The unholy alliance within the UK.

page: 1
10

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
There is growing unease in the UK with the relationship between Islam and the Muslim communities and the rest of UK society.
It seems that conflict is growing and many are concerned with what they perceive to be creeping Islamification.

I've got to say I share many of the concerns and feel these issues need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

But I am really beginning to question the purpose for this conflict.

Whose interests are being served by this constant conflict?

Certainly not Muslims who are becoming increasingly vilified and marginalised.
And certainly not non-Muslims who feel their culture and heritage is threatened by appeasement to Islam and Muslim sensibilities.

Yet it seems that the only official response to this conflict is indifference and a reluctance from successive governments to address core issues.
Other than the usual empty political rhetoric and one or two populist yet ultimately ineffective initiatives little effort has been made to resolve anything.

And in the meantime emotions and passions run higher as the clash between two seemingly diametrically opposed viewpoints continues.

What we do have at present is a governement obsessed with reducing national debt.
Regardless of personal opinion most agree that the government persues this policy even to the exclusion of other issues that the British people have real and genuine cares and concerns about and wish to be debated and addressed.

Again, regardless of viewpoint it's fair to say that Cameron has ensured that discussion centres on benefit payments and The Welfare State in general.

Whose interests are being served by doing this?
The poor, needy and vulnerable?

And now we have the current situation where we are being inundated with accusations and allegations of sexual assualts and paedophilia against old and deceased 'celebrities' who apparently targetted teenage girls, many from care homes and special hospitals etc.

These crimes were abhorent and it's imperative that a full and open enquiry takes place and those found guilty punished to the fullest extent of the law.

But I wonder if the same level of inquiry will be given to allegations of paedophilia made against various ex-politicians and their aides?

I suspect that Saville and his evil cronies, and maybe one or two politicians will be deemed expendable, are to be offered up to the public as sacrificial lambs to the slaughter whilst the nefarious deeds and nature of the incestuous relationship between senior politicians / industrialists / judiciary / clergy / peerage / civil servants and police etc continues unreported and unaffected.

Much in the same way that by concentrating on the relatively low cost of benefit fraud and the loopholes within the benefit system avoids discussion on the far more costly crime of tax avoidance and evasion.

Is it coincidence that it is the same unholy alliance of elites who benefit most from tax avoidance and evasion?

And so back to my initial point.

Who benefits from the conflict between Islam and the rest of UK society?

There are major issues that need to be addressed and until such time that a government makes a real, honest and concerted effort to resolve these issues then this conflict will continue, and probably increase.

If that happens then maybe we will turn our attention towards those who allowed this conflict to happen in the first place and whose policies allowed it to continue and grow.

And they are the self same people who benefit from most of the divisions and injustices within our society and use deflection tactics at every opportunity to avoid attention upon themselves and to maintain the status quo.
They lecture on the lack of morals within society whilst displaying a complete lack of moral fortitude and dispay a total lack of regard for the people of the UK.

This unholy alliance seeks to maintain, and increase if possible, it's influence and control over UK society and live above the laws they impose upon the rest of us - and defelction and division are two of the most common tools they use to achieve this.
edit on 3/11/12 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity




posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I see this too!!




The vast majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom live in England and Wales: of 1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census,[19] 1,536,015 were living in England and Wales,[20] where they formed 3% of the population in 2001; 42,557 were living in Scotland, forming 0.84% of the population;[21] and 1,943 were living in Northern Ireland.[22] In 2011, it was reported that United Kingdom has around 60,000 converts to Islam with 66% of them being women. 2 in 3 converts leave Islam. [23]
source



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Only 5+ years ago, this post would of been called racist under a labour government.

When our selfish political prostitutes sold the UK and it powers to the EU that is when our great country got washed down the plug hole.


They scream about the benefit system, well labour created this, they made it easy for anyone to claim disability benefit and encourage this, as to cook up there unemployment figures, open the flood gates and gave out free homes and benefits, and the more children you have the more benefits you get.

When our UK boarders were opened, it crippled our country, what benefit does the average UK citizens get by going freely over europe, but look at the benefits the rest of europe gets coming to the UK, we called every scumbag and lazy chancer from all over europe to come here and live of us hard working english.


It was Tony Blair labour who stole our national identity, and created this benefit culture.


Edit to add: Great post by the way Freeborn
edit on 3-11-2012 by TheMaverick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I have a theory about this.

Muslims, off the top of my head, forbid usury and lending at interest. Given that's how central banks operate and run the world, they pose a problem to them.

So it's relatively simple to import muslims into non muslim areas, bomb their countries, demonise them, make them the enemy until the population cries for something to be done.

Two birds, one stone. More power over us, and wipe out the ones who won't play the bank's game.

We're currently in the getting us to hate them stage, before they step in to 'save' us.
edit on 3-11-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMaverick
 


Yes Tony Blair with his New Labour/Traditional Torie, values. It was like Thatcher never left at times with all the privatisation etc.. Maybe its time for revolt against the current 3 party system, but then who has the balls and resources to start it.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by lewman
 





Maybe its time for revolt against the current 3 party system, but then who has the balls and resources to start it

UKIP....

Nigel Farage



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Great post Freeborn. I am always reluctant to get into debates concerning islamifcation, for the pure reason, I live in a village in oxfordshire, so don't see it, even my town is relatively white. I understand people have concerns in other parts o the country and I believe they have legitimate concerns.

For me before 911. I never really thought about Muslims at all, never had a bad image f the religion. Today it seems everything I hear about Muslims is bad. Not trying to be the apologist I'm sure I will be accused of, just stating my 2 ps worth.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMaverick
 




Only 5+ years ago, this post would of been called racist under a labour government.


And would it be considered any different under Major or even Cameron's administration?

On matters such as this there appears very little difference between the major political parties.



When our selfish political prostitutes sold the UK and it powers to the EU that is when our great country got washed down the plug hole.


A process started and continued under various Conservative governemnts and Prime Minister's.
Of course Blair and Brown continued the same policy of treasonously allowing the transfer of sovereignty to a foreign body.

Cameron has repeatedly stated that he has no intention of allowing a referendum on continued membership of the EU because he doesn't want one despite the vast majority of Brits wanting the Right To Self-Determination.



They scream about the benefit system,


Whilst conveniently ignoring or paying lip service to tax evasion and avoidance that costs this country far more - and guess who benefits from those tax fiddles?



well labour created this,


Did they?

They certainly compounded the situation but it was the policies of successive governments and banker incompetence and incessant greed that made millions unemployed and forced them to seek benefits.

And again, successive governments allowed the open door immigration policy and PC dictates that place immigrants who have nothing constructive to offer the UK priority over existing UK citizens.
And any open and honest debate on immigration is actively discouraged and those who attempt to do so are immediately labelled racist.

The UK has a long and proud tradition of welcoming immigrants - and that should continue - they have contributed immensely to the continued growth and development of UK culture - but what we have at present is detrimental to UK society as a whole.

And despite Cameron's public soundbites he has done nothing to address things.

Why?

Personally I suspect it's because the divisions it causes diverts attention from other serious issues.



.... to cook up there unemployment figures,


No-one cooked the books more than Thatcher, she changed the way employment figures were calculated on numerous occassions.



open the flood gates and gave out free homes and benefits, and the more children you have the more benefits you get.


Not every immigrant is undeserving or should be deemed unwelcome and not everyone on benefits is a layabout scrounger.
And their vilification only serves to focus attention on them whilst ignoring the excesses and injustices of other's.



It was Tony Blair labour who stole our national identity, and created this benefit culture.


I see very little difference between Blair and Cameron.

The primary goal of both was / is to maintain the status quo and to allow these elite's to continue with their vice like grip on the UK.

The system is rotten to the core and if ever there was a time to turn things upside down it's now.

We need to concentrate on the things that unite us rather than on the things that divide us - naive and simplistic I know.



Edit to add: Great post by the way Freeborn


Thanks, I appreciate it.


I'm not really one for starting threads but it's something I feel quite strongly about.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMaverick
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Only 5+ years ago, this post would of been called racist under a labour government.

When our selfish political prostitutes sold the UK and it powers to the EU that is when our great country got washed down the plug hole.

They scream about the benefit system, well labour created this, they made it easy for anyone to claim disability benefit and encourage this, as to cook up there unemployment figures, open the flood gates and gave out free homes and benefits, and the more children you have the more benefits you get.

When our UK boarders were opened, it crippled our country, what benefit does the average UK citizens get by going freely over europe, but look at the benefits the rest of europe gets coming to the UK, we called every scumbag and lazy chancer from all over europe to come here and live of us hard working english.


It was Tony Blair labour who stole our national identity, and created this benefit culture.


Edit to add: Great post by the way Freeborn
edit on 3-11-2012 by TheMaverick because: (no reason given)


Not sure about this at all. Pre-2010 intake, the Tories played a duplicitous game with immigration. Traditionally the most xenophobic of mainstream parties (they actually ran a Smethwick campaign with posters saying "If you want a 'n-word' for a neighbour, vote Labour" in the mid-1960s) the Tories played to closet and not-so-closet racists by pretending to give a # about the working classes and their concerns. Yet, at the same time, they had their eye on the capitalist prize: lowest wages possible and a desperate workforce. What they've said and what they've wanted are two different things.

Post 2010 and riding high on the 'New Labour let in all the foreigners' ticket, the Coalition has actually seen immigration levels rise yet further, coupled with demands that British workers need to be competitive with incoming foreign workers, and by that they mean join the race to the bottom: instead of stopping Eastern Europeans undercutting the British, the British should be undercutting the Eastern Europeans. Work for next to nothing with no employment rights or regards to health and safety. This is what the political right think about the working classes, particularly with a new global workforce to exploit.

The Maastricht Treaty laid the ground for our immigration problem and the Tories are as much to blame as any-pro immigrant (old) Labour party, given the fact that it was Tory rebels that helped push it through under Major's watch. Yes, New Labour (supposedly) underestimated the figures for Eastern European immigration but any suggestion that the Tories' hands are clean on this is pretty laughable. And God knows, what the immigration would have been like if the LibDems had ever had a sniff of power before 2010.

Arguably, if the Tories hadn't been as obsessed with Empire-building we'd not really had to open up UK borders to the Commonwealth countries, which includes the Indian/Pakistani muslims topical to this thread, as there would be no 'debt' or 'recognition' as such. It depends how far you want to take this back really, although I'd hesitate a guess, that you're only really interested in taking it back as far as New Labour.

Also, it was actually the Tories that made it easy to get disability benefits. The change in the way claims were possible was actually pre-Blair. Invalidity Benefit was introduced under Ted Heath's government and Incapacity Benefit under John Major. The point you're making is really more applicable to Major and not Blair and there was a lot of criticism at the time that this was employment statistic 'massaging'. Further more, depending on where you stand on the likes of ATOS &c (who get heavy criticism for declaring genuinely disabled people 'fit for work'), it's worth pointing out that ATOS &c first got their contracts under New Labour. So really, the benefits 'scam' started under the Tories and it was New Labour that actually tried to stop it.

From my point of view, I'd like to see the executives of ATOS hanging from lamp-posts by the next election.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMaverick
 


I do find alot of UKIP policies appealing, but I just do not see any chance of them gaining power without the current system falling apart first.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
There is growing unease in the UK with the relationship between Islam and the Muslim communities and the rest of UK society.
It seems that conflict is growing and many are concerned with what they perceive to be creeping Islamification.

I've got to say I share many of the concerns and feel these issues need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

But I am really beginning to question the purpose for this conflict.

Whose interests are being served by this constant conflict?

Certainly not Muslims who are becoming increasingly vilified and marginalised.
And certainly not non-Muslims who feel their culture and heritage is threatened by appeasement to Islam and Muslim sensibilities.



I think it's governments who, as ever, don't really care about the human cost of their policies. As some one who is pretty far left on the political spectrum, I've had a difficult time 'pissing into the wind' with this over the last decade or so. I'm not against immigration per se (my other half is of Hungarian extraction), just the amount of immigration. Immigration is asymmetric in that it impacts the lowest strata of society more than anyone else, making already scarce housing, jobs and services even scarcer for those already struggling. Given that traditional Labour politics was ostensibly about supporting the struggling workers, it's been baffling to me there's been a refusal on the left to acknowledge the damage being done until quite recently.

Also, the other side of this is the wholesale transplantation of another class structure or social hierarchy from one place to another. Elders, imans, &c, are very, very keen to see a continuation of their 'influence' in this country in a similar way to the way it was in Pakistan &c. I think this influence, which can be very tangible when it comes to elections and so on (with forced/controlled postal voting at the behest of family elders or imans - which, incidentally, isn't always in New Labour's favour). It's not tin-foil hat material to appreciate that most Muslims would like to live in a kind of 'Caliphate lite' at the very least, and it's this more localised influence and pressure that drives this. A lot of more moderate, more integrated Muslims aren't party to this, by very definition, and so aren't really a contributing factor in any way. They're basically caught in the middle of it: seen by many as being 'Pakis that shouldn't be here' and walking a line very close to apostate status by more radical or 'traditional' Muslims.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Stopping immigration wouldn't help as, arguably, the seeds are already planted. There's a theory about 3rd generation immigrants being the most radical or keen to propogate or perpetuate the idea of heritage and current immigration would do nothing to stop this. At the same time, forced repatriation is something that many people would not be too keen to see (where do you start and stop? If you're going to get rid of Pakistani Muslims, what about Irish Catholics 'just in case' they support the IRA? and so on...)

Personally, I'd like to see foreign policy drastically changed. If the UK wasn't in so many volatile Muslim coluntries (often at the behest of the U.S.A.) it would be a start and may be go some way to stopping feeding the fire. Hopefully education would go some way to play a part in the UK, too. Decent education would go some way to preventing poverty, which is often an industrial-strength radicaliser as it's often hard to be angry when you're content with your life and financially comfortable. Educating women is often a good way to 'influence from within' too. Educated women have more choices and the more choices they have, the less likely they are to be influenced by angry, poor, uneducated, disenfranchised men happy to live out their live here like it's some Pakistani mountain village.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


Great post, you make some valid and astute points.

Hope you don't mind me cherry picking some of them in response.



I think it's governments who, as ever, don't really care about the human cost of their policies.


True - and why don't they care?



Immigration is asymmetric in that it impacts the lowest strata of society more than anyone else, ..... Given that traditional Labour politics was ostensibly about supporting the struggling workers, it's been baffling to me there's been a refusal on the left to acknowledge the damage being done until quite recently.


Maybe because it served their purpose to create divisions.

The leading lights in both Old and New Labour come from the exact same social background that those in The Tory Party do.
Blair has more public school boys in his cabinet than any other government for over a hundred years - a feat Cameron has since surpassed.

They play their games of political ideaology and take turns on the merry-go-round whilst seeking to change very little of any great importance.
The only times when anything of value or worth changed in favour of the 'working man' was in the aftermath of the two World Wars.
Everything since has been geared at dismantling those advancements and returning to something akin to Victorian times.

The bounderies between the two viewpoints have become increasingly blurred.



Also, the other side of this is the wholesale transplantation of another class structure or social hierarchy from one place to another. Elders, imans, &c, are very, very keen to see a continuation of their 'influence' in this country in a similar way to the way it was in Pakistan &c.


They cling to the traditions and values of their home countries - which many immigrants do, integration can be a gradual process - but where Islam differs is that it's core values are diametrically opposed to those of 'western' society and in addition the more vocal and extremist interpretations seek not only to live by those interpretations but also impose them on the foster nation.

But so little is done to alleviate the situation increasing tensions and mistrust on both sides.

Of course the security services etc try to keep a check on the most extreme expressions and manifestations of this conflict but the overall division and tension is desirable to their aim of diverting attention from their activities and control etc.



I'm not sure what the answer is.


Neither am I.



Stopping immigration wouldn't help


Some immigration is desirable, it generates new ideas and growth and increases diversity whilst not threatening the host culture etc.
Change is gradual and healthy.
But the open door policy we have at present only increases tension.
It allows almost anyone entry, even those with little or nothing positive to offer or contribute to society.
And these people are viewed as scroungers and leeches, something society can ill afford and in turn increases the divisions within our society and again deflecting from the elites etc.



Hopefully education would go some way to play a part in the UK, too.


Many of the homegrown terrorists have received the 'benefit' of our education system yet have still become radicalised - in fact they have included Doctor's and teachers.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   


I do find alot of UKIP policies appealing, but I just do not see any chance of them gaining power


Now this is frustrating for me, as the amount of people who say, i like UKIP policies and vaules, but they will never get in power so don't vote for them, or a vote for UKIP is a vote for labour and the conservatives say the same.

Carrying on like this will never change a 3 party system were illusioned under, UNTILL we change this self-serving etonian hierarchical authority were all suffering under, we as a people will never repair the damage.


I used to be a conservative, and freely admit was blinked for many years, but i'm older wiser now.

And i know conservative did a great job deconstructing this country, and new labour came along and took it to the next level.

And for the thread, i hate cameron and the current conservative party, i'm sick to death of this eton network of incompetent out of touch leaders were cursed with right now.

Labour and conservative there is no different's, and lib dems are only there to catch the votes who don't like the main 2 parties.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I suspect the British Crown and Nobility are behind this. Since the Renaissance, they have been looking for a way to turn back the clock. By using economic levers to destroy the middle class they hated so much, and add in the violent muslim and foreign presence that according to international law is an act of Genocide happening in the UK atm, the British people will cheer with glee as they are made into serfs again.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Merriman Weir
Hope you don't mind me cherry picking some of them in response.


Pick away!


True - and why don't they care?


I don't really subscribe to a 'universal conspiracy theory' with UK politics. I don't think Zionist Jews are driving an agenda and I don't think it's some NWO cabal or similar. I think it's basically a money issue; a mechanism for fiscal abuse served by the mess that is capitalism as it exists (and, arguably, will, inevitably, always exist).



Maybe because it served their purpose to create divisions. The leading lights in both Old and New Labour come from the exact same social background that those in The Tory Party do. Blair has more public school boys in his cabinet than any other government for over a hundred years - a feat Cameron has since surpassed.They play their games of political ideaology and take turns on the merry-go-round whilst seeking to change very little of any great importance.The only times when anything of value or worth changed in favour of the 'working man' was in the aftermath of the two World Wars.Everything since has been geared at dismantling those advancements and returning to something akin to Victorian times.The bounderies between the two viewpoints have become increasingly blurred.


The problem many of the left is that when New Labour are implicated in anything, is that it's frustrating as New Labour weren't a 'left wing' party as such. There were a few things like gay rights, a few civil liberty issues and a national minimum wage, but the vast majority of what happened was pretty much 'centrist' or even right wing. Obsession with private housing market, the PFI madness (my personal bugbear since the late 1990s), relationship with the City and bankers, the shift in focus from support of the proles &c to the middle-classes and so on.

I wrote off New Labour, from a left wing voters perspective quite early on. I only voted for them in the last election out of strategic desperation. My pissing in the wind comment earlier was more about those Labour factions that are still other wise 'left wing' as opposed to being tied Blairite politics which, as I've said, I'd already given up on. I think immigration policies are often ideologically tied to foreign policies. My views on foreign policies like developmental foreign aid are a bit heretical. I'm against most forms of foreign aid as it's really about exporting a capitalist political model. To me, that's a destructive and ruinous as exporting AIDS. It's not helping people, it's enslaving them.



They cling to the traditions and values of their home countries - which many immigrants do, integration can be a gradual process - but where Islam differs is that it's core values are diametrically opposed to those of 'western' society and in addition the more vocal and extremist interpretations seek not only to live by those interpretations but also impose them on the foster nation.


Yes, I agree; that's what I was hinting at. Even moderate Muslims would like to see a more Islamic Britain. Not necessary a Caliphate as such but a Britain that was more adapted to suit them rather than the other way around and a lot of this is down to the 'inflexibility' of a lot of the interpretations of Islam.


But so little is done to alleviate the situation increasing tensions and mistrust on both sides.


It would be a start to admit there's less social cohesion than they suggest. I live yards away from a 'no go area' that local politicians won't acknowledge that it even exists.


Many of the homegrown terrorists have received the 'benefit' of our education system yet have still become radicalised - in fact they have included Doctor's and teachers.


There's an element of this, certainly, but everything I've read suggests that education, particularly of women, hinders radicalisation. Similarly, educated (and perhaps here's the crucial bit) employed people tend to be more content and less likely to see answers in extremist politics or beliefs. This is why governments fob us off with 'bread and circuses' and why, when in recessions/depressions, electorates turn to more radical answers or become more entrenched in existing views &c.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 




I don't really subscribe to a 'universal conspiracy theory' with UK politics. I don't think Zionist Jews are driving an agenda and I don't think it's some NWO cabal or similar.


I think the idea of some sort of Illuminati / NWO group who are orchestrating world events is a bit extreme - but I don't doubt for one minute that within the UK there are people from a certain social background who try to manipulate things to maintain their power and influence.

How co-ordinated this is on a global scale is very much open to debate.



I think it's basically a money issue; a mechanism for fiscal abuse served by the mess that is capitalism as it exists (and, arguably, will, inevitably, always exist).


Money and power which together allows them to control and live above the laws they pass to govern us?



Obsession with private housing market,


A massive 'bugbear' of mine.



I wrote off New Labour, from a left wing voters perspective quite early on.


I'm no believer in blindly supporting anything or anyone - I try to treat each individual subject / situatiuon etc on it's own merits - and as such find the whole party political system restrictive and dogmatic but after living and experiencing the Thatcher years at first hand I had tears in my eyes watching Blair take the ride to Buckingham Palace when he was first elected - a year or so later I felt cheated and betrayed.

Blair continued many of Major's and Thatcher's domestic and foreign policies, he just added a slightly different spin on things.
He actively encouraged the divisions within our society, he fed the excesses of those in the 'unholy alliance' and enabled their advancement in positions of power and influence.
Little surprise given his own background and those of his cabinet ministers.



I only voted for them in the last election out of strategic desperation.


Yet another failing of our current electoral and parliamentary system and processes.



I think immigration policies are often ideologically tied to foreign policies. My views on foreign policies like developmental foreign aid are a bit heretical. I'm against most forms of foreign aid as it's really about exporting a capitalist political model. To me, that's a destructive and ruinous as exporting AIDS. It's not helping people, it's enslaving them.


Subjects worthy of a thread or two on their own.



Even moderate Muslims would like to see a more Islamic Britain. Not necessary a Caliphate as such but a Britain that was more adapted to suit them rather than the other way around and a lot of this is down to the 'inflexibility' of a lot of the interpretations of Islam.


An uncomfortable truth far too few dare admit - and those non-Muslims that do are immediately demonised and Muslims in general steadfastly refuse to discuss it with people from outside their communities.



It would be a start to admit there's less social cohesion than they suggest. I live yards away from a 'no go area' that local politicians won't acknowledge that it even exists.


Yes, it would be a start - but whose interest's would it serve to start addressing these problems?



....but everything I've read suggests that education, particularly of women, hinders radicalisation. Similarly, educated (and perhaps here's the crucial bit) employed people tend to be more content and less likely to see answers in extremist politics or beliefs.


I think there's more than just an element of truth in that - but the fact remains that the source of the conflict between Islam and 'the west' lies in the diametrically opposed viewpoints on things like freedom of thought, speech, faith.

I read an interesting article today on BBC News website about the difference between the US and Chinese governments etc and which has the most validity
www.bbc.co.uk...
I think the same arguement could be used for the Middle East and Islam - possibly another subject worthy of a thread on it's own.





top topics
 
10

log in

join