It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Am I the only one who agrees with Iran?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by donk_316

Originally posted by Apoc
I'm just surprized so many people seem perfectly content with the idea of a radical Islamist state that has pledged the destruction of Israel and America, having weapons that could wipe out an entire city in one swoop. Sure is a risky game you are willing to play for no other reason than your own personal dislike for Bush and Blair. The religious aspect and rhetoric from Iran can't be denied. I'm not real happy about N. Korea having nukes but at least they don't have the underlying religious murder motivations as radical Islam.



I'm just surprized so many people seem perfectly content with the idea of a radical Christian state that has pledged the destruction of Iran, Iraq and anyone else who gets in the way, having weapons that could wipe out an entire city in one swoop. Sure is a risky game you are willing to play for no other reason than your own personal dislike for Muslims. The religious aspect and rhetoric from America can't be denied. I'm not real happy about N. Korea having nukes but at least they don't have the underlying religious murder motivations as radical Christians...

Do you see my point yet?

Its both sides of the fence screaming the EXACT SAME THING.


AT LAST SOMEBODY THAT KNOWS THE TRUTH! i mean look at many people in america, the government talks all about how Iran oppresses women, and iran does this and iran does that, well why don't you look at warren jeff, the polygamists, hell they don't even let women go to school, women have to dress a certain way, girls are married at 15 and 16, and have to have a child EVERY YEAR, each man can have as many as he wants as long as MR. Warren jeff, the dumbass, approves it, i mean at least in Islamic countries, women are allowed to study, women cna work, women don't really ahve to dres a certain way unless you in one ot he gulf countries or iran, and muslims don't force women into marrying at 15 and 16, and at least muslim religion only allows each man to be married to 4 women at one time and all has to be with the approval of those women. so i mean if you put the Christian fanatics in america and the muslim fanatics in the middle east on a balance, well the Christian fanatics surely are gonna be loaded with weight of fanaticism and extremism! so please to all you who say "oh well the US is spreading freedom and democracy", ok well spread more freedom and democracy in your own country then you can set out to fix the world, secondly you wanna fix iran, well why don't you state who made the problem first, well i'll tell you who brought the current extremist iran into being, the US!!! khumeni was brought to power with the help of the french and the US, they assassinated the shah, and put khumenia in power, it was a desperate move to stop Communism from spreading into the middle east oil producing countries.

many of todays rogue states were created from plots the US intelligence has done, those plots were good for 5-10 years, and then they turned against the US interests. i don't agree that Iran has the right to nuclear weapons, but i don't believe any country should have them in the first place, look russia has 30k nuke warheads, the US has around 10k, the western european countries havea few, china has a few, india has a few, pakistan has a few, N. korea probably has a couple, israel has many, why shouldn't iran has some exactly. and btw, ahmajinidad didn't say wipe israel off the face of the earth, he said wipe the zionist regime of hte planet, which means he wants a regime change from one who is this:

I'm just surprized so many people seem perfectly content with the idea of a radical zionist and jewish state that has pledged the destruction of many of its neighbours and has denied friendship even when offered, and anyone else who gets in the way, having weapons that could wipe out an entire city in one swoop. Sure is a risky game you are willing to play for no other reason than your own personal dislike for Muslims. The religious aspect and rhetoric from israel can't be denied. I'm not real happy about N. Korea having nukes but at least they don't have the underlying religious murder motivations as radical jews...

to this:

a regime that is friendly, wants friendship with it's neighbours, is not fanatic or radical, or extremist to any religion, and a nation that does not use it's military to put collective punishment on the west bank and the gaza strip, and does not create massacres adn genocides in it's neighbouring countries. and of course does not repeatedly threaten the security of many nations around it and abuses the security of the countries around it.

______________________________________________________________________

that's a good goal to have, i mean there was one chance to have peace in the middle east and to end all problems, which was when rabin was the president in israel, and there were actually manys strong leaders in arab countries that wanted to end this, yet israeli fanatics and extremists killed rabin, just he same as when in the 70's or early 80's president sadat in egypt was assassinated because he negotiated and reached resolution with the israelis. so litterally most countries who are so called "civilized" have may fanatics and extremeists, so do all countries of hte world, and yes the US is included.




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
now i wanna say my little speech:

" * "In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, Muslims and jews and christians and all men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Muslim people a bad check, a check which has come back marked 'insufficient funds.'"
* "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"
* "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a world where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, or there race, there nationality, or there religion, but by the content of their character."
* "Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom to ring — when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children — black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics - will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

[edit]

thanks a lot to the late great Martin Luther King, Jr.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Do you see my point yet?


I'm sorry but I don't. There are examples in this very post of the rhetoric coming from on Iran on the destruction of Jews and the West. Very specific threats. This is the same regime that was responsible for the Iranian hostage crisis and their current president was very likely one of the hostage takers.

I'm not Christian and I'm not Jewish. I challenge anyone to find quotes from Bush or Blair that is anywhere near the level of those coming from Iran.
The West has gone out of it's way to be religion-neutral. Ask any airport screener if they are allowed to profile in any way. Do you think you would get the same repect as an American in Iran? Do you think you would even live long if you walked down the street with cross or star of david on your shirt?

Ask the non-radicals in Iraq who they fear more, the western soldiers trying to help with security or radicals who believe as non-believers, they are valid targets as well.

If there is this plot by western christians to kill muslems, why are we being so tactical and restrained in that area? We could have flattened the country riding the wave of post-9/11 ferver. Why did we liberate Kuwait? Why are countries like Saudia Arabia and UAE such strong allies? Why do you never hear of muslims in America being murdered by the predominantly christian populace?

When was the last time a christian or jew hijacked a plane in the name of their God? When was the last time they drove sucide truck bombs into muslem markets for no other reason that to kill women and children?

You can't be so cynical...

[edit on 4-9-2006 by Apoc]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Iran is a sovereign nation and ought to be able to fund any research and/or construction projects that it decides to. Outside entities can stomp and fret, while trying to lure a country that is out of their control to do things that fit with their national interest, which makes sense.

See, MAD only works in situations wherein the other player is not willing to die to see his ends met. The Soviets, while armed to the teeth, had an appreciation for their own lives that seems to be drastically greater than the appreciation than an average terrorist. If Iran were the horrible, evil liars that many accuse them to be, and were developing weapons to wipe out a neighbor, the fear is that even that the deterrent of their homes being melted by a counter attack wouldn't be of much concern.

On the other hand, if Iran is telling the truth, it would develop a peaceful power supply and thus create more of a supply for other nations (or more for Iran to sell). This, one would think, would reduce the price of oil, and as a result gas. In all honesty, I could see both situations giving grave concern to some Americans.

In the end, scenarios such as these are not solved with moral 'oughts,' and 'shoulds,' but rather solved by states interests, specifically, whose interests are the most "leveraging" either solo, or by group. Of course, by leveraging, I mean the greatest economic, diplomatic, military, or combined push. The battle of wills on an international scale.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apoc

Do you see my point yet?


I'm sorry but I don't. There are examples in this very post of the rhetoric coming from on Iran on the destruction of Jews and the West. Very specific threats. This is the same regime that was responsible for the Iranian hostage crisis and their current president was very likely one of the hostage takers.

I'm not Christian and I'm not Jewish. I challenge anyone to find quotes from Bush or Blair that is anywhere near the level of those coming from Iran.
The West has gone out of it's way to be religion-neutral. Ask any airport screener if they are allowed to profile in any way. Do you think you would get the same repect as an American in Iran? Do you think you would even live long if you walked down the street with cross or star of david on your shirt?

Ask the non-radicals in Iraq who they fear more, the western soldiers trying to help with security or radicals who believe as non-believers, they are valid targets as well.

If there is this plot by western christians to kill muslems, why are we being so tactical and restrained in that area? We could have flattened the country riding the wave of post-9/11 ferver. Why did we liberate Kuwait? Why are countries like Saudia Arabia and UAE such strong allies? Why do you never hear of muslims in America being murdered but the predominantly christian populace?

When was the last time a christian or jew hijacked a plane in the name of their God? When was the last time they drove sucide truck bombs into muslem markets for no other reason that to kill women and children?

You can't be so cynical...


ok first of all before 9/11 the CIA and FBI were most focused on Jewish sponsored terrorism, Joews have killed many many UN officials, and were terrorists. and even if they didn't kill the UN officials, i'm gonna give examples of how they were terrorists. and btw why did you "liberate" kuwait, i'll tell ya, Iraq is like what the 3rd or second largest OIL deposit in the world, well Kuwait is either 3rd or second, now if Iraq took and was able to keep Kuwait, then Saddam coulkd control the world oil market and hence make prices skyrocket which was bad for the interest of the US.

as for examples of how the Israelis are terrorists, well take this scenario, your a palestinian, your poor, your deeply affected by Israeli collective punishment, then you see a bulldozer, a tank, and a few soldiers, and a settler, you come outside, and you see them they tell you this:"oh hey mr. palestinian, i'm sorry but your house has to be confiscated so that our settler could live in it, i'm sorry but you have to move out mr. palestinian, because Israeli's have the right to the house you built with your sweat and your hands" "otherwise we will have to use force. thank you mr. palestinian." you see the tank tuyrn it's aim at your house, you run inside, take a few belongings, take your family and get out, and you give the key to this Israeli settler. you don't get any reimbursement, any payment, nothing, you just move out and now you can stay on the streets. an israeli prime minister himself, Rabin, was asked once ''what would you do if you were a palestinian?" and he answere "i would be a terrorist." even more how about this, you were just in a car accident you have diabetes, after the accident your stressed, so you need a piece of candy or so, you look for it, but because of the accident you lost it, things start to get shaky you ahve to go to the hospital, the hospital is in the city, you also start losing energy from internal bleading, some people offer you a trip to the hospital, they drive, and then you see an israeli checkpoint, you have to stay there for hours and hours, because "the clerk isn't here" or some lame excuse, and theres a long ass line of 100's of people and men, and at the end of the day you probably die or get a permanent illness from internal bleeding and your diabeties. or take this scenario, you have a job in Jerusalem, you live in the outskirts, about 20 miles away, you have to go to jerusalem but you see an israeli checkpoint, you have to wait for 2 hours-4 hours sometimes the whole day, but you don't go through, why because "the gate won't open and we're waiting for the mechanics to come through"

for more examples why don't you go to www.fromisraeltolebanon.com or to www.ibiblio.org...

maybe you'll get the point....



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I'm not quite following your argument, but the following sentence really got me thinking...

Originally posted by radardog
Iran is a sovereign nation and ought to be able to fund any research and/or construction projects that it decides to.


I agree with you completely. Any sovereign nation should be able to do whatever it likes within it's own borders. Now before everyone jumps all over me for making this statement, hear me out!

Iran does have the right to develop whatever technology it likes, within it's borders, but it also must accept the consequences of making this descision.

The world community has said, in a nutshell, do not develop nuclear technology (especially uranium enrichment) or there will be consequences. If Iran is willing to accept the consequences of their actions, then there is not much that can be done to "stop" them. If they are willing to endure economic sanctions and possible military action, then that is what they will do. They have the right to develop these technologies, yes, but other nations also have the right to disapprove and make policy descisions (sanctions, military action, etc.) to "discourage" Iran from continuing down that path.

In other words, the "rights" we are talking about go both ways. No nation can be compelled to trade with Iran just because Iran has the right to develop nuclear tech.

In conclusion...

I have the "right" to cross the street without looking both ways. Of course if I excercise this "right" I must accept the consequence that I may be run over by a bus when I do it.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mcphisto
So you think that a country like Iran, whose leader says he wants to wipe another country off the map is a good candidate for possessing a nuclear arsenal?

Or do you really believe he wants the nuclear power for the country?

I know what I believe!

[edit on 3/9/06 by Mcphisto]


or rather a good country like America takes out Afghanistan and Iraq and only has Iran and North Korea left on its schedule?(please remember GWB's infamous Axis of Evil man. you gotta be lopsided and biased. Wake up). I might not agree with the laws of other nations and their ways, but there is always another way. If there wasn't, then... so be it. I just hate that oil might be the problem inbetween this whole world matter of peace and the possible true good cause of PNAC...

...better said yet, if there was not oil in the middle east, would everyone be so conspiracy-ish this whole time?? not me, cuz screw evil laws and unjust punishments. but i chalk it up to fate and chance in a universe that is so big that it does not end. and a time so long that it goes on and on forever in both directions...


...


[edit on 4-9-2006 by chibidai_rrr]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BomSquad
In conclusion...

I have the "right" to cross the street without looking both ways. Of course if I excercise this "right" I must accept the consequence that I may be run over by a bus when I do it.


true. true.
but very untrue if the bus was waiting for you to not look both ways.
that was a very bad choice of thought and i don't want to read anymore unthought out posts anymore on here damnit. but i'll let you slide for whatever's sake.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by donk_316
I'm just surprized so many people seem perfectly content with the idea of a radical Christian state that has pledged the destruction of Iran, Iraq and anyone else who gets in the way, having weapons that could wipe out an entire city in one swoop. Sure is a risky game you are willing to play for no other reason than your own personal dislike for Muslims. The religious aspect and rhetoric from America can't be denied. I'm not real happy about N. Korea having nukes but at least they don't have the underlying religious murder motivations as radical Christians...

Do you see my point yet?

Its both sides of the fence screaming the EXACT SAME THING.


You are making a straw-man point, and are also outright lying. Whether think Bush has a hidden agenda or not, he has NEVER pledged the destruction of any country. Ever.
On the flip side, Iran actively wants to destroy Israel and all western nations.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia

Originally posted by donk_316
I'm just surprized so many people seem perfectly content with the idea of a radical Christian state that has pledged the destruction of Iran, Iraq and anyone else who gets in the way, having weapons that could wipe out an entire city in one swoop. Sure is a risky game you are willing to play for no other reason than your own personal dislike for Muslims. The religious aspect and rhetoric from America can't be denied. I'm not real happy about N. Korea having nukes but at least they don't have the underlying religious murder motivations as radical Christians...

Do you see my point yet?

Its both sides of the fence screaming the EXACT SAME THING.


You are making a straw-man point, and are also outright lying. Whether think Bush has a hidden agenda or not, he has NEVER pledged the destruction of any country. Ever.
On the flip side, Iran actively wants to destroy Israel and all western nations.


If you ever read the PNAC, i believe you misread it.
Imagine if Russia had a similar document, called the PNRC.
I believe now that you would agree that you a biased because you love your country as much as i do. But something is amiss, and that you should love everything about your country including your ignorace to the fact the PNAC exists and they mean what they say, and it is and always has been OUR GOVERNMENT is sad.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by chibidai_rrr]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by chibidai_rrr

that was a very bad choice of thought and i don't want to read anymore unthought out posts anymore on here damnit. but i'll let you slide for whatever's sake.


Excuse me, but I thought that BomSquad's post was very well thought out. You may see the situation differently, but a lot of consideration goes into these posts (some at least). I don't think that it is appropriate for you to consider yourself the judge of what is post worthy and what isn't. Please show some respect.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
TEHRAN, Iran -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday challenged the authority of the UN Security Council as Iran faces a deadline to halt its uranium enrichment and he called for a televised debate with U.S. President George Bush on world issues.
The Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or material for weapons.
"The U.S. and Britain are the source of many tensions," Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. "At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to.
"This (veto right) is the source of problems of the world. ... It is an insult to the dignity, independence, freedom and sovereignty of nations," he said.


He does indeed make a good point, however (and this coming from neither a liberal or conservative standpoint) I would'nt come to a conclusion about it being a good idea about Iran being able to get enriched uranium so quickly. Being born IN TEHRAN, I know about there gov. and there policies twards its own citizens and abroad. Iran is backing Hammas, and with the situation between Hammas and israel (FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE) I dont think it would be a good idea to put nuclear capabilities Homble intioned or not into Irans hands.

Granted though the US does shift the truth around to make Iran look like a monster under our beds, but thats just how they deal with the people of the U.S. they use fear tactics and make refrences to 9/11 and call countries like Iran, or lebanon "terrorist Harboring countries" then off to war you go with whomever you want to blame.

It hurts me to see the area of the world I come from to look like such a bad and dangerous place. Everytime I turn on the news I hear about Iraqi's killed, lebanese civilians killed, and soldiers MY AGE being killed..and evertime it hurts more than the last. Ofcourse there are REALLY good reasons for these wars you know..A Soldier gets supposedly kidnaped so they kill 3,000 civillians and send the country back 50 years oh and dont forget we will turn the cheek while a group plans to execute a strike and then after the fact play the "point the finger and fight"

Putting that power into someone that will never except Israel as a country will just fuel a conflagration and make a world war an inevitability.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend

Originally posted by chibidai_rrr

that was a very bad choice of thought and i don't want to read anymore unthought out posts anymore on here damnit. but i'll let you slide for whatever's sake.


Excuse me, but I thought that BomSquad's post was very well thought out. You may see the situation differently, but a lot of consideration goes into these posts (some at least). I don't think that it is appropriate for you to consider yourself the judge of what is post worthy and what isn't. Please show some respect.


that's funny, i know i did not show respect- but i also did not respect.
i wouldn't like a bus to wait for you to not look both ways, but i guess that is the world we live in.

and this is NOT the world we live in.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Hey all,

Could somone please post some "objective" evidence that Iran has ever said they wish to "wipe israel off the map"?

I have seen this stated many many times on this board but no-one has ever been able to post anything close.. (i.e. government or trusted news source) to back this up.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by myowncrusade
Hey all,

Could somone please post some "objective" evidence that Iran has ever said they wish to "wipe israel off the map"?

I have seen this stated many many times on this board but no-one has ever been able to post anything close.. (i.e. government or trusted news source) to back this up.


Would you trust aljazeera.net as an objective source that would try to make the Iranian President look as good as possible?

Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map

Here is another link to (what I believe) is the Iranian Presidents website. It doesn't say "wipe israel off the map" exactly, but there is definately a suggestion of it.
PIRI News Archive



[edit on 4-9-2006 by BomSquad]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by myowncrusade
Hey all,

Could somone please post some "objective" evidence that Iran has ever said they wish to "wipe israel off the map"?

I have seen this stated many many times on this board but no-one has ever been able to post anything close.. (i.e. government or trusted news source) to back this up.


Myowncrusade,
Hear is another exsplanation on wipeing isreal off the map.



All we've been hearing about what President Ahmadinejad has been saying is distortion and out right fabrications. He has never said he wants to kill Israelis, not once. When he was quoted as saying he wants Israel to be "wiped off the map" he never said anything of the sort. Notice how none of the quotes, which came from neo-con sources, include the word "Israel" in the "wiped off the map" quote. Honestly, give it a quick investigation. You'll see no mainstream media quote that includes "Israel" in that infamous misquotation. And do you know why? Because he was refering to the "Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem", not Israeli or Jews. The correct translation was "The Zionist regime occuyping Quds (Jerusalem) should be removed from the pages of history". The meaning of which is not the extermination of Jews, but the removal of the Zionist regime (regime change).

And the link to
sorce thred.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by myowncrusade
Hey all,

Could somone please post some "objective" evidence that Iran has ever said they wish to "wipe israel off the map"?

I have seen this stated many many times on this board but no-one has ever been able to post anything close.. (i.e. government or trusted news source) to back this up.


according to the news and the things we read, yes, Irans current president has stated he wants Israel off the map. But if we are to believe everything we read then that is why you are here. You are here because you are skeptical of everything you read. The world was obviously not thought out intelligiently enough whether by man or God to help keep you sane. Therefore it is not up to me or you to find it's resolution. Or maybe it is...



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Yeah so the english translation of AlJazeera. Possibly a biased opinion at the moment.
Anyone got any others?

Not trying to be confrontational, just curious where this "map" quote came from.

And doesn't that press release read an awful lot like GWB's "either you're with us or against us"?

[edit on 4-9-2006 by myowncrusade] Edited for idiocy x 3

[edit on 4-9-2006 by myowncrusade]

[edit on 4-9-2006 by myowncrusade]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia

Originally posted by donk_316
Do you see my point yet?
Its both sides of the fence screaming the EXACT SAME THING.


You are making a straw-man point, and are also outright lying. Whether think Bush has a hidden agenda or not, he has NEVER pledged the destruction of any country. Ever.
On the flip side, Iran actively wants to destroy Israel and all western nations.


Wow. You delusional... Seriously. Bush first attacks Afganistan based on OBL being there... THEN he jumps to IRAQ becuase his cronies showed the US public pictures of RVs from miles away and said "see??? WMD!! WMD!!" and then they destroyed Iraq.

That may not how you see it, being from texas and all, but thats how the REST of the world sees it.

Now you say "who cares about the rest of the world thinks about us, we are the USA!"

And that my narrow minded friend... is the problem with the world today.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by myowncrusade
Yeah so the english translation of AlJazeera. Possibly a biased opinion at the moment.
Anyone got any others?

Not trying to be confrontational, just curious where this "map" quote came from.


From the president of Iran. Surely this can't surprise you.


And doesn't that press release read an awful lot like GWB's "either you're with us or against us"?


Yeah it does. Either you with the Muslims, or against them. Hurray for Iran, right?


f you ever read the PNAC, i believe you misread it.
Imagine if Russia had a similar document, called the PNRC.
I believe now that you would agree that you a biased because you love your country as much as i do. But something is amiss, and that you should love everything about your country including your ignorace to the fact the PNAC exists and they mean what they say, and it is and always has been OUR GOVERNMENT is sad.


Please show me in the PNAC where President George W. Bush calls for the eradication of an entire nation.

Let's establish something: I am no big fan of Bush, why else would I be here? The topic is, "is Iran in the wrong".

No, they aren't in the wrong that they want a nuclear program. But the guy uses both his power as president, and his status as a Muslim, to influence other Muslims to wreak havoc amongst non-Muslims. He wants to destroy Israel, the United States, Britain, and anyone else he deems "infidel". This makes people potential targets uncomfortable. And these are actions you don't see from America or the UK.

Part of denying ignorance is facing reality.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join