمال

Dilbert_X wrote:

So basically the three middle-eastern religions believe they will slaughter the other two - at some point - and ascend to heaven.

Can't see how thats likely to cause any friction....
It clearly not about how to treat non-muslims. Muslims have very strict rules to follow in that matter.

“And dispute you not with the People of the Scripture, except in the best way, unless it be with those who do wrong, but say, ‘We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; our God and your God is One; and it is to Him we submit (in Islam).’” (Quran 29:46)
..glimpse of history
`Umar ibn al-Khattāb, c. 586-590 CE – 7 November 644), also known as Umar the Great or Farooq the Great was the most powerful of the four Rashidun Caliphs and one of the most powerful and influential Muslim rulers.[1] He was a sahabi (companion) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. He succeeded Caliph Abu Bakr (632–634) as the second Caliph of Rashidun Caliphate on 23 August 634. He was an expert jurist and is best known for his justice, that earned him the title Al-Farooq (The one who distinguishes between right and wrong) and his house as Darul Adal (house of justice). Also, Umar was the first Caliph to be called Amir al-Mu'minin (Commander of the Faithful or Prince of the Believers).
Under Umar the Islamic empire expanded at an unprecedented rate ruling the whole Sassanid Persian Empire and more than two thirds of the Eastern Roman Empire.[2] His legislative abilities, his firm political and administrative control over a rapidly expanding empire and his brilliantly coordinated multi-prong attacks against Sassanid Persian Empire that resulted in conquest of Persian empire in less than two years, marked his reputation as a great political and military leader.[3] It was Umar who for the first time in 500 years since expulsion of Jews from the Holy Land, allowed them to practice their religion freely and live in Jerusalem.

Last edited by Beduin (2010-06-07 04:42:55)

الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
2010-06-07 04:24:56
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

oug wrote:

As you can see I did underline the word "governments"...
We both know who the laws are written by. So no. What's right and wrong are not always defined through the laws. Many a time the laws are created to suit specific needs of powerful interests and in that sense, they too are subjective and relative on many occasions.
And laws outlast governments and "powerful interests". And they are not subjective.

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It was pretty clearly explained a couple of pages back. A defined blockade zone doesn't have to be in the blockading country's territorial waters. In fact, that makes no sense whatsoever. The blockade zone must be where the blockade needs to be in order to be effective (again, see the Cuban Missile Crisis). The blockade zone is defined and clearly announced. Anyone who enters it knows they are entering a blockade zone and what the rules are. Even in international waters.
So any nation can define any blockzone it wants under the pretext that it is engaged in hostile action with a percentage of its population? I don't think so. And the Cuban Missile Crisis is no example I can take under consideration seriously because who would go up against the US over a matter such as this? (Again let me say I have no idea what exactly the law says about this, it just doesn't sound right at all...)
Gaza is an autonomous entity, ruled by its own government. They are not, in effect, part of Israel any longer, but part of the Palestinian Authority. The Israelis are not blockading their own population, but the region governed by Hamas, due to the actions of Hamas. And that is legal under international law.

As to the Cuban Missile Crisis,  it is a perfect example of a legal naval blockade of one entity of another in international waters. I can see why you would want to ignore it.

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So there should be punishment without investigation, proof beyond reasonable doubt, etc? Doesn't sound like a biased position at all...
Unfortunately for Israel, there's plenty of proof to go round this time my friend.
Yes, there's plenty of proof to go around. That's the point.

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The "fuss" is about agreements. And living up to them. That means actions, not just signatures.
Um, no. The fuss is about nuclear weapons FEOS.
Um, no. When it comes down to it, the fuss is about agreements made WRT nuclear weapons, not the weapons themselves.

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The US doesn't know that Israel has nukes any more than any other country knows that Israel has nukes. Of course, we suspect it just as much as anyone else does, but that is a state secret--it's not like they share it with others.
Quit hiding behind your finger whenever it suits you.
Whatever that means.

Suspicion =/= knowledge.

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Again, why should anything be done about it? There is no reason to do anything about it at all. There is no statutory reason or limitation on Israel developing or proliferating nuclear weapons--because they didn't sign/agree to the NNPT. I'm not saying that they should from a moral standpoint. I'm saying that there is no legal foundation to stop them or say dammit to them about it.
There is no legal foundation to stop them because Israel was never pressured into signing the NPT unlike other nations. It's what I was saying about the laws... The fact of the matter is that the NPT was created out of a need to control nukes and limit them as much as possible. But hey, that need magically doesn't apply for Israel! So while everyone else is supposedly making an effort, they can go about their business untouched! How nice. And fair.
How were other countries pressured into signing (and ratifying, mind you) the NPT? What about the countries other than Israel that you neglect to mention? Why should any country be pressured into signing and ratifying a treaty except under terms to end a war? I'm not talking about Israel here, I'm talking about sovereign nations in general.

But I forget...different rulesets apply when it comes to Israel.

oug wrote:

Anyway I know already that this is leading nowhere with you, because you know what is being discussed and you're deliberately avoiding the real issue. So I will ask you this. Where do you stand from a moral standpoint?
What "real" issue am I avoiding, exactly?

Where do I stand on what from a moral viewpoint?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-06-07 05:40:24
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

JohnG@lt wrote:

Does anyone else find it terribly amusing that the people who whine, piss and moan when all Muslims are stereotyped as deranged Wahhabists will go ahead and treat all Israelis as if they are Zionists?
yup.
2010-06-07 05:41:57
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

Does anyone else find it terribly amusing that the people who whine, piss and moan when all Muslims are stereotyped as deranged Wahhabists will go ahead and treat all Israelis as if they are Zionists?
And who has done that?
Fuck Israel
2010-06-07 05:42:20
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

Beduin wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So basically the three middle-eastern religions believe they will slaughter the other two - at some point - and ascend to heaven.

Can't see how thats likely to cause any friction....
It clearly not about how to treat non-muslims. Muslims have very strict rules to follow in that matter.

“And dispute you not with the People of the Scripture, except in the best way, unless it be with those who do wrong, but say, ‘We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; our God and your God is One; and it is to Him we submit (in Islam).’” (Quran 29:46)
seems very open ended
2010-06-07 05:56:13
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|6035|شمال

11 Bravo wrote:

Beduin wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So basically the three middle-eastern religions believe they will slaughter the other two - at some point - and ascend to heaven.

Can't see how thats likely to cause any friction....
It clearly not about how to treat non-muslims. Muslims have very strict rules to follow in that matter.

“And dispute you not with the People of the Scripture, except in the best way, unless it be with those who do wrong, but say, ‘We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; our God and your God is One; and it is to Him we submit (in Islam).’” (Quran 29:46)
seems very open ended
Anything about killing?
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
2010-06-07 05:59:00
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

Beduin wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Beduin wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So basically the three middle-eastern religions believe they will slaughter the other two - at some point - and ascend to heaven.

Can't see how thats likely to cause any friction....
It clearly not about how to treat non-muslims. Muslims have very strict rules to follow in that matter.


seems very open ended
Anything about killing?
no.  nor does say anything about not killing.  hence the open ended statement.
2010-06-07 06:03:15
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|6035|شمال

11 Bravo wrote:

no.  nor does say anything about not killing.  hence the open ended statement.
witch hunt?

The Prophet said:
“Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawood)

Last edited by Beduin (2010-06-07 06:04:24)

الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
2010-06-07 06:06:03
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio
i dunno dude.  we can play the quote game but i hate all religion so it will just anger me. 
2010-06-07 06:12:25
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|6035|شمال

11 Bravo wrote:

i dunno dude.  we can play the quote game but i hate all religion so it will just anger me. 
Read history then... Read how non-muslims lived under Islamic rule.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
2010-06-07 06:14:46
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

Beduin wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

i dunno dude.  we can play the quote game but i hate all religion so it will just anger me. 
Read history then... Read how non-muslims lived under Islamic rule.
idc about history when it comes to religion.  i care about present day and how religion fucks up our world.

 

Pages: 1 … 20 21 22 23 24 … 35

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard