Forums
First  << 1  2 >>  Last
Forum Main>>Graveyard>> Graveyard this
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CriminalElegant
ID: 1382616
Level: 17
Posts: 157
Score: -46
CriminalElegant [1382616]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Aug 24, 2013 19:54:02
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
By TIGRRRRRR [132684]
The US chose the "Lessor of Two Evil Maniacs" in every one of your examples. Seriously


Human Rights Worse After Gaddafi
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/07/human-rights-worse-after-gaddafi/

and a more recent one.

Libyan Democracy Is Worse Than Gaddafis Dictatorship
http://beforeitsnews.com/international/2013/08/libyan-democracy-is-worse-than-gaddafis-dictatorship-2465714.html

Nope looks like things got worse




m'kay. Befriending terrorist socialist swag who blow up airliners is ok, I guess.
Personally, I thinking that stringing them up givs much BETTER results.

The internal condition - human rights included - of libya is no particular concern of the US.


How about leave people alone and your country won't get terrorised by terrorists. Also If you take down a regime You should be responsible for what happens afterwards.

Last Edited: Sat Aug 24, 2013 19:56:03
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3830
Score: 3131
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Aug 24, 2013 20:03:00
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
By TIGRRRRRR [132684]
The US chose the "Lessor of Two Evil Maniacs" in every one of your examples. Seriously


Human Rights Worse After Gaddafi
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/07/human-rights-worse-after-gaddafi/

and a more recent one.

Libyan Democracy Is Worse Than Gaddafis Dictatorship
http://beforeitsnews.com/international/2013/08/libyan-democracy-is-worse-than-gaddafis-dictatorship-2465714.html

Nope looks like things got worse




m'kay. Befriending terrorist socialist swag who blow up airliners is ok, I guess.
Personally, I thinking that stringing them up givs much BETTER results.

The internal condition - human rights included - of libya is no particular concern of the US.


How about leave people alone and your country won't get terrorised by terrorists. Also If you take down a regime You should be responsible for what happens afterwards.


They began the trouble. We end it. Without pity or mercy.

Why take rsponsibility? The wellbeing of others is THEIR problem.









Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CriminalElegant
ID: 1382616
Level: 17
Posts: 157
Score: -46
CriminalElegant [1382616]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Aug 24, 2013 20:08:35
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
By TIGRRRRRR [132684]
The US chose the "Lessor of Two Evil Maniacs" in every one of your examples. Seriously


Human Rights Worse After Gaddafi
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/07/human-rights-worse-after-gaddafi/

and a more recent one.

Libyan Democracy Is Worse Than Gaddafis Dictatorship
http://beforeitsnews.com/international/2013/08/libyan-democracy-is-worse-than-gaddafis-dictatorship-2465714.html



Nope looks like things got worse




m'kay. Befriending terrorist socialist swag who blow up airliners is ok, I guess.
Personally, I thinking that stringing them up givs much BETTER results.

The internal condition - human rights included - of libya is no particular concern of the US.


How about leave people alone and your country won't get terrorised by terrorists. Also If you take down a regime You should be responsible for what happens afterwards.


They began the trouble. We end it. Without pity or mercy.

Why take rsponsibility? The wellbeing of others is THEIR problem.





Sure....Just send in the nukes. You should moonlight as a nazi with that thinking



Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3830
Score: 3131
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Aug 24, 2013 20:15:37
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
By TIGRRRRRR [132684]
The US chose the "Lessor of Two Evil Maniacs" in every one of your examples. Seriously


Human Rights Worse After Gaddafi
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/07/human-rights-worse-after-gaddafi/

and a more recent one.

Libyan Democracy Is Worse Than Gaddafis Dictatorship
http://beforeitsnews.com/international/2013/08/libyan-democracy-is-worse-than-gaddafis-dictatorship-2465714.html



Nope looks like things got worse




m'kay. Befriending terrorist socialist swag who blow up airliners is ok, I guess.
Personally, I thinking that stringing them up givs much BETTER results.

The internal condition - human rights included - of libya is no particular concern of the US.


How about leave people alone and your country won't get terrorised by terrorists. Also If you take down a regime You should be responsible for what happens afterwards.


They began the trouble. We end it. Without pity or mercy.

Why take rsponsibility? The wellbeing of others is THEIR problem.





Sure....Just send in the nukes. You should moonlight as a nazi with that thinking



Godwin!


Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Tolshortte

ID: 648554
Level: 50
Posts: 3302
Score: 1368
TBLTolshortte [648554]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Aug 24, 2013 20:18:08
By TIGRRRRRR [132684]
Next thing you know, it will be the Americans fault that these Syrian maniacs are gassing and bombing each other.
Its the Americans fault that Egypt is in turmoil.
Its the Americans fault that Buddhists are killing Muslims in Myanmar.
Its the Americans fault that Pakistanis and Afghans kill girls that want to go to school.
Its the Americans fault that North Korea thinks a war from 60 years ago is still on.
Its the Americans fault that China and Japan are fighting over deserted islands.
Its the Americans fault that its so smoggy in Beijing.
Its the Americans fault that Brazil is behind on World Cup construction.
Its the Americans fault that its so cold in winter and so damn hot in summer

f**k you all. Im building a wall.


It's the Americans fault for everything wrong in the world. Don't you know that? Pfft, NR teaches us that everyday. They hate us more than taxes. Little do they know we disagree with our govt almost as much as they do. But eventually, given enough time and hate towards us, the things we offer that are overlooked will be taken away by popular demand.

I guess the world needs to ask itself one question. Do you really think the world atrocities would lessen or increase if the Americans decided to leave you to your own devices?



Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3830
Score: 3131
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Aug 24, 2013 20:21:52
By Tolshortte [648554]

It's the Americans fault for everything wrong in the world. Don't you know that? Pfft, NR teaches us that everyday. They hate us more than taxes. Little do they know we disagree with our govt almost as much as they do. But eventually, given enough time and hate towards us, the things we offer that are overlooked will be taken away by popular demand.

I guess the world needs to ask itself one question. Do you really think the world atrocities would lessen or increase if the Americans decided to leave you to your own devices?



You have just explained most lucidly why this here European is a zealeous supporter of the United States.

I trust the the US of A 1000% percent more than any other candidate for the position of Ruler of the World.


Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CriminalElegant
ID: 1382616
Level: 17
Posts: 157
Score: -46
CriminalElegant [1382616]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Aug 24, 2013 20:34:16
I whole heatedly agree with darathBrogo they have obviously done such a good job so far and the world is in perfect shape. The future looks bright

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3830
Score: 3131
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Aug 24, 2013 20:52:39
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
I whole heatedly agree with darathBrogo they have obviously done such a good job so far and the world is in perfect shape. The future looks bright


It will look brighter once the entirety of Marxists and Islamists has been PURGED.

Whoeverso contemplates turbulence or sedition against the Status Quo, let him BURN.

It's tempting to add atheists to that list for purging, but that case is not so clear. There are, after all, quite outspoken atheists who ARE loyal to the Status Quo. Professor Starkey comes to mind.




Semper Eadem. Je Maintaindrai. Always the Same. I Shall Maintain!




Last Edited: Sat Aug 24, 2013 21:00:01
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CravenTHC

ID: 1569996
Level: 55
Posts: 3176
Score: 2758
drnkCravenTHC [1569996]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 03:28:13
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
I whole heatedly agree with darathBrogo they have obviously done such a good job so far and the world is in perfect shape. The future looks bright


It will look brighter once the entirety of Marxists and Islamists has been PURGED.

Whoeverso contemplates turbulence or sedition against the Status Quo, let him BURN.

It's tempting to add atheists to that list for purging, but that case is not so clear. There are, after all, quite outspoken atheists who ARE loyal to the Status Quo. Professor Starkey comes to mind.




Semper Eadem. Je Maintaindrai. Always the Same. I Shall Maintain!




As an atheist myself I am curious what happened for you to even consider adding us to that list? I agree that Marxism is on the fringe, Islamists are very clearly on the extreme fringe, but I can't remember atheism ever leading to the deaths of scores of people.

Last Edited: Sun Aug 25, 2013 03:33:33
1995b124-a670-4052-9786-2aa6509e1af4_zps

By: Yoshihiro [1244536]
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3830
Score: 3131
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 07:41:55
By CravenTHC [1569996]

As an atheist myself I am curious what happened for you to even consider adding us to that list? I agree that Marxism is on the fringe, Islamists are very clearly on the extreme fringe, but I can't remember atheism ever leading to the deaths of scores of people.



Outspoken Atheist and Marxist used to be the same thing - something that happend in the same head.

But I took notice in England that it ain't necessarily so. And thus modified the list.



Take a good look at the USSR and the PRC. Since the leadership of both were
A] at the same time marxist and atheist, and
B] they certainly both propagandised atheism as well as marxism,
any crime committed by the PRC and the USSR can be equally attributed to Atheism as to Marxism.


Which means that Atheism is one of the 2 prime culprits in the 2 worst crimes in history.

but I can't remember atheism ever leading to the deaths of scores of people.

I'm a generation older than you. I was about 20 at the time of Tian an Men. I remember it quite well.





Indeed, looking back at my own youth, I would have to say that Tian an Men was pretty much the point where I abandoned my own Atheism. Even reformed communists, who had broken with Marx, turned out to be just as vicious as the Stalins and the Maos.

[ For completeness sake I should also point at the failure of atheist lectors in morality to come up with even remotely satisfying answers to what then for me were important ethical dilemmas. Such as whether or not to accept a well-paid position in a drugs-trading organisation.Too much uhm, er, dunno, and a lack of Thou Shallt Not.]

That wonderful book of Revel, without Jesus or Marx? I never read it again. It had been a light when I was young - but I threw it out then.
Take the Marx out of the leftie, and he remains the same monster he was before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Revel


I've noted Starkey, I've noted Revel,
but when it comes to the likes of Dawkins and Russell, who refuse to hate All Things Progressive with undying hatred - such cockroaches need crushing.

No one needs to bother me with pious drivel about hatred being so wrong. I've heard that silly sermon even from David Duke, thanks very much.

Last Edited: Sun Aug 25, 2013 08:38:27
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Phegasus
ID: 463442
Level: 25
Posts: 4536
Score: 1959
Phegasus [463442]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:57:19
By CravenTHC [1569996]
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
egypt in turmoil IS americas fault, they helped(and started) the revolutions there AND syria is americas fault because they have been supporting al qeada affiliated FSA. http://www.globalresearch.ca/fighting-al-qaeda-by-supporting-al-qaeda-in-syria-the-obama-administration-is-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism/5339728


Soooo.... The popular revolution that was nearly unanimously supported by the peoples of Egypt from across the religious divisions.... was solely constructed, and carried out by the US government. Then the election that 30+ million people participated in was staged, and Morsi was installed by the US government. Then the US conspired to overthrow the man they had installed in power just over 1 year ago. I'm sure we're also responsible for arming the protesters and the military.

Actually I'll give you the military since we are sending Egypt a couple billion in annual aid still. I'm sure some of that is wrongfully used for weapons R&D.

Oh and the point made about Syria had to do with the use of chemical weapons. Not about who or what the US is supporting or not supporting.


20% of the funding for Egypts military comes from the US. However the US has had a major effect on Egypt since the 40's. For instance, during the 40's and 50's, CIA trained Egyptian security forces in torture techniques, which would later be used on Sayyid Qutb, a man already at odds with the West. Coupled with his experiences in America, and torture from the pro-western security forces at the time spurred him on to become one of the leading members of the Muslim Brotherhood, where his writing further spread, and a young Ayman Zawahiri would become his student. Sayyid Qutb and several of his supporters were tried and executed for conspiring to overthrow the then secular goverment. Ayman Zawahiri later began the Islamic Jihad group, and went on to become Osama Bin Ladens mentor.

What you are seeing now is the echoes of this, as the Muslim brotherhood wanted a strict Islamic governance in the region, which is at odds with more of a secular population. There is obviously a shitload more detail involved, but as the US wanted the Suez Canal secured at least in Allied hands, they played and are still playing a significant role in these events.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3830
Score: 3131
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:58:15
By Phegasus [463442]
By CravenTHC [1569996]
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
egypt in turmoil IS americas fault, they helped(and started) the revolutions there AND syria is americas fault because they have been supporting al qeada affiliated FSA. http://www.globalresearch.ca/fighting-al-qaeda-by-supporting-al-qaeda-in-syria-the-obama-administration-is-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism/5339728


Soooo.... The popular revolution that was nearly unanimously supported by the peoples of Egypt from across the religious divisions.... was solely constructed, and carried out by the US government. Then the election that 30+ million people participated in was staged, and Morsi was installed by the US government. Then the US conspired to overthrow the man they had installed in power just over 1 year ago. I'm sure we're also responsible for arming the protesters and the military.

Actually I'll give you the military since we are sending Egypt a couple billion in annual aid still. I'm sure some of that is wrongfully used for weapons R&D.

Oh and the point made about Syria had to do with the use of chemical weapons. Not about who or what the US is supporting or not supporting.


20% of the funding for Egypts military comes from the US. However the US has had a major effect on Egypt since the 40's. For instance, during the 40's and 50's, CIA trained Egyptian security forces in torture techniques, which would later be used on Sayyid Qutb, a man already at odds with the West. Coupled with his experiences in America, and torture from the pro-western security forces at the time spurred him on to become one of the leading members of the Muslim Brotherhood, where his writing further spread, and a young Ayman Zawahiri would become his student. Sayyid Qutb and several of his supporters were tried and executed for conspiring to overthrow the then secular goverment. Ayman Zawahiri later began the Islamic Jihad group, and went on to become Osama Bin Ladens mentor.

What you are seeing now is the echoes of this, as the Muslim brotherhood wanted a strict Islamic governance in the region, which is at odds with more of a secular population. There is obviously a shitload more detail involved, but as the US wanted the Suez Canal secured at least in Allied hands, they played and are still playing a significant role in these events.


Significant or determinant? The Saudi impact is financially greater,and Saudi ideological support for the Purge is much larger too. Furthermore, in the period you mention, Soviet role was larger yet.

Significant is a buzzword, that vaguish left politicians [ such as Tony Blair ] invoke when they're telling a fairy tale.

Finally, I take note that the Egyptians take charge of their own fate, rather than whining abut responsibility. I may be a fairly religious man, but the only good sectarian is a dead sectarian.

Last Edited: Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:24:50
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CravenTHC

ID: 1569996
Level: 55
Posts: 3176
Score: 2758
drnkCravenTHC [1569996]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 14:38:18
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By CravenTHC [1569996]

As an atheist myself I am curious what happened for you to even consider adding us to that list? I agree that Marxism is on the fringe, Islamists are very clearly on the extreme fringe, but I can't remember atheism ever leading to the deaths of scores of people.



Outspoken Atheist and Marxist used to be the same thing - something that happend in the same head.

But I took notice in England that it ain't necessarily so. And thus modified the list.



Take a good look at the USSR and the PRC. Since the leadership of both were
A] at the same time marxist and atheist, and
B] they certainly both propagandised atheism as well as marxism,
any crime committed by the PRC and the USSR can be equally attributed to Atheism as to Marxism.


Which means that Atheism is one of the 2 prime culprits in the 2 worst crimes in history.

but I can't remember atheism ever leading to the deaths of scores of people.

I'm a generation older than you. I was about 20 at the time of Tian an Men. I remember it quite well.





Indeed, looking back at my own youth, I would have to say that Tian an Men was pretty much the point where I abandoned my own Atheism. Even reformed communists, who had broken with Marx, turned out to be just as vicious as the Stalins and the Maos.

[ For completeness sake I should also point at the failure of atheist lectors in morality to come up with even remotely satisfying answers to what then for me were important ethical dilemmas. Such as whether or not to accept a well-paid position in a drugs-trading organisation.Too much uhm, er, dunno, and a lack of Thou Shallt Not.]

That wonderful book of Revel, without Jesus or Marx? I never read it again. It had been a light when I was young - but I threw it out then.
Take the Marx out of the leftie, and he remains the same monster he was before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Revel


I've noted Starkey, I've noted Revel,
but when it comes to the likes of Dawkins and Russell, who refuse to hate All Things Progressive with undying hatred - such cockroaches need crushing.

No one needs to bother me with pious drivel about hatred being so wrong. I've heard that silly sermon even from David Duke, thanks very much.


The only problem I have with implicating atheism in that is that it seems more like a cloak that Marxist ideals used to be more palatable. Sort of in the same way that the established/accepted religions in my country use the word "cult" to make Mormonism less palatable or desirable. I don't have a personal historical reference for these events, so I'm only giving my opinion on what you have stated. I'd have to look into it more for myself to be sure.

As for atheism not providing proper moral guidance, I would suggest that it has never sought to nor should. Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of a religion. If you're looking for someone to tell you how you should feel about a certain moral dilemma then look elsewhere. Each of us is imbued with the power to determine what is right and what is wrong. Clearly, as you have shown in the past, this is something that can be turned on and off depending on many variables. Atheism lacks "thou shalt not" because atheism is the choice to make your own "thou shalt not"s. It is the statement that you are taking your actions into your own hands. Taking responsibility for yourself instead of blaming some evil horned serpentine beast that lives in a lava cavern.

Dawkins only refuses to hate all things progressive because he is a scientist, not because he is an atheist. Science has shown us innumerable times in history that there are a great many things that we thought we understood that we actually don't. It's like telling stone age migratory peoples what steel or concrete is. Religion is the acceptance of the stone as the end all be all tool, while the scientists strive to discover steel and concrete.

In this same vein it is infinitely myopic to posit that we should just rest on our laurels. I still have yet to understand why it is that you so despise anything thought of as "progressive", but I suppose that is a private conversation. I believe that we can certainly learn from our past mistakes, and carry onward to bigger and better things. It is abundantly clear that we're capable of greater things, and science seeks to find the limits of our understanding and capabilities. Science could easily be substituted for many religions, but not atheism.

Atheism seeks none of these things. It is a statement, or an idea. It is the lack of religion. We can debate all day about the secular religions that each individual keeps under the heading of "vice", but that would have little to do with the one question that atheism seeks to answer. At the beginning, was creation spontaneous, or was it influenced by some unknown force? Atheism simply says that no force currently exists for the latter to be possible. For me that force could eventually show itself, but the chances of that happening are seemingly minimal.

I've gone on for long enough. Suffice it to say that I cannot so quickly judge that atheism had anything to do with what you're accusing "it" of, nor do I think you have properly understood what atheism is... at least to some of us.

Last Edited: Sun Aug 25, 2013 14:48:00
1995b124-a670-4052-9786-2aa6509e1af4_zps

By: Yoshihiro [1244536]
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TheCartjones
ID: 1730593
Level: 23
Posts: 91
Score: 80
TheCartjones [1730593]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 15:06:41
so that WW3 is an ideology war than a R.I.S.K. tournament huh?
No more MMRRPG eh... :/

d01e0282e8463ef20bec565fc47f310d.jpg
...
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3830
Score: 3131
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 15:41:59
By CravenTHC [1569996]


The only problem I have with implicating atheism in that is that it seems more like a cloak that Marxist ideals used to be more palatable. Sort of in the same way that the established/accepted religions in my country use the word "cult" to make Mormonism less palatable or desirable. I don't have a personal historical reference for these events, so I'm only giving my opinion on what you have stated. I'd have to look into it more for myself to be sure.

Marxism gained traction and support long before atheism did. If anything, it was the other way around. For some 70 years, Atheism rode on the shirt-tails of Marxism.


As for atheism not providing proper moral guidance, I would suggest that it has never sought to nor should. Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of a religion. If you're looking for someone to tell you how you should feel about a certain moral dilemma then look elsewhere. Each of us is imbued with the power to determine what is right and what is wrong. Clearly, as you have shown in the past, this is something that can be turned on and off depending on many variables. Atheism lacks "thou shalt not" because atheism is the choice to make your own "thou shalt not"s. It is the statement that you are taking your actions into your own hands. Taking responsibility for yourself instead of blaming some evil horned serpentine beast that lives in a lava cavern.


A philosophy that does not provide for a common moral framework for its parent-society has zero-zippo-zilch place in the public realm. Politically speaking, it is completely irrelevant what people blame for sins or wrongs, the only thing that is relevant is the uniform accptance of one single standard. I suppose I could bore you with a long list of Indian atheist intellectuals who make the same point: diversity is the cancer, uniformity is the answer.

Philosophies do not exist in vacuum - but in a society. This is a test which every religion must accept - atheism included. And what is the point of having atheists lecturers on morality who can't do the job?

A philosophy that does not provide for a common moral framework for its parent-society has zero-zippo-zilch place in the public realm. That is a point which is NOT negotiable.


Dawkins only refuses to hate all things progressive because he is a scientist, not because he is an atheist. Science has shown us innumerable times in history that there are a great many things that we thought we understood that we actually don't. It's like telling stone age migratory peoples what steel or concrete is. Religion is the acceptance of the stone as the end all be all tool, while the scientists strive to discover steel and concrete.

Considering the numner of scientists who are NOT in league with the Left - and I'd say that being involved with the CND is a pretty good way of saying you are a leftie - that defense is simply ludicrous.

And what about Russell?
For instance, although laudably aware that Communism was a Hell on earth, Russell nevertheless was against most of the thankless efforts to counter its violent expansion. Thus, in his last days, he cooperated with Jean Paul Sartre, a explicit Communist sympathizer himself, in a comical "war crimes" tribunal against the United States involvement in Vietnam. The result of such exercises, of course, is that, long after the general Fall of Communism, Vietnam remains in the grip of Communist dictatorship. Good work, Bert.

Even more troubling was Russell's thinking during World War II. In World War I, we know that Russell was against the War, as a pacifist, and was willing to go to jail for it. His attitude was less clear to me in relation to World War II. Now we have the testimony of Richard W. Jencks (President of the CBS/Broadcast Group in 1969):

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell, who had been jailed in World War I for his pacifism by a government of which Churchill was a minister, is considering [in 1940] whether he should abandon those pacifist beliefs if Britain faces imminent invasion. He does not think that passive resistance would work against Hitler. These considerations do not prevent Russell from confiding to his philosophy students at the University of California in Los Angeles (this writer among them) that world peace, in the long run, will probably be better served by Hitler's victory. World peace, Russell posits, cannot be had without world government. Over the long years ahead, he says, civilizing influences will operate to soften the bestial edges of Nazi rule. ["Why Capitol Hill Needs a Churchill Reminder," The Wall Street Journal, May 11-12, 2013, A13, boldface added]


TLDR: Russell was a Red.


In this same vein it is infinitely myopic to posit that we should just rest on our laurels. I still have yet to understand why it is that you so despise anything thought of as "progressive", but I suppose that is a private conversation. I believe that we can certainly learn from our past mistakes, and carry onward to bigger and better things. It is abundantly clear that we're capable of greater things, and science seeks to find the limits of our understanding and capabilities. Science could easily be substituted for many religions, but not atheism.


We had a terrible conflict between ourselves and the Reds. At stake: the very existence of the human race. I shan't bore you with details.
We won. Woe the Vanquished. There will be no second round.

If anyone, under any pretext, would seek to return to the Red Plague, I would not hesitate one second to sign that person's death warrant. That matter is CLOSED for discussion - for ever and ever.




Atheism seeks none of these things. It is a statement, or an idea. It is the lack of religion. We can debate all day about the secular religions that each individual keeps under the heading of "vice", but that would have little to do with the one question that atheism seeks to answer. At the beginning, was creation spontaneous, or was it influenced by some unknown force? Atheism simply says that no force currently exists for the latter to be possible. For me that force could eventually show itself, but the chances of that happening are seemingly minimal.

I've gone on for long enough. Suffice it to say that I cannot so quickly judge that atheism had anything to do with what you're accusing "it" of, nor do I think you have properly understood what atheism is... at least to some of us.


You were not there. I was.

I do not presume to make holes in men's souls - this is a quote from Queen Bess.
I do not greatly care whether a man is an atheist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Pantheist, or a Jew.
But there had better be ABSOLUTE and TOTAL clarity about political loyalties.




Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CriminalElegant
ID: 1382616
Level: 17
Posts: 157
Score: -46
CriminalElegant [1382616]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 17:03:40
Most communist countries have never been communist, Its basically just an excuse to enslave and execute people. Though i doubt true communism would lead to anything other than North Korea, A few countries have balanced themselves into ComuCapitalist countries(CHINA). By the way atheists are usual atheists until they are about to die(Sterotype)

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CravenTHC

ID: 1569996
Level: 55
Posts: 3176
Score: 2758
drnkCravenTHC [1569996]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 17:04:48
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By CravenTHC [1569996]


The only problem I have with implicating atheism in that is that it seems more like a cloak that Marxist ideals used to be more palatable. Sort of in the same way that the established/accepted religions in my country use the word "cult" to make Mormonism less palatable or desirable. I don't have a personal historical reference for these events, so I'm only giving my opinion on what you have stated. I'd have to look into it more for myself to be sure.

Marxism gained traction and support long before atheism did. If anything, it was the other way around. For some 70 years, Atheism rode on the shirt-tails of Marxism.


As for atheism not providing proper moral guidance, I would suggest that it has never sought to nor should. Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of a religion. If you're looking for someone to tell you how you should feel about a certain moral dilemma then look elsewhere. Each of us is imbued with the power to determine what is right and what is wrong. Clearly, as you have shown in the past, this is something that can be turned on and off depending on many variables. Atheism lacks "thou shalt not" because atheism is the choice to make your own "thou shalt not"s. It is the statement that you are taking your actions into your own hands. Taking responsibility for yourself instead of blaming some evil horned serpentine beast that lives in a lava cavern.


A philosophy that does not provide for a common moral framework for its parent-society has zero-zippo-zilch place in the public realm. Politically speaking, it is completely irrelevant what people blame for sins or wrongs, the only thing that is relevant is the uniform accptance of one single standard. I suppose I could bore you with a long list of Indian atheist intellectuals who make the same point: diversity is the cancer, uniformity is the answer.

Philosophies do not exist in vacuum - but in a society. This is a test which every religion must accept - atheism included. And what is the point of having atheists lecturers on morality who can't do the job?

A philosophy that does not provide for a common moral framework for its parent-society has zero-zippo-zilch place in the public realm. That is a point which is NOT negotiable.


Dawkins only refuses to hate all things progressive because he is a scientist, not because he is an atheist. Science has shown us innumerable times in history that there are a great many things that we thought we understood that we actually don't. It's like telling stone age migratory peoples what steel or concrete is. Religion is the acceptance of the stone as the end all be all tool, while the scientists strive to discover steel and concrete.

Considering the numner of scientists who are NOT in league with the Left - and I'd say that being involved with the CND is a pretty good way of saying you are a leftie - that defense is simply ludicrous.

And what about Russell?
For instance, although laudably aware that Communism was a Hell on earth, Russell nevertheless was against most of the thankless efforts to counter its violent expansion. Thus, in his last days, he cooperated with Jean Paul Sartre, a explicit Communist sympathizer himself, in a comical "war crimes" tribunal against the United States involvement in Vietnam. The result of such exercises, of course, is that, long after the general Fall of Communism, Vietnam remains in the grip of Communist dictatorship. Good work, Bert.

Even more troubling was Russell's thinking during World War II. In World War I, we know that Russell was against the War, as a pacifist, and was willing to go to jail for it. His attitude was less clear to me in relation to World War II. Now we have the testimony of Richard W. Jencks (President of the CBS/Broadcast Group in 1969):

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell, who had been jailed in World War I for his pacifism by a government of which Churchill was a minister, is considering [in 1940] whether he should abandon those pacifist beliefs if Britain faces imminent invasion. He does not think that passive resistance would work against Hitler. These considerations do not prevent Russell from confiding to his philosophy students at the University of California in Los Angeles (this writer among them) that world peace, in the long run, will probably be better served by Hitler's victory. World peace, Russell posits, cannot be had without world government. Over the long years ahead, he says, civilizing influences will operate to soften the bestial edges of Nazi rule. ["Why Capitol Hill Needs a Churchill Reminder," The Wall Street Journal, May 11-12, 2013, A13, boldface added]


TLDR: Russell was a Red.


In this same vein it is infinitely myopic to posit that we should just rest on our laurels. I still have yet to understand why it is that you so despise anything thought of as "progressive", but I suppose that is a private conversation. I believe that we can certainly learn from our past mistakes, and carry onward to bigger and better things. It is abundantly clear that we're capable of greater things, and science seeks to find the limits of our understanding and capabilities. Science could easily be substituted for many religions, but not atheism.


We had a terrible conflict between ourselves and the Reds. At stake: the very existence of the human race. I shan't bore you with details.
We won. Woe the Vanquished. There will be no second round.

If anyone, under any pretext, would seek to return to the Red Plague, I would not hesitate one second to sign that person's death warrant. That matter is CLOSED for discussion - for ever and ever.




Atheism seeks none of these things. It is a statement, or an idea. It is the lack of religion. We can debate all day about the secular religions that each individual keeps under the heading of "vice", but that would have little to do with the one question that atheism seeks to answer. At the beginning, was creation spontaneous, or was it influenced by some unknown force? Atheism simply says that no force currently exists for the latter to be possible. For me that force could eventually show itself, but the chances of that happening are seemingly minimal.

I've gone on for long enough. Suffice it to say that I cannot so quickly judge that atheism had anything to do with what you're accusing "it" of, nor do I think you have properly understood what atheism is... at least to some of us.


You were not there. I was.

I do not presume to make holes in men's souls - this is a quote from Queen Bess.
I do not greatly care whether a man is an atheist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Pantheist, or a Jew.
But there had better be ABSOLUTE and TOTAL clarity about political loyalties.




Admittedly I don't seek out and study atheist scientists, so I'm not familiar with Russel or his ideas.

Atheism is not philosophy. In fact it is the lack thereof. It has no frame or definition beyond the lack of religious beliefs. Self-determinism is a philosophy that is loosely associated with atheism. Atheism does not take a stance on your morals, or what society should have as morals. For me personally it is a statement that I refuse to accept the conventional wisdom of the "God" of society, and instead will substitute my own philosophy if and when that wisdom arises. If I do not live to see the answer to the question then I can live with that. What I cannot live with, as an atheist, is the idea that I should accept the ideologically biased teachings of my parents without question.

I'd also like to know why you hold communism and progressive ideology in the same regards. To me they are two entirely different things. Communism would be a step backwards. We went there, it failed, time to move on. Although capitalism is doing a fair job it's certainly not where we could one day be if we continue to progress as a society. I may be an idealist, but I don't consider a world where millions suffer and starve as the final answer.

1995b124-a670-4052-9786-2aa6509e1af4_zps

By: Yoshihiro [1244536]
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CriminalElegant
ID: 1382616
Level: 17
Posts: 157
Score: -46
CriminalElegant [1382616]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 17:11:03
Capitalism can help those starving people though, I wouldn't care if i had to work for $1 an hour (which i have) and at least not starve. The problem in most countries where people are starving is corrupt / oppressive governments.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CravenTHC

ID: 1569996
Level: 55
Posts: 3176
Score: 2758
drnkCravenTHC [1569996]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 17:30:59
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
Capitalism can help those starving people though, I wouldn't care if i had to work for $1 an hour (which i have) and at least not starve. The problem in most countries where people are starving is corrupt / oppressive governments.


I agree on all points. This is a symptom of the problem though. Some capitalists have morals, some do not. It also depends on the situation. Here in the US my capitalist government is hypocritical when dealing with it's own people, and overly moralist when dealing with the extremist governments of the world. It has to show restraint because if it did not then the moralist governments elsewhere would punish my government.

So at the same time it is revoltingly hypocritical, morally bankrupt, and overly cautious. This is the problems with capitalism. It fosters greed, and not the good kind, it rewards the evil, and restricts decency. One could say, "Well at least it's not slavery.", but what kind of victory is that really? That's like being shot in the head, becoming a vegetable, and praising the fact that you're not dead. You may as well be since you're going to need around the clock medical attention for the rest of your pathetically immobile lifespan.

1995b124-a670-4052-9786-2aa6509e1af4_zps

By: Yoshihiro [1244536]
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3830
Score: 3131
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 17:49:09
I hold them the same because I've noticed that its adherents play hide-and-seek between various labels.
'We're no longer the Knights who say NI, we're now the Knights who say Eki Eki Eki PTA ZOO PONG'

Very well then: the application of lethal force commences upon the utterance of the words 'we're the Knights'.

If you want to study Atheists in Academia, I would suggest that study estimable and laudable Atheists such as Monsieur Revel. I'm guessing that you would not feel ashamed in HIS company.
Whereas no decent man - of any persuasion - could not feel embarrassed by Russel or Sartre.

Either a philosophy CONFORMS to public morality - or it is NOT open to public toleration.
That was the ultimate reasoning of the Commission-Stasi. And I agree.

Consider the true matter of 'progress'.
As far as can be told [skeleton analysis] the living standard of the average German barbarian living just beyond the Limes of the Roman Empire - measured by health, and by bone - was not to be equalled again until some 1900 years, around 1970. [ it appears that we're now again on a downward swing- but it is a bit early to tell. Early as in 'ask me again 200 years from now' ]
The living standard of a british industrial worker ca 1900 was below that of a Hottentot tribesman of the same era. Nothing that gives you much faith in progress.

As for progressing beyond capitalism... on impeccably scientific principles [ especially the unavoidable inadequacy of information ] I hold it as pretty much certain that anything better than Capitalism is a theoretical impossibility.
http://www.themeister.co.uk/economics/evolutionary_economics.htm

Human behaviour involves individual decision making and customer & investor choices. A system best described by Herbert Simon's satisficing. In their ignorance folk survive only if they adopt behavioural rules of thumb about cooperating and responding to threats which enable the discovery of synergies and the accumulation of benefits in institutions.
And order emerges from these activities because markets co-ordinate activities 'as if' a control loop, not because the boss issues instructions



Atheism is not philosophy. In fact it is the lack thereof.

Either atheists accept being held to the same standards as everybody else - Or Else.
Again - this matter is not open to debate or argument.

Society has morals. And any organised group is open to scrutiny on its conformity to such public morals. Public morals are NOT open to individual refusal. You don't get out of jail because you don't think that murder is wrong.
This equally applies to Atheists as to Muslims - or Catholic clergymen.
It applies to everyone who is a member of the body politic.

I must reiterate that none of this is open to argument, debate or negotiation.

I have stated once or twice that my conclusion In Re Atheism was 'guilt not proven'... but I would suggest not arguing the point. because the truth of the matter is that when atheists were in charge of running countries, the results were pretty dismal.

In medical terms, it's a dual diagnosis thing. Either cause can be found guilty. It's up to the .. individual honesty... of the observer to find a balance. Mostly, folks don't bother.



Last Edited: Sun Aug 25, 2013 18:28:23
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3830
Score: 3131
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 18:22:12
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
Capitalism can help those starving people though, I wouldn't care if i had to work for $1 an hour (which i have) and at least not starve. The problem in most countries where people are starving is corrupt / oppressive governments.


I've come across a fair amount of places where the basic problem appears to be that Nature has conspired to make the transport of either goods, ideas or people quite impracticable.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CriminalElegant
ID: 1382616
Level: 17
Posts: 157
Score: -46
CriminalElegant [1382616]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 18:31:36
By CravenTHC [1569996]
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
Capitalism can help those starving people though, I wouldn't care if i had to work for $1 an hour (which i have) and at least not starve. The problem in most countries where people are starving is corrupt / oppressive governments.


I agree on all points. This is a symptom of the problem though. Some capitalists have morals, some do not. It also depends on the situation. Here in the US my capitalist government is hypocritical when dealing with it's own people, and overly moralist when dealing with the extremist governments of the world. It has to show restraint because if it did not then the moralist governments elsewhere would punish my government.

So at the same time it is revoltingly hypocritical, morally bankrupt, and overly cautious. This is the problems with capitalism. It fosters greed, and not the good kind, it rewards the evil, and restricts decency. One could say, "Well at least it's not slavery.", but what kind of victory is that really? That's like being shot in the head, becoming a vegetable, and praising the fact that you're not dead. You may as well be since you're going to need around the clock medical attention for the rest of your pathetically immobile lifespan.


True about capitalism rewarding greed, But you have to understand that a political system / economic ideology doesn't make people bad or evil. They were evil first and choose to be evil and would continue to be evil under capitalism, socialism, Communism or anarchism (enough isms). So basically criminal should be punished or else you will have hell (like now).

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3830
Score: 3131
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 18:46:42
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
By CravenTHC [1569996]
By CriminalElegant [1382616]
Capitalism can help those starving people though, I wouldn't care if i had to work for $1 an hour (which i have) and at least not starve. The problem in most countries where people are starving is corrupt / oppressive governments.


I agree on all points. This is a symptom of the problem though. Some capitalists have morals, some do not. It also depends on the situation. Here in the US my capitalist government is hypocritical when dealing with it's own people, and overly moralist when dealing with the extremist governments of the world. It has to show restraint because if it did not then the moralist governments elsewhere would punish my government.

So at the same time it is revoltingly hypocritical, morally bankrupt, and overly cautious. This is the problems with capitalism. It fosters greed, and not the good kind, it rewards the evil, and restricts decency. One could say, "Well at least it's not slavery.", but what kind of victory is that really? That's like being shot in the head, becoming a vegetable, and praising the fact that you're not dead. You may as well be since you're going to need around the clock medical attention for the rest of your pathetically immobile lifespan.


True about capitalism rewarding greed, But you have to understand that a political system / economic ideology doesn't make people bad or evil. They were evil first and choose to be evil and would continue to be evil under capitalism, socialism, Communism or anarchism (enough isms). So basically criminal should be punished or else you will have hell (like now).


Reward and Punishment. Carrot and Stick.
A social system either lavishly applies incentives and punishments, or it does not functiom.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CravenTHC

ID: 1569996
Level: 55
Posts: 3176
Score: 2758
drnkCravenTHC [1569996]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 18:55:59
By DarthBrogo [21801]
As for progressing beyond capitalism... on impeccably scientific principles [ especially the unavoidable inadequacy of information ] I hold it as pretty much certain that anything better than Capitalism is a theoretical impossibility.
http://www.themeister.co.uk/economics/evolutionary_economics.htm


Although I do see your point about it being impossible, I disagree. I am not content with ending the adventure at "impossible". I'd rather explore deeper and hope that something unexpected happens.

Atheism is not philosophy. In fact it is the lack thereof.


Either atheists accept being held to the same standards as everybody else - Or Else.
Again - this matter is not open to debate or argument.

Society has morals. And any organised group is open to scrutiny on its conformity to such public morals. Public morals are NOT open to individual refusal. You don't get out of jail because you don't think that murder is wrong.
This equally applies to Atheists as to Muslims - or Catholic clergymen.
It applies to everyone who is a member of the body politic.

I must reiterate that none of this is open to argument, debate or negotiation.

I have stated once or twice that my conclusion In Re Atheism was 'guilt not proven'... but I would suggest not arguing the point. because the truth of the matter is that when atheists were in charge of running countries, the results were pretty dismal.

In medical terms, it's a dual diagnosis thing. Either cause can be found guilty. It's up to the .. individual honesty... of the observer to find a balance. Mostly, folks don't bother.


Atheism is not philosophy, religion, or organized in any way. You're thinking of anti-theism. They are two entirely different things. Anti-theism consists of atheists who have taken to militantly opposing religion ideologically. I do not subscribe to this school of thought. I am an atheist. I reject the notion of god, and am happy to tell anybody about this, but I don't seek out religious believers to talk down to. I disagree with the political application of religion, but that has not inspired me to become a politician to combat religious influence. I will simply use my right to vote against the purveyors of religious ideals. The only thing that atheists have in common is that we're human beings. We come from all different walks of life, have infinitely different morals, ideologies, and philosophies. Atheism does not fit into any of these categories by itself. If someone is claiming atheism as an ideology or philosophy then they are misusing the word.

1995b124-a670-4052-9786-2aa6509e1af4_zps

By: Yoshihiro [1244536]
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3830
Score: 3131
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 19:16:23
By CravenTHC [1569996]
SNIP

Atheism is not philosophy, religion, or organized in any way. You're thinking of anti-theism. They are two entirely different things. Anti-theism consists of atheists who have taken to militantly opposing religion ideologically. I do not subscribe to this school of thought. I am an atheist. I reject the notion of god, and am happy to tell anybody about this, but I don't seek out religious believers to talk down to. I disagree with the political application of religion, but that has not inspired me to become a politician to combat religious influence. I will simply use my right to vote against the purveyors of religious ideals. The only thing that atheists have in common is that we're human beings. We come from all different walks of life, have infinitely different morals, ideologies, and philosophies. Atheism does not fit into any of these categories by itself. If someone is claiming atheism as an ideology or philosophy then they are misusing the word.


Well, I had guessed that wss more or less that was how the matter stands with you - since we're no strangers - but the point remains that any component part of the body politic simply has to accept public scrutiny based on standards over which the individual or group has no control.
I don't think I misjudged you when I suggested that you'd be at home with Monsieur Revel.
I rather think that you'll like his company.

But having stated things yourself, you will also understand why I am extremely distrustful of atheism in general and do expect to exercise a pretty heavy dose of scrutiny.
It's again a case of the Knights who say Ni.


Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
LSD

ID: 883567
Level: 54
Posts: 13138
Score: 6969
LSD [883567]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 19:39:55
Why not just not make shit threads in the first place, instead of making them then asking to have them graved.

20uz85h.jpg
userbar714645cj5.gif
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Samorost

ID: 1655145
Level: 39
Posts: 5970
Score: 4022
FHSFSamorost [1655145]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 19:45:04
Grave this indeed

Cymru am byth
samorost-b.jpg

New signature is under construction.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CriminalElegant
ID: 1382616
Level: 17
Posts: 157
Score: -46
CriminalElegant [1382616]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 20:09:02
By LSD [883567]
Why not just not make shit threads in the first place, instead of making them then asking to have them graved.


Too many haters, ill repeat again if you don't like the thread then don't post on it.....

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CravenTHC

ID: 1569996
Level: 55
Posts: 3176
Score: 2758
drnkCravenTHC [1569996]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 20:59:23
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By CravenTHC [1569996]
SNIP

Atheism is not philosophy, religion, or organized in any way. You're thinking of anti-theism. They are two entirely different things. Anti-theism consists of atheists who have taken to militantly opposing religion ideologically. I do not subscribe to this school of thought. I am an atheist. I reject the notion of god, and am happy to tell anybody about this, but I don't seek out religious believers to talk down to. I disagree with the political application of religion, but that has not inspired me to become a politician to combat religious influence. I will simply use my right to vote against the purveyors of religious ideals. The only thing that atheists have in common is that we're human beings. We come from all different walks of life, have infinitely different morals, ideologies, and philosophies. Atheism does not fit into any of these categories by itself. If someone is claiming atheism as an ideology or philosophy then they are misusing the word.


Well, I had guessed that wss more or less that was how the matter stands with you - since we're no strangers - but the point remains that any component part of the body politic simply has to accept public scrutiny based on standards over which the individual or group has no control.
I don't think I misjudged you when I suggested that you'd be at home with Monsieur Revel.
I rather think that you'll like his company.

But having stated things yourself, you will also understand why I am extremely distrustful of atheism in general and do expect to exercise a pretty heavy dose of scrutiny.
It's again a case of the Knights who say Ni.


I will have to look into his works then. Thanks for the lead, and yes I do see the obvious application of your "Knights who say NI" principle being easily applied to atheism. To be honest though if that's how we looked at everything then there would be many groups pigeon holed into one name. The most obvious example to me is the recently discussed ideological differences between Islam and Islamism. I just think it's unfair to put atheism and anti-theism in the same category. Although I'm also not sure how the Marxists applied atheism to their ideologies. Was it merely a statement to be made, or was it militantly applied as one would apply a medieval torture implement? Similar to the Inquisition, but in reverse.

By MagnusHarvest24 [1655145]
Grave this indeed


Why? The conversation is still ongoing, and it's not hard to follow the flow of how it got where it is now. If you find that it's not a subject you wish to discuss then nobody is forcing you to post. I find this desire among the internet generation, to be contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian, very odd.

Last Edited: Sun Aug 25, 2013 21:10:42
1995b124-a670-4052-9786-2aa6509e1af4_zps

By: Yoshihiro [1244536]
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
David002

ID: 530238
Level: 50
Posts: 5252
Score: 3794
David002 [530238]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Aug 25, 2013 21:32:49
Graved on request

Forum Main>>Graveyard>> Graveyard this
First  << 1  2 >>  Last

This thread has been locked.