The Drum Corps Discussion Group
Presented by The Sound Machine Drum Corps Scores Archive

Links to Other Sites: 

* FAQ   * Search   * Login   * Register 
It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:11 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:09 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Posts: 3791
Location: Poway, CA
rysa4 wrote:
You are stating clearly that there is moral equivalence between a terrorist shooting off a rocket and killing a child and the responsive defense of killing said terrorists. You are beyond wrong. You can try and squirm out of it by twisting words but thats what you are defending.

This is opinion, there is no right or wrong. I think I'm right.

If a terrorist fires a rocket into a crowded marketplace, killing 100 innocent civilians, he is immoral.

If a nation fires a rocket into a school where a terrorist is hiding, killing 100 innocent civilians and 1 guilty terrorist, they are immoral.

You bet there's moral equivalency there. You can't see it?

You talk about "justified" war... gang members have killed far more innocent American civilians than foreign terrorists ever will. Why aren't you advocating fire-bombing the slums of America? After all, your argument is that retaliation is justified and the collateral damage of innocent lives lost is acceptable. Why aren't we bombing Los Angeles or New York?

Funny, isn't it, how much is "acceptable" when it's only affecting "others"?


rysa4 wrote:
If you look back before 1947 you will find that Palestine included present day Jordan. Thats why most of the Jordanians are Palestinians by descent. Do ya think a huge number of Palestinians were massacred and left uninhabitable swampland and were forced in bigger territory?

That is not what you originally said, and that is not what I originally corrected you on. You were talking about PARTITION.

Fact: Jordan became and independent state in 1946.
Fact: The UN Partition of Palestine in 1947 had NOTHING to do with Jordan.

You can rephrase your meaning all you want, your original post was wrong.


rysa4 wrote:
The issue of morality is not one of state or nationhood but of circumstance.

I completely disagree. The issue of morality is one of ACTION, not source, circumstance, CONTEXT, or any other intellectually flaccid excuse used in attempt to justify horrible acts.


rysa4 wrote:
Terrorism and terrorists are absolutely not morally equivalent to democratic nations or peoples.

The survivors of the fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might disagree with you.

A heinous act is a heinous act, regardless of the source or the motives.


rysa4 wrote:
Finally, your placing of an anti-semitic quote after a post about picking sides in a middle east conflict does need to be called on the mat as such. And yes I did read the whole thing, as I did all of your posts; unfortunately a familiar refrain typical for the anti-semitic hatred that often leads down the road to some of the violence which you seem to so dearly oppose. Its drippingly obvious, sad,,,, and printed out.

Such a wonderful little setup has been created: if you disagree with the actions of the Jewish people in any way, shape or form, you're an anti-semite.

A bunch of baloney. Disagreeing with a group's actions and practicing discrimination against that group are two separate things.


rysa4 wrote:
By the way, you are now morally equating terrorist organizations such as Al Quaida. Is this what you mean? That our country and Al Quaida are morally equivalent. Yes or no?

Spare me your nonsense questions. I stand by the same statement I've been making over and over and over: the morality is in the ACTION, the source is completely irrelevant.

But fine, I'll throw some meat to the wolves...

When al-Qaeda fires a rocket into a marketplace, killing 20 Iraqi civilians and 2 U.S. soldiers, and when the U.S. air-strikes a building in retaliation, killing 20 Iraqi civilians and 2 al Qaeda terrorists, YES, in my view they are morally equivalent (or, perhaps, "immorally equivalent") actions.


rysa4 wrote:
For the record, the moderator has stated that he is just stating facts and not opinions. Well moderator, your facts are clearly wrong and conflict in the middle east predates 1948 by quite a bit.

What?! You shock me, standard peon user, by informing me that conflict in the middle east predates the middle of the 20th Century! Obviously I have never heard of the Crusades, or the Bible.


rysa4 wrote:
2%? Gaza and the West Bank make up a much larger percentage of 1948 Israel than 2%.

This I must own up to as an error on my part. My 2% number comprised of only Gaza and East Jerusalem, not the entire West Bank. You are correct here.


rysa4 wrote:
Also, I am again telling you that Jews had bought most of the land that compromised 1948 Israel prior to the UN creating Israel.

I just don't see how this is possible. People fleeing persecution in other nations, often with little to their name, could somehow afford to buy up land out from under people already living there who didn't want to sell? As late as 1922, the Jewish people made up only 11% of Palestine, and most of them lived in Jerusalem.


rysa4 wrote:
Moderator, the fundamental dictum you are preaching ( and thats what it is), typically seen in anti-semitic drivel, is that Jews were given land because of the Holocaust and Arabs were massacred and kicked out, and this is the source of the modern day conflict.

Well, standard peon user, I think the source of the modern day conflict is that Palestinian Arabs lost the 1948 War and that the Arab world resents the presence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. I can't commit to anything further than that.

It was the UK that held the mandate over Palestine during WWII, and it was the UK that spear-headed the UN Partition plan. Why did the UN think that 32% of the population deserved 56% of the land? Philip Roth postulates in his book "Operation Shylock" that the Partition Plan itself might have been anti-Semitic: he wonders if by giving the Jews more land in Palestine, the European powers were hoping more Jews would choose to leave Europe of their own accord.

However, almost everything you're arguing with me over I think is beside the point. Why is viewing the Israeli offensive into Gaza as a heinous act an anti-semitic opinion? Why is condemnation of Israeli action viewed as an unspoken acceptance of Hamas action? It's obvious that our moral structures are setup in entirely different way, but I fail to see how condemning the actions of a democracy places me in the category of "terrorist sympathizer," which you seem so earnest in trying to equate.

PS: I have names, feel free to use them. I refuse to sacrifice my opinions and viewpoints upon the altar of title, and I resent the implication that my "position" should require me to adjust my viewpoints towards a centralized norm.

PPS: I tendered my resignation as a moderator on Sound Machine to Dave on October 10, 2008. The fact that I remain a moderator is beyond my control.

_________________
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:22 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
I was wondering when the "morality" of WWII would come up... :roll:

What was immoral was the calculated attack by the Japanese. Anything that was done subsequently to end the war, no matter how drastic, to save US soldiers and other civilians, including Japanese citizens, cannot be anything but the responsibility of the Japanese leaders. By crushing the head of the Empire of Japan, countless lives were saved. How many more Chinese might have died had this war (the combined WWII and Japan-China War) continued? Japan had already bombed Chinese cities killing millions. Clearly the bombing of Hiroshima, followed by the Soviets renouncing their non-aggression pact with Japan, attacking them three days later; the same day as the Nagasaki bombing, forced Japan to cease their efforts to further their own "Divine Race" brand of imperialism.

Does anyone think for a minute that the Japanese wouldn't have loved to do to our west coast what they had already been doing to the Chinese? The blood is on their hands...

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:43 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Posts: 3791
Location: Poway, CA
Hostrauser wrote:
The issue of morality is one of ACTION, not source, circumstance, CONTEXT, or any other intellectually flaccid excuse used in attempt to justify horrible acts.

Your arguments are meaningless to me, X. I don't care about who started it, justification of retaliation, on whose hands the blood lies, or any of that crap.

Killing a million people is an immoral act.

Killing a million people in order to save two-hundred million is STILL an immoral act (even if the "justification" behind it seems more palatable to your conscience).

Killing a million people is immoral and wrong. The "why" is completely and totally irrelevant. Even if the action is committed in the name of "the greater good," the action remains immoral and wrong.

Some people are fine with the net result, others are not.

_________________
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:25 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 11:40 am
Posts: 839
Location: new jersey
PEOPLE PEOPLE!

A Little civility here please!

Hostrauser - not that that you are wrong - but please learn how to speak to people

The Japanese bombings were atrocious - my dad was on a communications ship- I may not exist if the worst were to happen- he witnessed a kamikazi attack that blew up a ship firsthand

This stuff is hideous- and religious based ( IMHO )

IMHO the Nobel Prize is taking a beating due to reality

_________________
wherever you go there you are


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:45 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
Hostrauser wrote:
Hostrauser wrote:
The issue of morality is one of ACTION, not source, circumstance, CONTEXT, or any other intellectually flaccid excuse used in attempt to justify horrible acts.

Your arguments are meaningless to me, X. I don't care about who started it, justification of retaliation, on whose hands the blood lies, or any of that crap.

Killing a million people is an immoral act.

Killing a million people in order to save two-hundred million is STILL an immoral act (even if the "justification" behind it seems more palatable to your conscience).

Killing a million people is immoral and wrong. The "why" is completely and totally irrelevant. Even if the action is committed in the name of "the greater good," the action remains immoral and wrong.

Some people are fine with the net result, others are not.


So if a burglar breaks into your home and puts a gun to the head of your wife with the stated intent to kill her, using deadly force against the intruder is immoral and wrong? Sometimes inaction that results in loss of innocent life is every bit as vile as the ACTION that takes it.

Your basis for what is immoral and wrong is quite interesting...

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:20 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Posts: 3791
Location: Poway, CA
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
So if a burglar breaks into your home and puts a gun to the head of your wife with the stated intent to kill her, using deadly force against the intruder is immoral and wrong?

YES. I'm not saying it's not justified, and I'm not saying I wouldn't fight to the best of my ability to protect my wife. I'm not saying immoral actions are completely avoidable or that they aren't a fact of life.

I'm saying that just because you're "justified" in acting, or even that the immoral action is the best possible action at that time, does not negate the fact that it's an immoral action.


WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
Your basis for what is immoral and wrong is quite interesting...

Never said it wasn't. I know I'm an idealist. People often tell me "that's not the way the world works." My response is "that's because there aren't enough people fighting to change the way the world works."

But, from my own real-life experience, I see very few either/or situations in the world with only two possible solution. That sort of situation exists primarily in hypothetical posits like the one you posted above. Reality has too many variables, too many potential outcomes to fit in a simple A/B dynamic. Thus, my belief that "justification" is primarily a cover, an excuse for immoral activity from people unwilling to pursue the moral course of action. Not always, there are no absolutes. But primarily, and almost ALWAYS at the national level, regardless of the nation.

_________________
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:40 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
Our baseline is quite different then because I find it very difficult to imagine a justifiable action that would also be considered immoral.

Immorality would never by justifiable, and justifiable actions would never be immoral, IMO.

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Here is a good reference to the problem
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:57 pm 
Offline
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 114
Although I didn’t like his liberal policies, he is a brilliant man. Jimmy Carter has extensive knowledge of this conflict and has always been a strong supporter of Israel. The book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, I believe, is a source for uncontaminated information of this nuisance of a problem that continues to provoke conflict within our world.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:59 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1076
Location: North Beach MD
Hostrauser wrote:
Killing a million people is an immoral act.

Killing a million people in order to save two-hundred million is STILL an immoral act (even if the "justification" behind it seems more palatable to your conscience).

Killing a million people is immoral and wrong. The "why" is completely and totally irrelevant. Even if the action is committed in the name of "the greater good," the action remains immoral and wrong.

Some people are fine with the net result, others are not.


Kevin, for someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes, you sure preach a lot of them. :lol: You have to know I'm going to bust your chops with this quote in other discussions. 8-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:32 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:07 pm
Posts: 827
Blurae1 wrote:
No, I think you're both wrong. I think we need to keep our noses out of another country's business. I don't wish them anything bad but I don't care if they kill each other. Let God sort them out, or not. Still, it's none of our business. We have people being raped; robbed; & murdered right here in the U.S.. Just listen to a police scanner in our large cities. We have plenty enough to worry about here without having to look for it..................Bill


Of course we do not attend enough to our own problems. I agree with you. What I am saying however is that terrorism is a real thing in this world and there is a division between state supporters for terrorism and states that oppose terrorism. It is a battle we are part of if for no other reason than to prevent 9-11 type events from occurring again.

Israel and the US are on the same side of this global struggle and Israel is at ground zero. This does not mean that we actually have to have our friends(meaning our young people who are in the military) in Iraq to fight terrorism-- but there is a true struggle that I don't feel should be left ignored.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:52 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:07 pm
Posts: 827
Hostrauser wrote:
rysa4 wrote:

Why is viewing the Israeli offensive into Gaza as a heinous act an anti-semitic opinion? Why is condemnation of Israeli action viewed as an unspoken acceptance of Hamas action?



A worthwhile question. On Sunday December 7th, 2008, you posted a quote that started with the following phrase: " The Jews I find, are very very selfish." That has nothing to do with Israel being in a war in Gaza. It is a prejudicial statement which you opted to post regardless of who said. It fomments hate. It is offensive. And it IS anti-semitic.

When I queried you on this, you responded with Truman referring to the oppressed becoming the oppressors. Now you are stating that Israel is an oppressor? Or maybe you are saying that Jews in general oppress other people, even here in the US?

On Saturday December 27th, 2008 you said that Israel as a nation is the most callous nation towards life on the planet. So when everyday Palestinians come into Israeli hospitals for treatment- including organ transplants from Israelis, this is the most callous nation on the planet towards life?

You then move on to say that you don't understand how the US can let Israel get away with actions no other country would be allowed to get away with. Israel isnt "getting away" with anything. It's an open society with the second highest concentration of reporters in the world next to Washington DC.

Kev, Hofstrauser. moderator or whatever you want to be called, you simply aren't knowledge in that are of the world or its history and its obvious. You don't know the peoples or the lands over there at all either. You truly truly truly haven't got a clue. So lets look at some of this... in the upcoming posts.


Last edited by rysa4 on Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:58 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:07 pm
Posts: 827
Hostrauser wrote:
rysa4 wrote:

rysa4 wrote:
If you look back before 1947 you will find that Palestine included present day Jordan. Thats why most of the Jordanians are Palestinians by descent. Do ya think a huge number of Palestinians were massacred and left uninhabitable swampland and were forced in bigger territory?

That is not what you originally said, and that is not what I originally corrected you on. You were talking about PARTITION.

Fact: Jordan became and independent state in 1946.
Fact: The UN Partition of Palestine in 1947 had NOTHING to do with Jordan.

You can rephrase your meaning all you want, your original post was wrong.

.


I don't have to rephrase anything. I referred to the original partition of Palestine, and that was my exact quote. The original partition to the best of my knowledge is the map of Palestine from 1916 that I linked. It certainly pre-dates 1947. You made an incorrect assumption that I was referring to 1947 which I was not.

Jordan was a large part of Palestine at that time. That's what I was saying and it is true.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:08 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:07 pm
Posts: 827
Hostrauser wrote:
rysa4 wrote:


rysa4 wrote:
Moderator, the fundamental dictum you are preaching ( and thats what it is), typically seen in anti-semitic drivel, is that Jews were given land because of the Holocaust and Arabs were massacred and kicked out, and this is the source of the modern day conflict.

Well, standard peon user, I think the source of the modern day conflict is that Palestinian Arabs lost the 1948 War and that the Arab world resents the presence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. I can't commit to anything further than that.
choose to leave Europe of their own accord.

.



So here was the line up in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War: Note that Palestinian Arabs were not part of the warring parties to any great extent:

Jordan's Arab Legion was considered the most effective Arab force. Armed, trained and commanded by British officers, this 8,000–12,000 strong force was organised in four infantry/mechanised regiments supported by some 40 artillery pieces and 75 armoured cars. Until January 1948, it was reinforced by the 3,000-strong Jordan Frontier Force.[77]

The Arab Legion joined the war in May 1948. It fought only in the areas that king Abdullah wanted to secure for Jordan: the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In 1948 Iraq had an army of 21,000 men in 12 brigades and the Iraqi Air Force had 100, mostly British, planes. Initially the Iraqis committed 3,000[79] to 5,000[citation needed] men to the war effort including four infantry brigades, one armoured battalion and support personnel. These forces were to operate under Jordanian guidance[80] During the first truce the Iraqis increased their force to about 10,000.[81] Ultimately, the Iraqi expeditionary force numbered around 15,000 to 18,000 men.[82]

The first Iraqi forces to be deployed reached Jordan in April, 1948 under the command of Gen. Nur ad-Din Mahmud. On 15 May Iraqi engineers built a pontoon bridge across the Jordan River and attacked the Israeli settlement of Gesher with little success. Following this defeat Iraqi forces moved into the Nablus-Jenin-Tulkarm strategic triangle, where they suffered heavy casualties in the Israeli attack on Jenin which began on 3 June, but managed to hold on to their positions. Active Iraqi involvement in the war effectively ended at this point.[83]

In 1948 Egypt was able to put a maximum of around 40,000 men into the field, 80 percent of its military-age male population being unfit for military service and its embryonic logistics system being limited in its ability to support ground forces deployed beyond its borders. Initially, an expeditionary force of 10,000 men was sent to Palestine under the command of Maj. Gen. Ahmed Ali al-Mwawi. This force consisted of five infantry battalions, one armoured battalion equipped with British Light Tank Mk VI and Matilda tanks, one battalion of sixteen 25-pounder guns, a battalion of eight 6-pounder guns and one medium-machine-gun battalion with supporting troops.

The Egyptian Air Force had over 30 Spitfires, 4 Hawker Hurricanes and 20 C47s modified into crude bombers.

By the time of the second truce the Egyptians had 20,000 men in the field in thirteen battalions equipped with 135 tanks, (...) and 90 artillery pieces.[84]

Syria had 12,000 soldiers at the beginning of the 1948 War grouped into three infantry brigades and an armoured force of approximately battalion size. The Syrian Air Force had fifty planes, the 10 newest of which were World War II-generation models.

Main article: Battles of the Kinarot Valley

On 14 May Syria invaded Palestine with the 1st Infantry Brigade supported by a battalion of armoured cars, a company of French R 35 and R 37 tanks, an artillery battalion and other units. On 15–16 May they attacked the Israeli village Tzemah, which they captured, following a renewed offensive, on 18 May. The village was abandoned following the Syrian forces' defeat at the Deganias a few days later. Subsequently, the Syrians scored a victory at Mishmar HaYarden on 10 June after which they reverted to a defensive posture, conducting only a few minor attacks on small, exposed Israeli settlements.[85]

The Lebanese army was the smallest of the Arab armies, consisting of only 3,500 soldiers.

I am sorry for the length of the post, but I thought it was worth the space so you had a better understanding of the 1948 war.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:23 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:07 pm
Posts: 827
Now Lets Look at this issue:

rysa4 wrote:
Also, I am again telling you that Jews had bought most of the land that compromised 1948 Israel prior to the UN creating Israel.

I just don't see how this is possible. People fleeing persecution in other nations, often with little to their name, could somehow afford to buy up land out from under people already living there who didn't want to sell? As late as 1922, the Jewish people made up only 11% of Palestine, and most of them lived in Jerusalem.


If you go back and look at the "official" information, Jews only owned about 6% of the land prior to the UN Partition of 1947. This information can be found in many places.

What can also be found, although not as readily, is that a great deal, and I do mean a large amount, of Arab lands purchased by Jews through the years/decades of Zionism prior to 1948, was disallowed as "Illegal transactions."

The lands we are speaking of, ( Israel) were somewhat uninhabitable and not desired by the various Arab monarchies and regions at the time. They were sold off to the Jews.

Far from a rag tag bunch of poor people being pushed out of various places ( this did happen of course but Jews in Europe prior to WW2 were not in general poor), World Zionism provided resources that allowed for the purchase of land in a future state of Israel.

I am not passing a judgement on these transactions as legal or illegal, I am only saying that they occurred as part of the Zionist movement, which was entirely separate and predates the UN Partition of 1947 by several decades.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:36 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:07 pm
Posts: 827
Finally,

kevin, Hofstrausser, Moderator--You tend to group things in some sort of mental framework as Jews vs palestinians.

That really doesn't even begin to do justice to reality. Within the past week, Hamas has been slaughtering Palestinians to keep them from" collaborating" with Israel. Of course, when Hamas threw Fatah out of Gaza, they lined up their Fatah Palestinian Brethren, blind folded them, and shot them.

many Palestinians were taken in by Israel at their request in order to save their lives.

The point is that Hamas does not equal Palestinians or their interests. They are an Iranian military force at this point who use Palestinian human shields ( a war crime).

On the flipside, Israel is largely Jewish, but substantially not. There are MANY Israeli Arabs who fight in the Israeli Army. And Israeli monsters as you refer to them, who are Jewish in the army, are conscripted by the country as a necessity of Israel's survival. Like I said, they are selling the dead sea salt soaps in your nearby malls. Why don't you go and talk to them? They are caring nice human beings who live in a very dangerous neighborhood under constant threat of war. It is not an easy life.

By the way, they won't tell you they are Israeli anymore since two of them got shot in a mall in Denmark a few weeks back. They will tell you they are from Spain if you ask.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group