RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Muslim Barbarians Burn Danish Embassy, Exterminate the Infidels!< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,05:29   

Quote
Updated: 10:25 a.m. ET Feb. 4, 2006

DAMASCUS, Syria - Hundreds of Syrian demonstrators set the Danish embassy on fire on Saturday to protest the printing by a Danish newspaper of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, a Reuters witness said.
The fire badly damaged the embassy’s building and fire engines went to the scene.

Protestors also threw stones at the building shattering its windows.



msnbc story

nice bit from the NYT I had to add:
Quote
"We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible," one preacher at the al-Omari mosque here told worshippers during Friday prayers, according to wire service reports.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,07:25   

Update: also the Norwegian embassy, btw.

   
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,07:38   

Hey....dont lump them in with other religious, fundamentalist, "OUR AGENDA IS MOST IMPORTANT" people like Christian Fundamentalists.

These guys are just really upset about another article that appeared on page 7 of the same paper about red being the new black.

Oh and besides, Christians have a long history of enjoying satire.  They had a great sense of humor about the whole Spanish Inquisition.  If you could have been there at the Salem witch trials....it was a laugh a minute.

Come on....did you really think the IDists believe their own story.  They are just waiting for the right time to yell "gotcha".

  
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,07:44   

Did you mean to post that in another thread? Presumably it makes sense w/r/t some other discussion.

   
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,08:41   

nah....that was just a little joke about religion....

it was meant to be a lighthearted comment on the current cultural divide between the middle east and the west.

I really dont know how else to approach the situation...it is humurous.  Countries like Jordan cannot understand why Denmark is not capable of censoring media.  Denmark cannot understand why Jordan cannot understand this.

I was simply remarking on the fact that despite what is perceived as a vast difference between Muslim and Christian ideology....they have several similiarities...especially when comparing fundamentalists of both faiths.  As a general rule, fundamentalists lack the ability to understand the necessary evil of things like "freedom of the press".

Sorry if the joke was in bad taste

I have been following this story for awhile, and I think it portrays the difficulties of having a freely democratic theocracy.  Or, for that matter, any strongly religiously motivated ideas in government.

I imagine that is why you posted it into this forum...because of the obvious statements it makes in regards to the ID movement.

Once again Steve...sorry if it wasnt relevant...I hadnt had my coffee yet

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,09:56   

The problem with Islamic countries is they are nearly all theocracies. The idiots see a newspaper cartoon as depicting government thinking. The rubes have no sense of freedom for the press.

But why should they? It must be hard to understand something you have never experienced. ???

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,12:26   

It's more like the anti=Japanese riots in China, where the government obviously believes, and therefore allows, violence if it is directed in what it believes is a "beneficial" political direction.

 If these folk had tried even a peaceful protest about issues they really cared about, they would have been instantly suppressed.

 It's dictatorships that are the real problem, and that they take the form of "theocracies" (in Iran, but not actually in Syria, by the way) is really irrelevant.

 Bu--sh-- Co. here similarly believes any protest deserves suppression, but is currently tied down due to this not being a dictatorship, whatever his dreams of being able to unlease minions of "Wikersham brothers" without penalty.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,14:09   

A great quote from Stewart Lee, creator of Jerry Springer The Opera:
Quote
In the West, Christianity relinquished the right to be protective of its icons the day Virgin Mary snow globes were put up for sale at the Vatican.


I found that cartoon unfunny offensive and in bad taste, but i couldnt imagine living in a place where that kind of thing was censored. Then i remembered that Tony Blair is trying to pass a law that will make mocking religion illegal. Although i hope the dont take advice on the punishment from the people in this story otherwise im in big trouble.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,17:59   

Syria is not a theocracy....but almost all of the middle eastern countries have theocratic overtones.  Almost like George Bush, he may not be a religious leader.....but he knows that he has to cater to the religious voters if he hopes to do anything.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,05:49   

It's not just people living in theocracies. MSNBC found a bunch of American muslims who think the cartoon should be illegal.

US Muslims React With Tempered Anger

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,06:01   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 04 2006,15:56)
The problem with Islamic countries is they are nearly all theocracies.

Not really. Most of them are actually secular dictatorships or quasi-dictatorships (Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia, pre-war Iraq). There are only a couple outright theocracies, if you define theocracy as a country where the entire government mandates religion (Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran). But as has been pointed out, they're secular with massive religious overtones, more than any modern Western country experiences, where mostly the government uses religion as an outlet to keep the public from rebelling about anything important. But I agree, a lot of this might be an inability to grasp the fact that the governments of the European countries can't be behind this, that this is just private citizens doing things that offend them. Except of course, they found some American Muslims who are pissed off too, and presumably Americans would be able to see this concept. So a lot of it just seems to be herd mentality coupled with an intolerance of anyone badmouthing your religion that would have been normal in the West say, 500 years ago.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,09:25   

:01-->
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 05 2006,12:01)
[quote=Stephen Elliott,Feb. 04 2006,15:56]The problem with Islamic countries is they are nearly all theocracies.

Not really. Most of them are actually secular dictatorships or quasi-dictatorships (Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia, pre-war Iraq). There are only a couple outright theocracies, if you define theocracy as a country where the entire government mandates religion (Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran). But as has been pointed out, they're secular with massive religious overtones, more than any modern Western country experiences, where mostly the government uses religion as an outlet to keep the public from rebelling about anything important. But I agree, a lot of this might be an inability to grasp the fact that the governments of the European countries can't be behind this, that this is just private citizens doing things that offend them. Except of course, they found some American Muslims who are pissed off too, and presumably Americans would be able to see this concept. So a lot of it just seems to be herd mentality coupled with an intolerance of anyone badmouthing your religion that would have been normal in the West say, 500 years ago.[/quote]
Fair points you are correct of course.

I was too bland in my post.

Instead of using theocracy, I should have stated that nearly all of them allow religion to play a large part in the law.

I don't think even Saudi Arabia is technically a theocracy. Rather a dictatorship/monarchy that gives a lot of power to the religious movement.

Pakistan is hard to call as it seems to have at least two forms of government. A military one for the majority of the country, but in the north at least, government seems to be by tribal councils.

Afghanistan has a central secular government based in Kabul. Should you travel any distance away from there, local warlords tend to rule unchecked.

Bahrain is fairly liberal but still has seperate rules for men and women. Not as many as most Arab countries but still present.

Strangely enough Iraq under Saddam was probably one of the most lenient Islamic countries as far as womens rights are concerned. Of course it did have pretty harsh consequences for dissenters.

Dubai is pretty liberal if you are a tourist in a hotel. I think things are somewhat different for a local person though.

Well, that covers all the Islamic countries I have stayed in.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,09:45   

Just watched some news coverage of a demonstration in London.

Some people carried placards demanding the cartoonists be beheaded. They should have been arrested IMO.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,11:43   

Quote
Just watched some news coverage of a demonstration in London.
Some people carried placards demanding the cartoonists be beheaded. They should have been arrested IMO.

Mr. Elliot, you have a good head on your shoulders, but your naivete does you in sometimes. The speech codes are not for immigrants, silly, they're for people like you. Heck, you're more likely to get in trouble for bitching about your guests's behavior than they are for the acts themselves. And as immigration policies continue, expect to wave bye-bye to many more liberties. The newcomers are so easily offended, you see, and it's important that we entirely reshape our culture so that they'll feel more at home (so they can then seek a new host). If recent atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition and Salem witch trials have taught us anything, it's that we have no moral compass and must allow the Religion of Peace to take us where it will. In other words, shut up and hand over your gun - in Neocon land everyone is equal - some perhaps a tad more than others ......and freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,12:37   

Quote
The speech codes are not for immigrants
Although there's a good chance they weren't immigrants, or even the children of immigrants, you do have a point. Under UK law these people are excercising freedom of speech, but if I made a banner saying 'The people who said that the cartoonists should be beheaded should be beheaded', I am commiting an act of incitement to racial violence.

Quote
And as immigration policies continue, expect to wave bye-bye to many more liberties
Unfortunately the immigrants are just scapegoats here. It helps if instead of thinking as the law being made to protect immigrants, the immigrants are just used as an excuse to enact the laws. I suspect we would have the same laws if there had been no immigration into Britain for a hundred years.

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,23:25   

Hey, GoP!  Been expecting you here, since any bigot is always sure gets their cowardly kicks in, if they have a decent alias to post under. Or police protection and a hood.

 Oh, and you ARE a bigot, and a racist, no matter how you attempt to squirt out the ink to cover you trail.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,00:25   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 05 2006,17:43)
Quote
Just watched some news coverage of a demonstration in London.
Some people carried placards demanding the cartoonists be beheaded. They should have been arrested IMO.

Mr. Elliot, you have a good head on your shoulders, but your naivete does you in sometimes. The speech codes are not for immigrants, silly, they're for people like you. Heck, you're more likely to get in trouble for bitching about your guests's behavior than they are for the acts themselves. And as immigration policies continue, expect to wave bye-bye to many more liberties. The newcomers are so easily offended, you see, and it's important that we entirely reshape our culture so that they'll feel more at home (so they can then seek a new host). If recent atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition and Salem witch trials have taught us anything, it's that we have no moral compass and must allow the Religion of Peace to take us where it will. In other words, shut up and hand over your gun - in Neocon land everyone is equal - some perhaps a tad more than others ......and freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

It does not apear to be recent imigrants that are saying these things. Rather the majority of the protestors seem to be 2nd or 3rd generation.

I would accept that extremists make up only a small % of Muslims in the UK. But that % seems to be getting louder. Where I work in Slough, posters appeared all over town on the anniversary of the 9-11 atacks that praised the suicide bombers. That was not a pleasant sight.

The banners and placards carried by protesters in London the other day should not be acceptable. It remains to be seen if the authorities will take any action. Whatever happens, it is worrying to think that 1000's of people were roaming the streets chanting death threats.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,01:13   

I am fairly anti-religion. This just once again reminds me why :-)

Curious. How do the Brits feel about all the immigrants? A friend of mine in Holland says that the people there are fedup. It's very confusing. Once bunch wants to do all they can to help them (fight poverty), the other bunch wants them out of there. Something about national resources being consumed by all the immigrants. They are also complaining that in places like Rotterdam, where there are lots of emmigrants, the crime rates are very high, so the dutch are moving out of cities like Rotterdam.

Over here is SA, we get LOADS of immigrants from Zimbabwe, Mosambique etc. Local people are complaining about it, since our own unemployment rate is high (VERY HIGH), they now have to contend with outsiders for jobs. On the other hand, Zim is down the drain, so what must the people do?

Just thinking out loud.... :(

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,01:56   

As far as legal immigration goes, apart from in a few communities where immigrants do cause problems, most people in Britain do not have a problem, indeed in the long run the economy does benefit. As far as refugees and asylum seekers are concerned, the annoying thing is that Britiain should have very few, as according to the Geneva convention refugees should stop at the first safe country they come to. Our law however is such that it is very easy to stay in Britain once you have been refused asylum, and so a large number head here, and our European neighbours do everthing in their power to help them get here.

Although in many cases of Islamic extremism (and I include the protesters with the banners under this description), the problem is caused by people who have been here for many generations, most of the problems in communities are caused by an influx of illegal immigrants.Even the racist fascist british national party will admit that most of the problems are caused by illegal immigrants due to government policy, as opposed to legal immigration, which is what they ussually claim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,01:58   

Quote (Renier @ Feb. 06 2006,07:13)
I am fairly anti-religion. This just once again reminds me why :-)

Curious. How do the Brits feel about all the immigrants? A friend of mine in Holland says that the people there are fedup. It's very confusing. Once bunch wants to do all they can to help them (fight poverty), the other bunch wants them out of there. Something about national resources being consumed by all the immigrants. They are also complaining that in places like Rotterdam, where there are lots of emmigrants, the crime rates are very high, so the dutch are moving out of cities like Rotterdam.

Over here is SA, we get LOADS of immigrants from Zimbabwe, Mosambique etc. Local people are complaining about it, since our own unemployment rate is high (VERY HIGH), they now have to contend with outsiders for jobs. On the other hand, Zim is down the drain, so what must the people do?

Just thinking out loud.... :(

I can only speak for myself.

I do not mind immigrants at all. But I do object if people are comming to Britain and have no respect for our laws or society.

We probably need people to come and work. But I feel the UK should have more control on who gets in.

I was on a course a while back with a guy from Africa. He had worked in the UK for about 10 years and was worried he would not get to stay. While other people seem to have no problem, even though they do not contribute anything. That is crazy.

We have had a case in the UK with a Muslim cleric preaching on the streets advocating intolerance, hatred and violence. His mosque banned him from preaching inside for being too radical. IIRC he is now in prison, being defended by lawyers paid for by tax money. Previously he was claiming state benefits. So we have been paying for this lunatic to move to the UK and preach hatred.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,03:52   

Quote
I do not mind immigrants at all. But I do object if people are comming to Britain and have no respect for our laws or society.
We probably need people to come and work. But I feel the UK should have more control on who gets in.
I was on a course a while back with a guy from Africa. He had worked in the UK for about 10 years and was worried he would not get to stay. While other people seem to have no problem, even though they do not contribute anything. That is crazy.

Yeah, I've heard the same complaints from many recent immigrants. Hard working people from, say, Venezuela, get the shaft while M13 gang-bangers just walk in. By the way, it's nice to see that Dean has a new friend. Welcome to the board, "Tired". ;) Does anyone have an extra pacifier?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,04:57   

Well on a more "positive" note at least one of our embassies is not being burned for once...

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,11:13   

Two, GoP, one for each of your faces.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,11:36   

Quote (tiredofthesos @ Feb. 06 2006,05:25)
Hey, GoP!  Been expecting you here, since any bigot is always sure gets their cowardly kicks in, if they have a decent alias to post under. Or police protection and a hood.

 Oh, and you ARE a bigot, and a racist, no matter how you attempt to squirt out the ink to cover you trail.

Please,
If you post stuff like this, also post any evidence.

I quite like some discussions with GOP. He is no idiot and has some good points (IMO).

I may not agree with everything GOP says, but attacks without relevance are a bit off-putting.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,12:33   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 06 2006,17:36)
[quote=tiredofthesos,Feb. 06 2006,05:25]Hey, GoP!  Been expecting you here, since any bigot is always sure gets their cowardly kicks in, if they have a decent alias to post under. Or police protection and a hood.

 Oh, and you ARE a bigot, and a racist, no matter how you attempt to squirt out the ink to cover you trail.

Please,
If you post stuff like this, also post any evidence.



I don't know what tiredofthesos is alluding to, but there are, shall we say, disquieting indications that 'racist' might well be a fair description of GoP. The main occasion I know of where he didn't hide this real well was here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/saletan_on_id_t.html  

(see message 62581, about halfway down)

...where he references a study from a couple of white supremacists, apparently in order to show that America's high crime rate has nothing to do with its high rate of Christianity, but due to its 'ethnic composition'

See comment #62626 for a dissection of his source, two people behind American Renaissance, 'a white-supremacist magazine and website'.

(GoP will probably protest that they're not 'white supremacists', but merely 'white nationalists'. He seems to think this is an important distinction.)

So the racism charge is not groundless.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,12:55   

Oh yes, and Dean Morrison also took GoP to the mat for it HERE:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....7;st=10

I personally am not really impressed with his argument 'Jews are not a race, they're an ethnic group', so therefore hating Jews wouldn't be racism. Read it and judge for yourself.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,14:33   

Arden -

Since you're so good at looking things up, then how could you possibly have missed the occasions where I pointed out that:

1) I do not believe in mental differences among the races

2) Dean Morrison is a blatant liar who has not justified any of his assertions

3) I'm the one who brought up Jared Taylor's background, and have been very open from the beginning. I have also welcomed all criticisms of his study. Ask Cogzoid, Eric Murphy, and Mr. Mahandi if you doubt me. Do I have to agree with someone before I can cite his work? If so, where does that leave science?

 I can prove all of this, and will, if you subsequently concede your error. Frankly, this is beneath you, and I am embarrassed that a group of scientists and intellectuals would stoop to lies and character assassination. What's worse, you imply that I am antisemitic, which is beyond absurd - heck, even the Yenta hasn't raised that charge.

Quote
Oh yes, and Dean Morrison also took GoP to the mat for it HERE:

The Yenta couldn't take Pee-Wee Herman to the mat - his whole schtick is spinning lies and ducking questions. Which you would know if you actually read any of our exchanges. You haven't, and you sure can't refute anything I say, but boy, let your precious beliefs get challenged......

 But just to humor you - let's say I'm the most dreadful race-baiting and antisemitic cretin imaginable. Does this change the fact that many of our immigrants want to strip us of our ability to criticise their culture? Does bring the victims of terrorism back to life, or rebuild skyscrapers? I've shared my ideas on immigration policy - share yours. I promise to hold myself to a higher standard of criticism than you have....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,16:37   

[quote=The Ghost of Paley,Feb. 06 2006,20:33][/quote]
My original response was due to Stephen Eliot's reaction to Tiredofthesos. Tired might be responding to something I'm not aware of, but I was letting SE know the background on this that I'm aware of, since it seemed like he hadn't heard of this whole issue. Everything I cited is all quite recent and half of it happened here at AtBC. It's all public record.

I still find it very troubling that you seem to see no problems with using Jared Taylor's work, and that you actually make excuses for him like that 'nationalist'/'supremacist' distinction. The only people I've seen who find distinctions like that so important are people who are essentially racist in all meaningful senses of the word. Moreover, I find it troubling that in response to allegations of racism, your reflex has always been to attempt to redefine the term, and then, having done so, claim the term now doesn't apply to you. I am quite sorry if my message implied that you're antisemitic (that was actually unintentional), but I've seen that argument too many times -- "I can't stand X group, but X group technically doesn't constitute a 'race' (a just about meaningless term anyway, as I'm sure you know), so therefore I'm not racist". It's very weaselly, which I suspect you know. And while I'm glad to hear you don't "believe in mental differences among the races", that sounds like another way to dodge answering the question straightforwardly, since I don't consider that to be an essential definition of 'racist'. But hey, I'm not saying it's your job to convince me of what you do or don't believe.

Quote
Do I have to agree with someone before I can cite his work?


This is a disingenuous question. If you were to ask me if you should cite the physics research of a man who turned out to abuse his childen or beat his wife, I would say, well, yes, that background is very unfortunate, but not really relevant. His home life doesn't intersect with his work, or reflect on its veracity. However, that's different from citing work by a white 'separatist' explaining how America's crime problems are due to race. In a case like that we are quite justified in doubting such a person's veracity or objectivity, due to his background.

Quote
But just to humor you - let's say I'm the most dreadful race-baiting and antisemitic cretin imaginable.


Not what I said, besides I'm willing to concede you're not antisemitic. ;)

Quote
Does this change the fact that many of our immigrants want to strip us of our ability to criticise their culture?


No, but that's a separate issue.

Quote
Does bring the victims of terrorism back to life, or rebuild skyscrapers?


Um, no, I never claimed it would do either of those things, but last I checked, you weren't proposing any way to accomplish those feats either. So that 'objection' seems remarkably irrelevant.

Quote
I've shared my ideas on immigration policy - share yours. I promise to hold myself to a higher standard of criticism than you have....


I wasn't talking about immigration policy, and the original posts of yours I cited weren't about immigration either. Again, this is a separate issue. But checking, I didn't see you offering a solution to Europe's immigration problems, either.

However, since you want me to comment on it, I do not believe that 'many of our immigrants want[ing] to strip us of our ability to criticise their culture' is a significant problem in America. (At least no more significant than any other American group wanting that.) As for Europe, where this IS far bigger problem than in America, I haven't a clue what ought to be done about that (I didn't say I did). The problems seem intractable to me, as tangled up as they are in religion and entrenched economic segregation. I do not believe that Europe should give an inch on freedom of speech, except that I think that incitements to violence are intolerable. But on the other hand, deliberately antogizing groups known to be hypersensitive about their religion is stupid. Obviously some kind of effort in economically integrating Europe's immigrants is essential to making them think they have some kind of stake in the well being of the country they live in. But I'm not even convinced that's possible.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Sheikh Mahandi



Posts: 47
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,07:56   

Not related to the current outbreaks of violence, however - Abu Hamza jailed for seven years

Mr Justice Hughes -
Quote
I do not make the mistake that you represent Islamic thinking generally.
You are entitled to your views and in this country you are entitled to express them, but only up to the point where you incite murder or use language calculated to incite racial hatred. That is what you did.



Abu Hamza = Pat Robertson  - Yes that equation works.

--------------
"Love is in the air, everywhere I look around,.....Love is in the air, every sight and every sound,......"

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,08:26   

Quote (Sheikh Mahandi @ Feb. 07 2006,13:56)
Not related to the current outbreaks of violence, however - Abu Hamza jailed for seven years

Mr Justice Hughes -
Quote
I do not make the mistake that you represent Islamic thinking generally.
You are entitled to your views and in this country you are entitled to express them, but only up to the point where you incite murder or use language calculated to incite racial hatred. That is what you did.



Abu Hamza = Pat Robertson  - Yes that equation works.

That's the bugger.
The man should have been thrown out ages ago.
That tosser is not a UK citizen by any stretch of the imagination.
I find it incredible he emigrated here, lived off benefits and the whole time preached hatred against the UK and other countries.

I find it hard to believe he was permitted to do what he did. It is not as though there was a shortage of evidence. I wonder how much tax money his trial cost.

  
Sheikh Mahandi



Posts: 47
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,08:51   

Quote
That's the bugger.
The man should have been thrown out ages ago.
That tosser is not a UK citizen by any stretch of the imagination.
I find it incredible he emigrated here, lived off benefits and the whole time preached hatred against the UK and other countries.


The information I have uncovered to date suggests that Abu Hamza, lived off benefits only following his injuries received with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, until that point he was employed as an engineering contractor and translator. Up until which point no doubt the UK and US governments would have considered him (along with OBL) as "good" jihadis, so castigating him as some form of benefit scrounger in this case is probably counter productive.

Criticism of Abu Hamza is probably best to concentrate on his fundamentalism (which estranged a great many moderate muslims who formerly used the Finsbury Park Mosque, including the trustees of the mosque) and then to show the increasing descent into intolerance and hatred beginning with his detestation of corrupt middle eastern regimes and finally flowering into the bigoted, inflammatory hatred of just about everyone and everything.

BTW my equating Abu Hamza with Pat Robertson is not entirely tongue in cheek, the differences between them are more of degree than anything else, after all someone who can publicly call for the assassination of a head of state, is not that far removed from the person who would demand the death of anyone opposing (or at least not sharing) their political and religious objectives.

--------------
"Love is in the air, everywhere I look around,.....Love is in the air, every sight and every sound,......"

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,09:24   

Fair points Sheikh.

But it was blatantly obvious for some time that this guy condoned terrorism. IIRC he was not born here and had nothing but contempt for this country. Why was he entitled to our tax money?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3752517.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4643720.stm

I agree that Pat Robertson is another dangerous bigotted character.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,09:28   

OK, here are a couple of threads that outline my position. Let ignorance be a defense no longer.
Arlen wrote:
Quote
I still find it very troubling that you seem to see no problems with using Jared Taylor's work, and that you actually make excuses for him like that 'nationalist'/'supremacist' distinction.

Excuses? "White nationalist" is the more appropriate label so I used it. In practice, there is little to distinguish between the two positions, but the ideas behind them differ so that's what I focused on, especially since a few posters were asking for definitions. And The Color of Crime relies on (repeat after me, students) official government statistics, which allows skeptics to check the author's claims. Please notice that antiracist watchdog groups and professional criminologists have not commented on the study, even though they're aware of its existence and have critiqued similar efforts in the past. All they would have to do is re-examine the Dept. of Justice's figures, show where Jared goofed/lied, and write a rebuttal on the internet. Heck, look at all the math and statistics guys on P.T. Where are their responses?
Quote
The only people I've seen who find distinctions like that so important are people who are essentially racist in all meaningful senses of the word.

And now you've found an exception.
Quote
Moreover, I find it troubling that in response to allegations of racism, your reflex has always been to attempt to redefine the term, and then, having done so, claim the term now doesn't apply to you.

No, the term doesn't apply to me because I don't believe in either racial discrimination or biological differences. So what's your definition of a racist?
Quote
It's very weaselly, which I suspect you know. And while I'm glad to hear you don't "believe in mental differences among the races", that sounds like another way to dodge answering the question straightforwardly, since I don't consider that to be an essential definition of 'racist'.

Which is.....what, exactly?
Quote
In a case like that we are quite justified in doubting such a person's veracity or objectivity, due to his background.

Of course, and that's why I brought up the authors's background from the beginning. You should be suspicious -  I certainly am. But once again, you can cross-check their numbers against the government's. Please keep in mind that any mainstream sociologist who carried out this study and arrived at similar conclusions would shortly be looking for another job, or would have to hire bodyguards to protect him from his own students. Ask John McWhorter about the consequences of challenging racial taboos. Now imagine what would happen to him if he were white.
Quote
I do not believe that Europe should give an inch on freedom of speech, except that I think that incitements to violence are intolerable.

This statement is meaningless, since many Muslims and racial minorities take any criticism as an incitement to violence. Do you defend free speech or don't you?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,09:45   

Quote
But it was blatantly obvious for some time that this guy condoned terrorism.


This is a real problem but i don't understand why this is the main thing people have against him when we've known for years:

He was the main planner and financier of the 1998 Yemen hostage taking and murder of British citizens.

He spent several years attempting to set up a terrorist cell in Oregon and provided fake passports among other things.

He has given money to al-qeada.

Legally he shouldnt be in the UK in the first place as he married a woman who was still married to her first husband.

Incedentally although he claimed he sustained his injuries fighting in Afghanistan they were actually a punishment for stealing when he was living in Saudi Arabia.

Regarding the riots: did anybody else find it weird that citizens in middle-eastern countries managed to get their hands on large quantities of Danish flags at extremely short notice.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,10:18   

Quote

Arden Chatfield



Posts: 92
Joined: Jan. 2006
 Posted: Feb. 06 2006,18:33    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 06 2006,17:36)
Quote (tiredofthesos @ Feb. 06 2006,05:25)
Hey, GoP!  Been expecting you here, since any bigot is always sure gets their cowardly kicks in, if they have a decent alias to post under. Or police protection and a hood.

Oh, and you ARE a bigot, and a racist, no matter how you attempt to squirt out the ink to cover you trail.


Please,
If you post stuff like this, also post any evidence.

 



I don't know what tiredofthesos is alluding to, but there are, shall we say, disquieting indications that 'racist' might well be a fair description of GoP. The main occasion I know of where he didn't hide this real well was here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/saletan_on_id_t.html  

(see message 62581, about halfway down)

   [/quote]

TBH. That post does look pretty damning. But from what I have read of GoP's posts, I think the racist slur is a little pre-emptive.

When you read that quote as a response to the posts against him then it doesn't look as bad.

I am giving alowance for this being a difficult media to discuss these issues. It is hard to know how a poster truely feels without access to body language and emphasis.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,11:23   

Stephen Elliot wrote:
Quote
TBH. That post does look pretty damning. But from what I have read of GoP's posts, I think the racist slur is a little pre-emptive.
When you read that quote as a response to the posts against him then it doesn't look as bad.
I am giving alowance for this being a difficult media to discuss these issues. It is hard to know how a poster truely feels without access to body language and emphasis.

Keep in mind that there's a history behind my citation of that paper. Cogzoid and I were arguing in another thread about whether or not religion is correlated with crime, and if so, how. I made the point that if you want to tease out the effects of religion, it is wise to make the cross-national samples as homogeneous as possible, thereby avoiding confounding factors. Cogzoid disagreed, and asked for evidence that cultural differences across groups contribute to crime apart from socioeconomic status, discrimination, etc. I responded with The Study That Dare Not Speak Its Name. If you read the original post, you'll see that I clearly expressed skepticism about the study. As time grew and I continued to field objections, I began to realise that the work might have merit. Why people think they've refuted evidence by bitching about its source is beyond me. If anyone can explain this bizarre point of view, I'd like to hear from him/her....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,11:38   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 07 2006,17:23)
Stephen Elliot wrote:
Quote
TBH. That post does look pretty damning. But from what I have read of GoP's posts, I think the racist slur is a little pre-emptive.
When you read that quote as a response to the posts against him then it doesn't look as bad.
I am giving alowance for this being a difficult media to discuss these issues. It is hard to know how a poster truely feels without access to body language and emphasis.

Keep in mind that there's a history behind my citation of that paper. Cogzoid and I were arguing in another thread about whether or not religion is correlated with crime, and if so, how. I made the point that if you want to tease out the effects of religion, it is wise to make the cross-national samples as homogeneous as possible, thereby avoiding confounding factors. Cogzoid disagreed, and asked for evidence that cultural differences across groups contribute to crime apart from socioeconomic status, discrimination, etc. I responded with The Study That Dare Not Speak Its Name. If you read the original post, you'll see that I clearly expressed skepticism about the study. As time grew and I continued to field objections, I began to realise that the work might have merit. Why people think they've refuted evidence by bitching about its source is beyond me. If anyone can explain this bizarre point of view, I'd like to hear from him/her....

TBH. I read it. I do not think that you are a racist. I might be wrong.

Personaly, I think the people who advocate preferencial treatment for racial groups are racists.

How else can you interpret that?

Whatever hapened to Martin Luther King's dream, of being judged on nothing but your character?

That, I do agree with.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,12:38   

TBH? "That's Been Handled"? "Thor's been here"? British slang? Don't follow....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,12:47   

Stephen, reading your last post, I take it you believe MLK, Jr was a racist?

He was a strong advocate of Affirmative Action, what I believe you would call Positive Discrimination.

My stance on the issue is that it is one on which reasonable people can disagree. (I favor it, but there are good arguments against it.) One of those is not, however, that it is racist.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,13:07   

C. J. O'Brien wrote:
Quote
My stance on [Affirmative Action] is that it is one on which reasonable people can disagree. (I favor it, but there are good arguments against it.) One of those is not, however, that it is racist.

Why not? A.A. advocates discrimination against targeted racial groups. That makes it racist by any reasonable definition. A better question would be, "How could it not be racist?" I can see why someone would support it, but let's not kid ourselves....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,13:12   

Well met, wisp.

Any but the weakest definition of "racism" includes the idea of an asserted superiority. A white racist is a white supremicist. They think black people are inferior.

AA, while discriminating on the basis of race, does not assert that any group of people is inferior or superior to any other.

If you wish to say discrimination = racism, fine. But then we just need another word for the real thing.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,13:25   

Quote
AA, while discriminating on the basis of race, does not assert that any group of people is inferior or superior to any other.
No, but it does assume that a particular group of people are inherently racist(At least thats how it works in Britain). Does that make it racist? I dont know. According to the Oxford English Dictionary
Quote
Racism: The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.
Quote
Racialism: Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one's cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,13:39   

Quote
AA, while discriminating on the basis of race, does not assert that any group of people is inferior or superior to any other.

So you feel that racism has at least two components:
1) Belief in one group's racial superiority
2) Actual discrimination

....or do you think part 1 is sufficient? I think 1 might be enough, except that A.A. posits White moral inferiority, as Mr. Hyland has mentioned. But whether or not it's racist is secondary to the fact that it doesn't accomplish its stated goal - redressing historical discrimination. A.A. simply hands an unfair advantage to middle and upper-class minorities. Funny thing is, the liberals love A.A. in principle, but choose non-A.A. doctors for their kids. Hmmmmmm.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,13:47   

There are at least three (not mutually exclusive) rationales for affirmative action:

The one that currently flies in the US courts for higher education is that there is an educational benefit to all students in being part of a diverse student body.

To redress the crimes of the past.

To redress present discrimination.

This last must be what you're talking about, C. Hyland. But I don't think it assumes that all members of any group are inherently racist. It just accepts as fact that some (negative) discrimination exists, in hiring, contract awarding, etc. and attempts to "make up" for it.

The reasoning being that simply making discrimination illegal doesn't stop it, which is certainly true.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,13:56   

Quote
A.A. posits White moral inferiority

No, I don't think it does. It's well understood that some significant fraction of black people probably don't like white people very much, for no good reason, just as much as vice versa, possibly.

But it's much more likely, given socio-economic factors, that a white person will be called upon to hire a black person, than the reverse.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,14:16   

Quote
The reasoning being that simply making discrimination illegal doesn't stop it, which is certainly true.
I agree this is a big problem, but i know several people whos lives have been adversly affected  because of it. Also in Britain the law is written specifically to refer to minority discrimination, so it is perfectly legal for a minoirty boss to hire according to race. Another problem is that, for example, the metropolitan police decided that they were going to preferentailly hire 'ethnic' officers, but when asked could not give a description of what this was. At first they said, it what they tell us they are, which was replaced by, 'if they look darkish', finally resorting to 'we just go with what the home office tells us'. A friend of mine was rejected from a degree course because they had 'filled up their quota of white British people', but when asked could not give a good definition of what non-white was, or how they would decide before they had seen the people. Ironically my friend is American, so we can only assume they looked at 'ethnicity = caucasian' and the fact the name sounded English.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,14:34   

Quote
There are at least three (not mutually exclusive) rationales for affirmative action:

Each one based on shakier logic than the last....
Quote
The one that currently flies in the US courts for higher education is that there is an educational benefit to all students in being part of a diverse student body.

So blatantly false that liberals themselves don't buy it. Which is why Chelsea Clinton went to Sidwell Friends School, where Whites are a pretty solid majority, rather than an ultra-diverse public school in the D.C. area. I'm sure Slick Willie would have gone even whiter if people weren't watching. Sure, minorities can contribute as individuals, but there is no evidence that diverse schools outperform nondiverse ones. All students, regardless of color, should be allowed to attend any school they qualify for. The government has no business restricting or creating diversity.
Quote
To redress the crimes of the past.

Which it doesn't, if it ever did.
Quote
To redress present discrimination.

The only evidence for this one being differential results, which would render the N.B.A. a most racist institution. Incidentally, Sowell, McWhorter, and many other blacks don't find institutional racism a huge barrier anymore - who am I, a mere white man, to challenge their perceptions? After all, they're the ones who should know.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,17:08   

Don't be too kind to Gop Steve -

We had all this out here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....4;t=107

- of course Gop is slippery but I showed his intention to discriminate on the basis of race in his 'modest proposal' qualified him for the OED definition of 'racist'.

He's also quite deceitful - he's just repeated here the assertion by the White Nationalists/Supremacists he quoted was such a fine and dandy piece of work no-one had ever even tried to refute it.

Well he was presented with evidence to the contrary on that thread by Sheik Mahandi. Since he replied to the comment he can hardly plead ignorance now. He is fond of calling me a liar - but perhaps I'll leave you to be the judge of who's lying here.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=255

---------------------------------------

Back to the Muslim thing - glad to see both the Mad Sheik, the and the fake Druggie Suicide Bomber being locked up - and action being taken against the buggers with the offensive placards.
There has been concerted rabble-rousing going on of course.
For decent information on how all this started this Wiki is excellent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....roversy

- and to remember the majority of Muslims aren't extermists, and some want to say sorry:

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/

My anger at another load of religious bigots calmed down a little after reading that.

PS. - I knew a SA 'immigrant' over here and he was a useless lazy bastard -and met loads in Australia - they made sure they kept hold of or got hold a passport so they didn't count as 'immigrants'. They're not all bad though (don't want to be seen to be making 'racist' statements about anyone- even if in my experience they are the craziest divers in the world:D ).

--------------

Don't you have a paper to work on GOP?   :p

This thread was supposed to be about Muslims burning embassies after all? not for essays on 'Affirmative Action' all over again - we've already done that one to death.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,20:07   

Ah, Affirmative Action (AA) I know all about, in my country anyway.

It works this way. Companies are forced to meet a quota. 20% white and 80% black employees, for instance (and it's about right). Due to past discrimination against the blacks by the old apartheid regime, AA was brought in to get black people more jobs, and to get them jobs in higher places and to get them better paying jobs. Now, that's all fine, since there was an inbalance due to past discrimination (that's a fact). Problem is, this AA has been going on for more than 10 years and show no signs of stopping. Children (white males) coming out of school/higher education cannot find jobs, due to the AA law. These kids had NOTHING to do with the old apartheid government, they are innocent, fairly liberal, yet they cannot find jobs. They don't find jobs, not because they are not educated, hard working , willing, eager etc, but because companies cannot by law employ them. We also have a HIGH unemployment rate.

Now, imagine yourself a white male with a son that is about to finish school. I just think a person should be employed on merit, and all else is unfair and discrimination.

Now, I am an older white male. If I loose my job... I will have to try and make it on my own.

On the other hand, it is a STUNNING country! Nothing is perfect, I suppose :-)

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,21:52   

Dean,
Of course I don't think the majority of Muslims are extremists. But it is obvious that some are. It was also aparent that Muslim extremists have been alowed to voice opinion that would land anyone else in prison. This does nobody (of a reasonable disposition) any favours.

What has been encouraging in the last few days, is that reasonable Muslims seem to be getting more assertive in condemning their extremists.

I consider treating people differently according to race or religion wrong-headed. It does harm in the long run.

Treating people differently according to an individuals character or ability is fine.

Quote

C.J.O'Brien Posted on Feb. 07 2006,18:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen, reading your last post, I take it you believe MLK, Jr was a racist?

He was a strong advocate of Affirmative Action, what I believe you would call Positive Discrimination.

My stance on the issue is that it is one on which reasonable people can disagree. (I favor it, but there are good arguments against it.) One of those is not, however, that it is racist.


This is what I cannot understand. How can discriminating on grounds of a persons race be anything but racist?

I can see why someone would think that there is good reason for AA/PD. My belief is that it is wrong though. The long term effects can only be damaging.

I have no idea on MLK Jr. being a racist or not (I doubt that he was). But if he was promoting AA then he was promoting a racist policy. I far prefer what MLK Jr. himself said in his "I have a dream" speach,
Quote

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, a state sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.


now that, I whole-heartedly agree with.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,21:57   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 07 2006,18:38)
TBH? "That's Been Handled"? "Thor's been here"? British slang? Don't follow....

TBH is net geek speak for To Be Honest.
Therefore any post that does not have TBH in, is a lie. jk :D

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,07:44   

The Yenta lied:
Quote
Don't be too kind to Gop Steve -

And then the misrepresentations flow like honey. Guys, it's best to treat anything Dean says about me with the strictest of scrutiny. Or you can just follow Fox's advice and ignore his "contentless" (Cogzie's word, not mine) posts.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,12:03   

Get a job, GoP.  Or abandon real labor to write a bible or a UFT.
 Keep declaring victory with every defeat.  Promise proofs, though they are always "in the works."  Deny or snap back - with a 13-year-old's idea of snappy comebacks, likely culled from Mad Magazine - when the muck of your prejudices, and fears, is exposed though your own comments.

 In cases like yours, I feel your very existence, filled with harmless, smug blatherings and empty self-praise, is punishment enough.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,14:31   

Quote
Keep declaring victory with every defeat.  Promise proofs, though they are always "in the works."  Deny or snap back - with a 13-year-old's idea of snappy comebacks, likely culled from Mad Magazine - when the muck of your prejudices, and fears, is exposed though your own comments.

<Yawn>......do you have a real rebuttal, Yenta-with-a-library-computer? Didn't think so.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,03:29   

Don't you have a wobbly Jelly and Sticking plaster 'paper' to Work on Gop? You'd better get on with Googletrawling - those guys on the other thread are starting to get impatient with your stalling.

  
  54 replies since Feb. 04 2006,05:29 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]