War on Terror is Wrong - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-29-2005, 02:31 PM   #121
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
Do you get pissed if there's a tornado watch, but no tornado?
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there's obviously gotta still be a threat out there of some kind, otherwise we wouldn't need to raise our terror alert constantly. I'm not saying it's a bad thing we're being warned, I'm just wondering how this war on terror is supposed to be working considering we keep getting warned.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
Security is "insanely" tight? In what way? I travel all the time, I don't see the insanity.
I remember hearing stories about how there've been long waits in lines because of random searches, and other various things along that line. I know people's bags were checked before 9/11, but from the stories I've heard, the security's become a lot tighter, lot more random searching, people are emptying out your bags in public and searching them for stuff, etc., etc. The bottom line is, if this war on terror were working, we wouldn't have needed to tighten our security even a smidge. But some places have anyway. Hell, after the London bombing, New York City really started jumping in to take those kinds of measures with their searching of people. Obviously they fear a terrorist could target us next. A fear which, once again, this war on terror is supposed to be stopping.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
And cities in countries that are our allies getting bombed... I asked the question before so maybe you can answer it... Why aren't they hitting the US instead?
Well, once again, obviously New York City's become more worried about that possiblity. As for why they aren't hitting the U.S., well, I distinctly remember hearing in the news within the past couple of years in particular that they're still sending threats, so they're obviously considering it. They wouldn't even be considering it if this war on terror was working. But they are. And they could do it again. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it never will. Don't get me wrong, I hope to god it never happens again, but their continued threats are troubling.

Also, you mentioned earlier about pointing fingers..."living in denial", yeah, that isn't smug at all, no. Both sides are guilty of that sort of thing, okay?

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 07-29-2005, 05:48 PM   #122
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


Anyway. Comparing the war on drugs to the war on terrorism is as effective as comparing terrorism to racism. They aren't the same thing.
They are both war on ideas that will never disappear.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


I didn't miss the point regarding children. I hear your point. I don't agree with it. I believe that no matter your situation; you don't become a criminal; you don't become a terrorist. It's a choice. Every single time. And if millions in the same situation can NOT make that choice, then the few who do make that choice certainly don't need to. Look at Asia & central Africa; look at all the poverty stricken in the West. These people arn't blowing themselves and innocents up to make a statement. They're in the same boat, in many cases in a far worse boat. They have the same choices and arn't making them.
And they're perfect recruiting grounds, all they need is a Bin Laden type to "charm" them with his hate and twisted version of religion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


So you say you don't know how to help them. So you know what the solution is, you just... don't know what the solution is? Then seriously, what is your point?

No, I don't have a point by point plan. But I fail to see how occupying a country and killing will ever end terrorism. The sons and brothers of the slain will continue with hate for the West it will be a continuous cycle of hate. Afghanistan made sense, we knew where they were(well sorta) and we could attack terrorist camps, there were specific targets. But Iraq was a horribly planned fuck up.

Terrorism will never end by war. It will end through education and destroying the ideology that the West is evil, you don't do that by occupation.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-29-2005, 05:51 PM   #123
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: OC
Posts: 711
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Re: War on Terror is Wrong

Quote:
Originally posted by deep
The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military.
Yeah, these are real diplomats........

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD94505
__________________
cardosino is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 05:55 PM   #124
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
you don't do that by occupation.
And nobody is claiming that you do, it is when the US troops leave and a free country can stand on it's own that that islamist ideology get's knocked around a bit. Terrorism is a symptom of the authoriatian rule in the Islamic world and the absence of peaceful avenues of dissent ~ freedom, democracy and civil societies are the cure to this problem. Iraq was a country where you had a convergence of US interests and the most can be gained.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-31-2005, 09:13 AM   #125
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 10:47 PM
I'm dismayed by the constant arguing of semantics. We are as guilty as the terrorists. Collateral damage is civilians. It is not acceptable for any reason, especially shock and fu**ng Awe

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9612.htm

Morality, Terrorism and the Laws of Motion

Lessons City Bombers Need to Learn from Newton and Donne

By Liaquat Ali Khan

07/30/05 "Counterpunch.org" -- -- Terrorist bombings in London, where a great scientist by the name of Sir Isaac Newton is buried, raise important questions of morality and laws of motion. It is customary to discuss and condemn terrorism in the realm of right and wrong. Terrorism is morally wrong, it is commonly believed, because it kills innocents. This moral conception of terrorism is near universal since all moral systems and religions, including Islam, disapprove of violence directed at innocent men, women, and children. A new moral value, embodied in United Nations General Assembly Resolutions, states that nothing, not even invasion or occupation or oppression, justifies terrorism.

This universal rejection of terrorism, however, is unlikely to stop terrorists. Muslim militants will continue to attack targets, including civilians. And terrorist experts will continue to offer diagnoses and prescriptions that evil is incorrigible or that Islam preaches violence or that terrorists are determined to destroy our freedoms and liberties or that parochial schools ought to be shut down in Pakistan or that Muslim nations must be forcibly democratized.

Gung-ho experts would go further and recommend that the US military undertake more decisive campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and other Islamic countries to root out evil from its source. Bomb them good and plenty, they say.

These experts perhaps mean well. They want to do something to make America safe, instead of giving sermons to evil perpetrators. But they ignore the laws of motion, especially Sir Isaac Newton's law of reciprocal actions. The law states: Whenever one body exerts force upon a second body, the second body exerts an equal and opposite force upon the first body. In popular vernacular, this law is also known as "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Osama bin Laden has translated Newton's law into his own words: "If you bomb our cities, we will bomb yours."

In 1986, US jets bombed Qaddafi's military headquarters and barracks in Tripoli, Libya's capitol and its largest city. A missile went astray and caused fatalities in a civilian neighborhood. In 1998, US missiles destroyed an Aspirin factory in Khartoum, the Sudan's capitol and its biggest city. Civilians were killed but the factory was found to have no terrorist links. The picturesque night bombings of Baghdad, Iraq's capital and its biggest city, during the two Gulf wars, introduced fantasy to the high-tech art of killing. Six million inhabitants of Baghdad lived under terror, night after night. The comprehensive demolition of Falluja, another big city in Iraq, killed hundreds of civilians. Guided and misguided missiles have also killed scores of civilians in many other Muslim cities, including Kandhar, Kut, and Tikrit.

Of course, there is a big moral distinction in all this carnage. The US did not mean to kill civilians in Muslim cities. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has put it well: I can't imagine there's been a conflict in history where there has been less collateral damage, less unintended consequences." Civilian fatalities in Muslim cities must be tolerated, we are told, because no war is clean in killing. But terrorists are different. They have no other intention but to terrorize our civilians and cities. Hence we are good and they are evil, the logic goes, because they have no moral claim to violence as we do.

The distinction above is perhaps fine in the realm of morality. But Newton's laws of motion recognize no such morality. When one body exerts force upon a second body, it cannot say to the second body: I have a good moral reason to hit you. Therefore, do not hit me back. Regardless of morality, the second body will obey the laws of motion.

The laws of motion do not justify terrorist violence. Nor do they merge good and evil. Moral distinctions are important to live in human communities. Only the purest pacifist would claim that all violence is bad. Others would distinguish among forms of violence. Particularly governments would continue to defend violence in the name of morality and national security---ignoring the Newtonian warning that carnage begets carnage.

But all is not bleak. England's ingenuity tells us that natural laws of motion need not be divorced from human morality. English poet John Donne, who shared the 17th century with Newton, and who is also buried in London, captured the union of law and morality in his famous meditation commonly known as For Whom the Bell Tolls, declaring: "Each man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind."

This is the lesson that city bombers need to learn.

Ali Khan is a professor of law at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas. His book A theory of International Terrorism will be published in 2006. He may be reached at ali.khan@washburn.edu
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 07-31-2005, 11:34 AM   #126
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:47 PM
That is not what I get out of the atrticle....

I get that the author agrees with Rumsfeld, that we do hold a morally superior ground to the terrorists.

I also get that violence will bring about more violence, if we apply the Newtonian Laws of physics.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-31-2005, 05:10 PM   #127
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine


In 1986, US jets bombed Qaddafi's military headquarters and barracks in Tripoli, Libya's capitol and its largest city. A missile went astray and caused fatalities in a civilian neighborhood. In 1998, US missiles destroyed an Aspirin factory in Khartoum, the Sudan's capitol and its biggest city. Civilians were killed but the factory was found to have no terrorist links. The picturesque night bombings of Baghdad, Iraq's capital and its biggest city, during the two Gulf wars, introduced fantasy to the high-tech art of killing. Six million inhabitants of Baghdad lived under terror, night after night. The comprehensive demolition of Falluja, another big city in Iraq, killed hundreds of civilians. Guided and misguided missiles have also killed scores of civilians in many other Muslim cities, including Kandhar, Kut, and Tikrit.
The Libyan bombing was a result of the Lockerbie incident.
Executed by Libyan terrorists, it was effectively the retaliation against them, yet no mention of it? No mention of the Marine barracks bombing in 1983 in Beirut? No mention of the Tehran hostages taken for 444 days? Shall I mention other incidents?
The 1998 incident with the pharmecutecal facotry was brought abou tbecause of the two American Embassy bombings, if I am not mistaken. And the USS Cole incident was not even responded to. A casual mention of Baghdad living under terror night after night doesn't even mention Hussein?

Okay, I generally agree that the terrorists want retributions of all sorts, but this article seemed one sided enough to discount totally. Maybe I misunderstood.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 08-01-2005, 02:37 AM   #128
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

They are both war on ideas that will never disappear.

It will end through education and destroying the ideology
Perfect bookends to your argument. I'm moving on. Have a nice day.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-01-2005, 02:47 AM   #129
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
For Honor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 5,278
Local Time: 10:47 PM
War On Terrorism and "The Art Of War"...

I've never really seen those two in the same sentance... I wonder why....

I guess not having war would mean thinking about money differently... Or perhaps, whoose pockets it goes into...


Bush should write his own "Art of war".
I have a feeling, though, that only one of them will accurately depict on how "win a war"

(edited)
__________________
For Honor is offline  
Old 08-01-2005, 02:48 AM   #130
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there's obviously gotta still be a threat out there of some kind, otherwise we wouldn't need to raise our terror alert constantly. I'm not saying it's a bad thing we're being warned, I'm just wondering how this war on terror is supposed to be working considering we keep getting warned.



I remember hearing stories about how there've been long waits in lines because of random searches, and other various things along that line. I know people's bags were checked before 9/11, but from the stories I've heard, the security's become a lot tighter, lot more random searching, people are emptying out your bags in public and searching them for stuff, etc., etc. The bottom line is, if this war on terror were working, we wouldn't have needed to tighten our security even a smidge. But some places have anyway. Hell, after the London bombing, New York City really started jumping in to take those kinds of measures with their searching of people. Obviously they fear a terrorist could target us next. A fear which, once again, this war on terror is supposed to be stopping.



Well, once again, obviously New York City's become more worried about that possiblity. As for why they aren't hitting the U.S., well, I distinctly remember hearing in the news within the past couple of years in particular that they're still sending threats, so they're obviously considering it. They wouldn't even be considering it if this war on terror was working. But they are. And they could do it again. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it never will. Don't get me wrong, I hope to god it never happens again, but their continued threats are troubling.

Also, you mentioned earlier about pointing fingers..."living in denial", yeah, that isn't smug at all, no. Both sides are guilty of that sort of thing, okay?

Angela
I think it seems like your major problem with the war on terror is that's taking time. And I've never argued that it was a quick solution; and neither has anyone else that I know of. The administration has said this will take years. Prior to going into Iraq, they were careful to say this wouldn't be quick.

But to me, the telling fact is that while there are heightened warnings, there have been no attacks. Raising and lowering the threat level is part of the process, which is why I drew the comparison to a tornado warning. It's better to know there's a chance of something coming than not. The fact that there's a potential threat doesn't mean the the process isn't working; especially when you factor in the fact that the threat hasn't materialized. In fact, it proves the opposite.

As to the insanity of security. Waiting in lines doesn't equal insanity. Our homes aren't being randomly searched, our telephones aren't being tapped, and our mail isn't being read. There aren't curfews for adults, the army isn't positioned on our borders, and the press isn't being controlled. (Can't wait for the conspiracy nuts to respond to this). Waiting in line at the airport to show your airline ticket and an ID is not crazy. Don't confuse a MINOR inconvenience with insanity. And believe me, I've experienced it all with regards to our security measures; from travelling via plane soon after 9/11 to heading into NYC during a high terror alert. Waiting in line is an inconvenience; it's not insanity.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-01-2005, 07:56 AM   #131
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 03:47 AM
What a STUPID and SENSELESS article..


America was not supposed to have senseless lawyers
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 08-01-2005, 10:44 AM   #132
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


Perfect bookends to your argument. I'm moving on. Have a nice day.
Oh yes take two lines out of context and then you no longer have to discuss the real issues.

The ideas will always be there but you can stop the spreading and diminsh the believers.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-01-2005, 04:20 PM   #133
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
I think it seems like your major problem with the war on terror is that's taking time. And I've never argued that it was a quick solution; and neither has anyone else that I know of. The administration has said this will take years. Prior to going into Iraq, they were careful to say this wouldn't be quick.
No, that's not my issue with it. I actually support long-term solutions to problems, because that way you can get to the real root of the problems and the long-term payoffs in the end can be worth it. I just don't think this was the course of action we should've taken. We should've taken more diplomatic measures. But yet, people who supported the war whined that that would take too long-well, like you said, so is this. But at least with the diplomatic solutions we probably would have a better standing in the world than we do right now, and wouldn't have some of the problems we're having (also, just saying ahead of time, by "diplomatic", again, I am not saying we should cave in to the terrorists and be all nicey-nice with them. I'm saying we should try and find ways to deal directly with them without having a war that gets innocent people caught up in the crossfire).

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
But to me, the telling fact is that while there are heightened warnings, there have been no attacks. Raising and lowering the threat level is part of the process, which is why I drew the comparison to a tornado warning. It's better to know there's a chance of something coming than not. The fact that there's a potential threat doesn't mean the the process isn't working; especially when you factor in the fact that the threat hasn't materialized. In fact, it proves the opposite.
But it still hasn't stopped them from making their threats. Sure, they haven't materialized yet, but if this war was working, they wouldn't even be making threats. They would have started becoming scared and slowly started to back off from us. But they're not. They're angry, still causing a ruckus, still plotting to harm us, and while it's true they haven't attacked us, they've attacked one of our allies who have supported us in this war. Britain's helped us out with this whole situation, and they still got attacked. So what good is the war the way it's going doing again?

And besides that, we're in a lose-lose situation in Iraq. If we leave, there's problems. If we stay, there's problems. That shouldn't be happening in a war that's supposed to be working wonders. I've also heard stories from some people who are actually fighting in Iraq that they don't like the way this is going, that things aren't working as well as our government wants us to believe. What do you make of those soldiers' thoughts?

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
As to the insanity of security. Waiting in lines doesn't equal insanity. Our homes aren't being randomly searched, our telephones aren't being tapped, and our mail isn't being read. There aren't curfews for adults, the army isn't positioned on our borders, and the press isn't being controlled. (Can't wait for the conspiracy nuts to respond to this). Waiting in line at the airport to show your airline ticket and an ID is not crazy. Don't confuse a MINOR inconvenience with insanity. And believe me, I've experienced it all with regards to our security measures; from travelling via plane soon after 9/11 to heading into NYC during a high terror alert. Waiting in line is an inconvenience; it's not insanity.
Erm, just so you know, when I said "insanely", I wasn't actually referring to the whole concept of something being insane. It's just another way for me to say that the security is very tight at airports and bus stations and subways and whatnot.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 08-02-2005, 04:10 AM   #134
Refugee
 
LoveTown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 1,359
Local Time: 11:47 PM
First of all I have to state that I haven't read all the posts here before posting this.

Without trying to step on too many toes here I will say just one thing. Saying things like "if you are not with us you are against us" will NOT help the war on terrorism.

Also, the war in Iraq certainly won't help either. It simply gives the world more reason to hate the US.

And PLEASE don't start saying things like "the US doesn't need anybody else" because that mindset is disturbing. We are a global community, no one nation stands alone and never will.
__________________
LoveTown is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 01:58 PM   #135
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


No, that's not my issue with it. I actually support long-term solutions to problems, because that way you can get to the real root of the problems and the long-term payoffs in the end can be worth it. I just don't think this was the course of action we should've taken. We should've taken more diplomatic measures. But yet, people who supported the war whined that that would take too long-well, like you said, so is this. But at least with the diplomatic solutions we probably would have a better standing in the world than we do right now, and wouldn't have some of the problems we're having (also, just saying ahead of time, by "diplomatic", again, I am not saying we should cave in to the terrorists and be all nicey-nice with them. I'm saying we should try and find ways to deal directly with them without having a war that gets innocent people caught up in the crossfire).


What more diplomatic measures were there to take? And who was there to be diplomatic with? Sadam Hussein? The guy who tortured olympic athletes for not winning? The guy who used rape squads to rape the wives and daughters of political dissenters? No one "whined" that diplomatic measures would take too long. Diplomatic measures didn't work. We'd been dealing with Saddam since prior to '91. We even left him in power after Desert Storm to renew a diplomatic solution. At that point he committed genocide against the Kurds.

As to a better standing in the world... Make no mistake; the main European dissenters to the Iraq war: France, Germany & Russia had MAJOR oil contracts signed with Saddam and were just waiting for the embargo to be lifted. They knew without Saddam in power, those contracts would be null and void.

By dealing directly with terrorists; what you are doing is recognizing them. And more than anything; recognition is what terrorists crave. So you are in fact "caving" whether that is what you intended or not. And how do you negotiate anyway with Al Queda when our very existence is what Al Queda takes offense to? They made no claims prior to the 9/11 attack. There were no demands. They don't want anything. So what exactly are we supposed to negotiating? That we won't live the way we do? That we won't breathe so much?



Quote:
But it still hasn't stopped them from making their threats. Sure, they haven't materialized yet, but if this war was working, they wouldn't even be making threats. They would have started becoming scared and slowly started to back off from us. But they're not. They're angry, still causing a ruckus, still plotting to harm us, and while it's true they haven't attacked us, they've attacked one of our allies who have supported us in this war. Britain's helped us out with this whole situation, and they still got attacked. So what good is the war the way it's going doing again?
Who cares about threats? And why does the fact that making threats mean the war isn't working? I can threaten the IRS that I won't pay taxes till I'm blue in the face. But on tax day, there I am in front of the computer with TaxCut cussing my guts out. In other words, you can plot and plot and be angry; but as long as your actions still conform to the guidlines (ie, no terrorist attacks, still paying taxes, etc) seriously; I don't have a problem.


Quote:
And besides that, we're in a lose-lose situation in Iraq. If we leave, there's problems. If we stay, there's problems. That shouldn't be happening in a war that's supposed to be working wonders. I've also heard stories from some people who are actually fighting in Iraq that they don't like the way this is going, that things aren't working as well as our government wants us to believe. What do you make of those soldiers' thoughts?
Why? Was it supposed to be an overnight deal? It's a process. Would you have said the same thing during the first year of WWII? Or any war for that matter. You can lose battles but still win a war. That's so true it's become probably the most common cliche in the English language. You seem to have a major reasoning contradiction here: You say you are looking for a long term solution; but at the same time you are criticizing the war because it isn't moving fast enough for you.

As to soldiers; listen, soldiers bitch. It's part of being a soldier. I certainly wouldn't be a happy camper in plus-120 degree heat wearing a full pack and someone taking pot shots at me and trying to blow me up. And on top of that the VAST VAST VAST majority of soldiers believe in what they're doing in Iraq. All you have to do to know that's true is look at who overwhelmingly the soldiers voted for in the last election.

And look at what's happening over there. Despite the attacks, the new Iraqi government is forging ahead. A new constitution is being written, a new police force is being trained. If it weren't for the terrorists coming into Iraq from other countries; it would be relatively peaceful at this point. Which leads to another telling fact; if the Iraqis were so unhappy with us there would be more of an Iraqi resistance. Which there isn't. It's a foreign resistance.

Quote:
Erm, just so you know, when I said "insanely", I wasn't actually referring to the whole concept of something being insane. It's just another way for me to say that the security is very tight at airports and bus stations and subways and whatnot.

Angela
I know; you were exaggerating. Which is insanely common from the anti war crowd.
__________________

__________________
Snowlock is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com