Alliedassault

Alliedassault (alliedassault.us/index.php)
-   Politics, Current Events & History (alliedassault.us/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   Catching Osoma bin Ladin (alliedassault.us/showthread.php?t=49383)

Stammer 11-21-2005 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quze
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stammer
Giving into primal urges isn't a good enough excuse. It's not what makes us human

I disagree. Giving into our urges (and temptations) is exactly what makes us human.

No, it's what makes us monkeys.

PS: What do you think the point of higher brain functions are exactly? A mistake of evolution (or of Gods flawless design).

Trunks 11-21-2005 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomxtr
Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks
Quote:

Originally Posted by tomxtr
No, what I'm saying is that if someone punches you in the face, you would punch back if you had any sense.

A more reasonable thing to do would be to figure out wtf the guy punched you in the first place. If you punch him back you will automatically fuel a hatred between you and the other person, which can result in a fight in the current situation, and more fights in the future.

When someone randomly carjacks and kills a member of your family, are you going to want justice, or will you contemplate how society has failed this individual? The fact is, there is no reasoning with these people. Just ask the Israelis. They've been unsuccessful for years at trying to qwell terrorism. Additionally, if they blow up our buildings and we do not retaliate, but rather offer some concession to their demands, do we not open the door for other terrorists to use this tactic? I'm guessing we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I do know one thing, in the days after 9/11, (I remember it vividly as I worked at USA Today at the time and could see the pentagon from my office) Bush would have been run out of Washington if he didn't retaliate.

I understand that a moment like that would have been heart wrenching, and I completely agree with you that we needed to reatliate. But how we retaliate is another question.

c312 11-21-2005 03:00 PM

by hunting and killing the leader

Trunks 11-21-2005 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c312
by hunting and killing the leader

*deep sigh* I ve failed. I give up. *hoists up white flag*

c312 11-21-2005 06:04 PM

what other way is there to retaliate. If you have an idea, go for it. Just don't say be passive because that didn't work already.

Trunks 11-21-2005 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c312
what other way is there to retaliate. If you have an idea, go for it. Just don't say be passive because that didn't work already.

The point is not that we should not retaliate. It is how. Killing the leader will solve absolutely nothing, which is what this topic is about.

c312 11-21-2005 06:29 PM

So we should not retaliate? Sort of like we did after the first WTC bombing, and then after the embassy bombings in the late 90s....You can't let somebody keep punching you in the face and just do nothing about it if they won't stop. It comes to a point where ignoring it doesn't work. And I'm sure that the families of the victims of 9/11 would agree.

tomxtr 11-21-2005 08:50 PM

He's not saying don't retaliate. I think he's trying to say make friends with Bin Laden and kill all other arabs/persians.

c312 11-21-2005 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomxtr
He's not saying don't retaliate. I think he's trying to say make friends with Bin Laden and kill all other arabs/persians.

[quote:70afa] The point is not that we should not retaliate.[/quote:70afa]

oOo:

Tripper 11-21-2005 10:31 PM

How is wasting time and money to kill him going to help you? All it will do is piss them off more and give them more anti-american motivation because he will be matyred.

Pull out of Iraq and fuck them all. After a while they'll probably just give up, especially as they have less people willing to kill themselves to kill Americans because they have no motivation to do so.

c312 11-21-2005 10:32 PM

After a while=after lots of Americans are dead...

that is an unacceptable solution.

I'll say it again, you can't let a person keep punching you in the face hoping that they will just get tired and quit, especially when the damage is human lives instead of just bruises.

Stammer 11-22-2005 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c312
After a while=after lots of Americans are dead...

that is an unacceptable solution.

I'll say it again, you can't let a person keep punching you in the face hoping that they will just get tired and quit, especially when the damage is human lives instead of just bruises.

It's called non-violence and it's worked effectivly before.

c312 11-22-2005 09:33 AM

yeah, but Ghandi and MLK weren't battling crazy mofos who didn't care what everybody thought about them, sorta like Osama. He's not like the British in India who are facing public scrutiny or the white in the South who were caught in the changing times of the 60s looking like stupid racist hillbillies. Osama doesn't give a shit what people think about him, in fact, he gets positive attention for what he does. It's completely different than the other cases where non-violence was used and that's easy to see.

Trunks 11-22-2005 12:48 PM

alright so what do you two purpose then? Obviously, we must retaliate, i mean fuck trying to comprehend your enemy, lets just kill the "mofo." Thats what you want right? And then, we can exterminate all the other islamic nations, ya know, just to make sure. Cuz all those "crazy mofos" might try something like that again, so lets just kill em all! Huh? Huh? And if the muslims in America dont like it, we can accuse them of terrorism and send them to prison. Is taht what you want? Is that the kind of retaliation you are calling for? Because that my friend, goes beyond the realm of retaliation, and into what I like to call extermination. Big difference between the two.

Stammer 11-22-2005 12:54 PM

Thank Religion for this mess.

tomxtr 11-22-2005 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks
alright so what do you two purpose then? Obviously, we must retaliate, i mean fuck trying to comprehend your enemy, lets just kill the "mofo." Thats what you want right? And then, we can exterminate all the other islamic nations, ya know, just to make sure. Cuz all those "crazy mofos" might try something like that again, so lets just kill em all! Huh? Huh? And if the muslims in America dont like it, we can accuse them of terrorism and send them to prison. Is taht what you want? Is that the kind of retaliation you are calling for? Because that my friend, goes beyond the realm of retaliation, and into what I like to call extermination. Big difference between the two.

That's just crazy talk. calmdown: Explain to me what is wrong with what the US and its Allies have done in Afghanistan. You have agreed that the US, not only had the right to, but should have retaliated for 9/11. I'm not seeing where the disconnect is between our thought processes. You say that killing the leader will solve nothing, but you haven't suggested what will solve the terrorism problem. Personally, I am not concerned with how killing Bin Laden will make the extremists feel. My sense is that we have a fight on our hands anyway. I may be a bit jaded, though. My grandfather is retired Navy, my dad is retired Army and my brother is active duty Army, so I guess you could say that I'm not from one of those "kinder, gentler" families.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomxtr
He's not saying don't retaliate. I think he's trying to say make friends with Bin Laden and kill all other arabs/persians.

BTW, that was a joke for those of you who didn't catch on. stupid:

Trunks 11-22-2005 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomxtr
That's just crazy talk. Explain to me what is wrong with what the US and its Allies have done in Afghanistan. You have agreed that the US, not only had the right to, but should have retaliated for 9/11. I'm not seeing where the disconnect is between our thought processes. You say that killing the leader will solve nothing, but you haven't suggested what will solve the terrorism problem. Personally, I am not concerned with how killing Bin Laden will make the extremists feel. My sense is that we have a fight on our hands anyway. I may be a bit jaded, though. My grandfather is retired Navy, my dad is retired Army and my brother is active duty Army, so I guess you could say that I'm not from one of those "kinder, gentler" families.

1) I do not disagree with the war in Afganistan, altho it seems a bit rushed to me.
2) What will solve the terrorist problem? Well for right now Im thinking about how to prevent it from getting worse. Kinda like when you are in quick sand. First you stop moving/panicking so u stop sinking, then you look for a way out. However, a possibility would be meeting with terroist leaders, and attempting to negotiate with them. kinda like what Israel is trying to do with the Palestinians.

Coleman 11-22-2005 06:34 PM

meeting with the terrorist leaders and negotiating? happy:

tomxtr 11-22-2005 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleman
meeting with the terrorist leaders and negotiating? happy:

My sentiments, exactly. I don't think Israel is negotiating with the leaders of Hamas and other terror organizations.

c312 11-22-2005 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks
alright so what do you two purpose then? Obviously, we must retaliate, i mean fuck trying to comprehend your enemy, lets just kill the "mofo." Thats what you want right? And then, we can exterminate all the other islamic nations, ya know, just to make sure. Cuz all those "crazy mofos" might try something like that again, so lets just kill em all! Huh? Huh? And if the muslims in America dont like it, we can accuse them of terrorism and send them to prison. Is taht what you want? Is that the kind of retaliation you are calling for? Because that my friend, goes beyond the realm of retaliation, and into what I like to call extermination. Big difference between the two.

You are lumping two different categories into one. I never said anything about muslims, I was talking about terrorists. Most muslims try to point out that Osama is an extremist whose beleifs are not those of the Muslim religion. I would agree. I think we need to deal directly with the terrorists, not Muslims. If they coincide, fine, but Muslims aren't all terrorists. I never said anything about doing anything to Muslims, just terrorists, you lumped them together on your own.

c312 11-22-2005 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks
2) What will solve the terrorist problem? Well for right now Im thinking about how to prevent it from getting worse. Kinda like when you are in quick sand. First you stop moving/panicking so u stop sinking, then you look for a way out. However, a possibility would be meeting with terroist leaders, and attempting to negotiate with them. kinda like what Israel is trying to do with the Palestinians.

Meeting them? They would never do that. Even if they did, the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists.

Trunks 11-23-2005 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomxtr
Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleman
meeting with the terrorist leaders and negotiating? happy:

My sentiments, exactly. I don't think Israel is negotiating with the leaders of Hamas and other terror organizations.

Its better than attempting to wipe them off the face of the planet while simontaneously lowering america's standing with the rest of the world. Its worth a shot at least. And just to let you know, if Israel negotiates with the Palestinian leadership/government, that is supposedly in charge of groups like Hamas, then it is, whether you like it or not, indirectly negotiating with Hamas. And of course, america doesnt negotiate with terroists. Lets throw away teh lives of 2100 as of yesterday I believe, American soldiers because America is to proud to negotiate. Oh wait, too late, we already did. And the muslims in America might not agree with the muslims under Osama but I can assure you that Muslims in countries like Iran and Syria, are a different story.

c312 11-23-2005 01:23 PM

2100 over the course of a couple years
vs.
thousands in one day...

2100 = less than number of people who died on 9/11.

Forgot about that one didn't ya? They kill 3,000 of us in one day and we have 2000 die in a couple years of trying to stop it from happening again...

I know how we can solve this, we need to just send Trunks, the Dragonball Z kid to negotiate with Osama Bin Laden. He'll get the work done, he seems to be optimistic of the chances of negotiating with crazed mad men. Go for it, since you think the world is so easy breezy, go for it. Good luck, try not to get your head chopped off in the first few days...

Trunks 11-23-2005 02:19 PM

[quote:d1a13]2100 over the course of a couple years
vs.
thousands in one day...

2100 = less than number of people who died on 9/11.

Forgot about that one didn't ya? They kill 3,000 of us in one day and we have 2000 die in a couple years of trying to stop it from happening again...[/quote:d1a13] I look at it as 2100 MORE people who DIED attempting to prevent it from happening again when in reality theyve only increased hostilities between terrorists and other countries, and because of the actions of their governments, have made almost every single country more suceptible to terrorist attacks. When the smart thing to do would have been to negotiate, to insure that something like that doesnt happen again. Knowledge is power. If you know why they did what they did, you can prevent it from happening again. And 2100 people would still be alive if we had done the smart thing...

[quote:d1a13]I know how we can solve this, we need to just send Trunks, the Dragonball Z kid to negotiate with Osama Bin Laden. He'll get the work done, he seems to be optimistic of the chances of negotiating with crazed mad men. Go for it, since you think the world is so easy breezy, go for it. Good luck, try not to get your head chopped off in the first few days...[/quote:d1a13]OK, I am choosing to ignore some of what you have said, because I dont want to get into a flame war. *bites his lip* OK, I am NOT optimistic about negotiating with terrorists, but it is a hell of a lot better than blowing them up! Look at the Russian Chechen wars, Russia doesnt want to negotiate and look what happens then. When in reality, if they had just let that tiny little peace of land secede, they could have avoided all the bloodshed. And before you say, NO WAY TRUNKS U DONT KNOW WHAT UR TALKING BOUT, I will say I am russian, and that I know people who would be very angry with me for saying what I am about to say, but its true. The whole school taken hostage, the theater taken hostage, thousands of russian soldiers dead, thousands of chechen soldiers and civilians dead, all that could have been avoided, THROUGH NEGOTIATION. A wise man once said, "If you do not learn from the past, you are bound to repeat it." you my friend, are joining the growing bandwagon of people who will repeat the mistakes of the past, over and over and over again. Maybe one day people like you will take the time to open your eyes...or maybe not.

Johnj 11-23-2005 05:03 PM

Trunks, you are failing to understand that there is nobody to negotiate with. Just a faceless, nameless demand that governmental power be handed over.

Poseidon 11-23-2005 05:12 PM

^ditto,

besides no terrorist leader is going to put his life at risk by meeting up with negotiators. Anyway even if this did happen, there are thousands of other poeple who think in exactly the same way, and will not just change just because one group/person has decided to negotiate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks
I am NOT optimistic about negotiating with terrorists, but it is a hell of a lot better than blowing them up!

I cant see the terrorists wanting to sit down and have a cup of tea and a chat,

mR.cLeAn 11-23-2005 07:13 PM

I would like to blow up a terrorist, give them a vest filled with/ C4 and send him to see BL

Trunks 11-25-2005 09:06 AM

lol i can see its all versus one on this issue.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnj
Trunks, you are failing to understand that there is nobody to negotiate with. Just a faceless, nameless demand that governmental power be handed over.

Every person, organization, etc has a purpose. And they usually dont have the purpose of taking over the world, since that would be futile. Chechens didnt want control of russia, they wanted their own little country. Nobody will set a goal for themselves that they will never be able to achieve, because it is crushing mentally when time keeps going by, they re doing their best, and yet they are not making progress. And I am sure the nameless, faceless enemy is not stupid. They realize that thousands of their own soldiers aer dieing. I'm sure if we can point a gun and shoot down 1000's of people, we can negotiate with them. Posiedon, you do have a point...but groups like Al-Quaida arent democracies, what the top guy says, goes. And changing peoples minds wont be easy by any means, but it is possible. And part of that would be showing them that America isnt merciless, cold, ruthless, etc, as they are led to believe.

Johnj 11-25-2005 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks
Every person, organization, etc has a purpose.

Every rational person, rational organization, rational etc should have a rational purpose. All to often these groups serve no purpose at all, except anarchy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks
Chechens didnt want control of russia, they wanted their own little country.

Do you think a majority of Chechens want a fundamentalist Islamic government or do you think a large number of them a scared out of their wits and just trying to stay alive. Remember you’re either with the jihadists or your getting beheaded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks
I'm sure if we can point a gun and shoot down 1000's of people, we can negotiate with them.

Once again negotiate with whom? Negotiate for what? The goal is to make the world Islamic and kill all the infidels.

Sgt>Stackem 11-25-2005 11:12 AM

NEVER negotiat with terrorists


NEVER

geRV 11-25-2005 11:13 AM

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":5ff61]NEVER negotiat with terrorists


NEVER[/quote:5ff61]

Doubt they know what "negotiat" means anyway. eek:

Trunks 11-26-2005 06:59 PM

[quote=geRV]
Quote:

Originally Posted by "Sgt>Stackem":f6974
NEVER negotiat with terrorists


NEVER

Doubt they know what "negotiat" means anyway. eek:[/quote:f6974] happy:
Anyway, on a more serious note, terrorists are enemies, just like Germany was during ww1+ww2, just like the U.S.S.R. was during the cold war. So, why should we not negotiate? true, they are a different type of enemy, but they are an enemy nontheless. And we have a chance that our negotiations will be successful. A small chance, possibly even miniscule, but it is still there. And if it is there, it is my solemn belief that we should take it.

JohnJ
1) Anarchy? I doubt they want that. Some terrorist groups perhaps, but not the ones we are speaking of. I believe that they are fighting against America because they are raised to hate America. They see America as a ruthless oppressor, that threatens their way of life. If you were in their position, would you not want to fight back? What you need to understand is that a lot of these terrorists are young adults and kids sitting at home making home-made bombs so that they can continue to wage their "jihad" after their father, and brothers were, in their minds, ruthlessly murdered by American soldiers. Even more simply believe America has overstayed its welcome in Iraq, and want it out of their country. Still others see Iraq as confirmation of America's treachery and rush to fight it on that front. if we meet violence with violence, we will simply be playing into the terrorists hands. After all, they expect no better from us. But we can prove them wrong. We can show them that we are willing to compromise in order to save lives, that we are willing to work together to make the world a safer place. We must show them that America is not what they have been told, thereby uprooting their reason to fight.

2) Toucher. You made a good point, and I can't really rebut you on that front.

3) Are you so sure you know your enemy so well, as to, gun them down relentlessly with no chance for peace? The mentality of, "The enemy is pure evil, they will not negotiate," has brought about wars instead of peace, crushing once flourishing civilizations. I will take ww1 as an example. Serbian rebels(as some view them), or terroists(as others view them), assasinated Astro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Astro-Hungaria declared war on Serbia, and in that instant ignited one of the most horrific wars they world has ever seen. A true testament to what humans can do to each other, when they have that mentality(the enemy is not worth negotiating with/won't negotiate.) Now think. MILLIONS of innocent civilians, as well as soldiers died between 1914-1918. All because one man was assassinated. Astro-Hungaria declared a WAR on a country, simply because ONE man was assassinated. Negotiating with those danmed serbian terroists would have been futile of course....or so we think...but we will never know, will we?

Anyway, I have digressed, but my final point of the day will be that, I highly doubt all the jihadists want to have an islamic world free from infidels. Some, perhaps. But not all. Many believe they are fighting tyranny. Many believe they are fighting to avenge the deaths of their loved ones. And many believe they are fighting to rid their country of America presence/imperialism.

Sgt>Stackem 11-27-2005 07:52 AM

no matter what they said I couldnt believe them, if you have an agreement with a country then there are some ramifacatins for said country if they reneig. With a band of outlaws there is no way to hold them to any agreements made. There is nowhere to apply santions, there is no recourse. KILL 'EM ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Johnj 11-27-2005 09:05 AM

Unfortunate, but true. These jihadists are outlaws in their own countries, because no country would want to suffer the consequences of their actions. They may be popular for a while, but their true colors always end up guiding their actions. Murder and mayhem are all they know.

The men who killed the Archduke Franz Ferdinand were anarchists. They achieved their goal and plunged all of Europe into 4 years of anarchy and chaos.

You can not negotiate with terrorists. You can only negotiate with equals, men who believe in life, not those who glorify death.

c312 11-27-2005 11:12 AM

the Archduke's assassination was not the cause of WWI, it only triggered the start, just like Lincoln's election triggered the Civil War, they both had much more complex issues involved.

Tripper 11-28-2005 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnj
Unfortunate, but true. These jihadists are outlaws in their own countries, because no country would want to suffer the consequences of their actions. They may be popular for a while, but their true colors always end up guiding their actions. Murder and mayhem are all they know.

If they actually WERE outcasts the countries governments would work alot harder to pick them up. It's obvious that alot of these countries leaders and governments support these actions but are too scared to directly oppose the U.S for fear of a war they would indefinitely lose, so they indirectly and quietly support the terrorist cells. They're angry at U.S imperialism. Some of these countries, like Iraq, have been fucked around by colonial or impearialistic governments for the last century - It's not hard for them to decide who they think the enemy is.
When you have forces of people constantly acting towards your country and neighbouring muslim countries with public support of Israel the Jewish state and there is already a big difference in beliefs, it's hard to trust those CHRISTIAN countries, especially when all they seem to be doing is coming in and pretty much stealing, or nowadays making fucked-up deals so they can get their capatalist christian hands on something that doesn't even belong to them.
I mean come on, deny it all you want but look at the situation, half of the western world see that most of this is all about oil, so OBVIOUSLY all these fundamentalist islamic youths are going to see it that way as well.

...If my country had bigger, richer and foreign (by country AND religion) hands constantly dipping into my countries economic sources, I'd get pissed off too. They think they're justified (IMO, they're not far from it), and until they don't think they are being fucked around by all these countries, they're going to continue, and there is no possible way of shutting them down by force. It's a pointless waste of time and it's just going to make people in that area of the world far more bitter and angry, and far more willing to blow up YOUR families for supporting it all.

Short Hand 11-28-2005 01:38 PM

If anyone has ever read anything by Barbara Ehrenreich, this may interest you. (relates tothe topic).

Quote:

Originally Posted by alternet
A New Counterterrorism Strategy: Feminism

By Barbara Ehrenreich, AlterNet. Posted May 10, 2005.

A sustained and serious effort to gain human rights for women worldwide could be the start of a brand new approach to fighting terrorism.


*Editor's Note: This is an excerpt from 'Stop the Next War Now: Effective Responses to Violence and Terrorism (Inner Ocean),' edited by Code Pink co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans.

I've been reading Bin Ladin--Carmen, that is, not her brother-in-law Osama (she spells the last name with an "i")--and I'd like to present a brand-new approach to terrorism, one that turns out to be more consistent with traditional American values. First, let's stop calling the enemy "terrorism," which is like saying we're fighting "bombings." Terrorism is only a method; the enemy is an extremist Islamic insurgency whose appeal lies in its claim to represent the Muslim masses against a bullying superpower.

But as Carmen Bin Ladin urgently reminds us in her book Inside the Kingdom, one glaring moral flaw of this insurgency, quite apart from its methods, is that it aims to push one-half of those masses down to a status only slightly above that of domestic animals. While Osama was getting pumped up for jihad, Carmen was getting up her nerve to walk across the street in a residential neighborhood in Jeddah--fully-veiled but unescorted by a male, something that is an illegal act for a woman in Saudi Arabia. Eventually she left the kingdom and got a divorce because she didn't want her daughters to grow up in a place where women are kept "locked in and breeding."

So here in one word is my new counterterrorism strategy: feminism. Or, if that's too incendiary, try the phrase "human rights for women." I don't mean just a few opportunistic references to women, like those that accompanied the war on the Taliban and were quietly dropped by the Bush administration when that war was abandoned and Afghan women were locked back into their burqas. I'm talking about a sustained and serious effort.

We should announce plans to pour U.S. tax dollars into girls' education in places like Pakistan, where the high-end estimate for female literacy is 26 percent, and into scholarships for women seeking higher education in nations that typically discourage it. (Secular education for the boys wouldn't hurt, either.) Expand the grounds for asylum to all women fleeing gender totalitarianism, wherever it springs up. Reverse the Bush policies on global family planning, which condemn seventy-eight thousand women to death each year in makeshift abortions. Lead the global battle against the trafficking of women. I'm not expecting such measures alone to incite a feminist insurgency within the Islamist one. Carmen Bin Ladin found her rich Saudi sisters-in-law sunk in bovine passivity, and some of the more spirited young women in the Muslim world have been adopting the head scarf as a gesture of defiance toward American imperialism. We're going to need a thorough foreign policy makeover--from Afghanistan to Israel--before we have the credibility to stand up for anyone's human rights. You can't play the gender card with dirty hands.

If this country were to embrace a feminist strategy against the insurgency, we'd have to start by addressing our own dismal record on women's rights. We'd be pushing for the immediate ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which has been ratified by 169 countries but remains stalled in the U.S. Senate. We'd be threatening to break off relations with Saudi Arabia until it acknowledged the humanity of women. And we'd be thundering about the shortage of women in the U.S. Senate and House, an internationally embarrassing 14 percent. We should be aiming for a representation of at least 25 percent, the same target the Transitional Administrative Law of Iraq has set for the federal assembly there.

If we want to beat Osama, we've got to start by listening to Carmen.

Barbara Ehrenreich has written more than ten books, including Blood Rites and Nickel and Dimed. She is a frequent contributor to Esquire, Harper's Magazine, Mirabella, The Nation, the New Republic, The New York Times, and Time. Ehrenreich became involved in political activism during the Vietnam War and has been an activist and feminist ever since.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21973/

Johnj 11-28-2005 04:14 PM

I see, it all goes back to when we held the Middle East as colonys.

eek:


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.