1
   

AND SO IT BEGINS? SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 05:45 pm
FreeDuck writes
Quote:
Well, I first went to Morocco in 1999, I think. So my impression is one of progress with reservations. I dont know that I can go into my reservations without derailing the thread further, but suffice it to say that progress does not always affect all populations equally. We were talking about people, muslims in particular, and I think that Moroccan people in general are a great example of Islam as lived and I (always have) felt very welcome and safe there. I didnt conduct a poll, but the people I talked with about it abhor terrorism.


I'm sure that 90% or more Muslims in the world abhor terrorism. That isn't the problem however. The problem is that it appears that most peaceful Muslims are afraid to speak out publicly against Muslim terrorist activity when retribution or threat of retribution is so often swift and certain against any Muslim who presumes to disrespect Mohammed or the Quran or Osama bin Laden etc. Even non Muslim's are not immune to this phenomenon. One example: a certain Danish cartoonist. I imagine Salmon Rushdie still watches for assassins in the shadows.

By contrast, almost all Christians everywhere and media sources do not fear to voice or print scathing criticisms of or ridicule of Church leaders and practices. Any Christian group practicing terrorism of any kind would have almost universal condemnation directed toward it.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 06:26 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The problem is that it appears that most peaceful Muslims are afraid to speak out publicly against Muslim terrorist activity when retribution or threat of retribution is so often swift and certain against any Muslim who presumes to disrespect Mohammed or the Quran or Osama bin Laden etc.


On what do you base this? Many muslims and Islamic groups have, in fact, spoken out publicly against terrorism. I mean, Im sure that people who live in areas of Afganistan that are controlled by the taliban feel like they cant speak out for fear of retribution, as Im sure that many people who live in mob-controlled areas of Italy or Sicily also dont speak out publicly against criminal activity. Do you really think the average muslim is afraid of Osama bin Laden? I can tell you my friends and family in Morocco are not afraid of religious extremists as they know that they are in the minority. Obviously I cant speak to other parts of the muslim world, but I think you are making a very general statement about people that is, at least, incorrect.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 06:31 pm
I just googled -- muslims condemn terrorism -- and found this http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php. Thats just one site and those are just in English. I dont get the same impression that you get.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 06:59 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
I just googled -- muslims condemn terrorism -- and found this http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php. Thats just one site and those are just in English. I dont get the same impression that you get.


This does provide the first valid rebuttal I've seen to the article I posted. I'm not sure that CAIR qualifies as a Muslim group but I won't dismiss it out of hand. You are coming relatively late to the thread and may not have seen the article that started this whole line of discussion NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE HERE

And there are a lot of sites like this too:
FREEMUSLIMS.ORG

Most of the links on your list have several years age on them as does mine. I wonder if we can find something more current? Perhaps later. Right now it's time for "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader".
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 07:12 pm
Quote:
Major survey challenges Western perceptions of Islam

Feb 27, 2008

WASHINGTON (AFP) ?- A huge survey of the world's Muslims released Tuesday challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence.

The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism.

It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington.

"Samuel Harris said in the Washington Times (in 2004): 'It is time we admitted that we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam'," Dalia Mogahed, co-author of the book "Who Speaks for Islam" which grew out of the study, told a news conference here.

"The argument Mr Harris makes is that religion in the primary driver" of radicalism and violence, she said.

"Religion is an important part of life for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and if it were indeed the driver for radicalisation, this would be a serious issue."

But the study, which Gallup says surveyed a sample equivalent to 90 percent of the world's Muslims, showed that widespread religiosity "does not translate into widespread support for terrorism," said Mogahed, director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.

About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews.

In majority Muslim countries, overwhelming majorities said religion was a very important part of their lives -- 99 percent in Indonesia, 98 percent in Egypt, 95 percent in Pakistan.

But only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed -- the radicals -- condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001, the poll showed.

Moderate Muslims interviewed for the poll condemned the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington because innocent lives were lost and civilians killed.

"Some actually cited religious justifications for why they were against 9/11, going as far as to quote from the Koran -- for example, the verse that says taking one innocent life is like killing all humanity," she said.

Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed.

The survey shows radicals to be neither more religious than their moderate counterparts, nor products of abject poverty or refugee camps.

"The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims," John Esposito, who co-authored "Who Speaks for Islam", said.

"Ironically, they believe in democracy even more than many of the mainstream moderates do, but they're more cynical about whether they'll ever get it," said Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University in Washington.

Gallup launched the study following 9/11, after which US President George W. Bush asked in a speech, which is quoted in the book: "Why do they hate us?"

"They hate... a democratically elected government," Bush offered as a reason.

"They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

But the poll, which gives ordinary Muslims a voice in the global debate that they have been drawn into by 9/11, showed that most Muslims -- including radicals -- admire the West for its democracy, freedoms and technological prowess.

What they do not want is to have Western ways forced on them, it said.

"Muslims want self-determination, but not an American-imposed and -defined democracy. They don't want secularism or theocracy. What the majority wants is democracy with religious values," said Esposito.

The poll has given voice to Islam's silent majority, said Mogahed.

"A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority," she told AFP.

Muslims in 40 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East were interviewed for the survey, which is part of Gallup's World Poll that aims to interview 95 percent of the world's population.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 07:18 pm
Quote:
20,000 scholars term terrorism un-Islamic: Declaration issued at Darul-Uloom Deoband

LUCKNOW, Feb 25: Muslim scholars on Monday condemned terrorism as un-Islamic. They issued the edict at a leading madressah in northern India which some believe inspired the Taliban movement, a senior cleric said.

A declaration by scholars and clerics representing different sects of Islam also called on the government to ensure Muslims were not harassed in the name of terrorism, Maulana Shaukat told reporters.

Speaking from the 150-year-old Darul-Uloom Deoband in Saharanpur, 435km from the Uttar Pradesh capital, he said about 20,000 scholars and clerics took part.

The declaration said: "Islam is a religion of mercy for all humanity. Islam sternly condemns all kinds of oppression, violence and terrorism.

"It has regarded oppression, mischief, rioting and murder among severest sins and crimes. Islam prohibits killing of innocent people."

The group called on the government to ensure "the Muslim community are not harassed and tortured in the name of terrorism".

Adil Siddiqui, another spokesman for the Deoband school, noted that "whenever there is any incident of terrorism, every possible attempt is made to link it to Muslims, particularly who have studied in madressahs. This is totally wrong."

The declaration comes after several incidents of global terrorism involving Indian Muslims. The most prominent is Kafeel Ahmed, an Indian aeronautical engineer, who died during a botched attempt to attack Glasgow airport in June last year.

His brother Sabeel, a doctor, is also being investigated by British police over his alleged involvement in the Glasgow attack. Charges against a third Indian, Mohammed Haneef, a doctor working at a hospital in Australia's Gold Coast, collapsed.

Political analyst Rasheed Kidwai welcomed the declaration, saying: "In the Indian context, the declaration is significant as it reflects the growing anxiety among the clergy over the involvement of some Indians in alleged terror plots."?-AFP
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 07:29 pm
This is an interesting article, published in Pakistan Daily, about an Arab-American Muslim writer who lives in Florida. It addresses many of the questions raised earlier. Longish, but interesting read.

Quote:
Muslims Condemn terrorism

Tuesday, 03 June 2008 16:47 | www.daily.pk

An Arab-American Muslim writer who lives in Florida says many Muslims do condemn terrorism ?- we just don`t hear about it in the American news media. It is inaudibility syndrome for which Muslims themselves are responsible. Some of them raised their voice, that too feeble, against the monster of terrorism when Islamist terrorists attacked the U.S. However, She has made some interesting observations.

She says: Yet Americans continue to ask: ?'Why don`t Muslims condemn terrorism? We keep waiting for the so-called moderates to speak out against violence and yet no one comes forward.' A man in the audience asked me this question recently when I was invited to speak at a Unitarian Fellowship about what Arabs think about the United States and Americans. I had just finished saying that many of the Arab people I interviewed for my book a year ago in Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait had condemned fanatics like Osama bin Laden.

Perhaps the man wasn`t listening. And honestly, what if many Muslims condemn terrorism day in and day out? Will this make terrorism go away? I speak to the public several times a month and at half these events the same question is repeated.

I asked the gentleman if he had heard about the Fiqh Council of North America that had recently issued a public fatwa (religious decree) against terrorism. I asked him if he had heard about other prominent Muslim scholars who have taken public stands against terrorism. As always happens with people who ask these questions, he did not know of my examples.

It seems strange that many Americans keep asking a question originating four years ago from a few conservative talking heads and so-called experts. Perhaps this question has been parroted by TV commentators and reporters so much that we have stopped thinking for ourselves. But I believe that we can still think and find the truth on our own. If we try, we might get more answers than questions.

So why does the question persist? The answer is simple. How often do you see Muslims interviewed on American TV? A few here and there. But how many times do you watch TV shows where non-Muslims and non-Arabs talk about Islam and Arabs as if they were experts? Most of the time.

If you really want to know why you`re not hearing about Muslims publicly condemning terrorism ?- ask the U.S. media this question. Ask them why the images of bin Laden and Zarqawi are better known to the average American than the face and name of Hamza Youssef. Why do such fanatics get more airtime than Youssef and other moderate American-Muslim scholars and thinkers?

Ask why two local newspapers in southwest Florida did not cover a three-lecture series on Islam given by a Muslim, Palestinian-American woman in a Jewish synagogue. Is it because the exchange was civil? Is it because we disagreed amicably? Should we have thrown stones at each other to make the event worthy of coverage?

A year ago, I spoke to a group of humanists who complained that the media refused to cover the event. No wonder people still ask me why American Muslims do not participate in interfaith dialogue. We do participate, but we receive little or no news media coverage.

My recent talk was interesting in many ways. A man said, ?'I agree with only 80 percent of what you said.' I replied. ?'Great! My husband agrees with only 20 percent of what I say.'

I was asked if I thought that U.S. troops in Iraq should be withdrawn. ?'Yes, they should,' I replied. ?'I would especially think so if I were a mother or father of a soldier.'
Another man said, ?'Islam makes people violent because it is like Christianity where followers believe that they must evangelize and convert people into their own faith to be saved. We never hear of Hindu terrorists.'

I reminded him of the assassinations of Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and her son Rajeev, and the horrors of Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. None of them were Muslim. Would it be fair to condemn their faiths because of the actions of a few?

I asked the man where Judaism and Christianity would be today if Muslims were truly required by their faith to convert Jews and Christians. What were Muslims doing over the past 1,400 years? Not converting others to their faith.

The questions were pointed, thoughtful and challenging. ?'Did the U.S. attack on the Iraqi city of Fallujah cause more terrorism?' ?'Are the recent bombings in Jordan related to the U.S. Army presence in Iraq?' ?'What do you think of Ahmed Chalabi`s visit to Washington?' ?'Is it true that Arabs teach hatred of Americans in schools?' One woman asked me what I thought of the statement made by the president of Iran about wiping Israel off the map. Another asked, ?'If there is an independent Palestinian state, will Gaza survive?'

So you see ?- there are vibrant, inquisitive American minds wanting to know more and understand better. Unfortunately, such dialogues are not sensational news, so they become missed opportunities. Next time you wonder why you don`t hear of Muslims condemning terrorism ?- ask the American media.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 07:45 pm
Following the February declaration by Muslim scholars at the Darul-Uloom in Deoband, India came this - a fatwa condemning terrorism:

Quote:
India: Anti terror fatwa: But who Is listening?

11-06-2008
By Salil Kader


31 May 2008 was an important day for all those opposed to acts of terrorism being carried out around the world and which are wrongly attributed to Islam and its teachings.

On a hot Saturday afternoon New Delhi 's historic Ram Lila maidan witnessed a huge turnout (between 10,000-15,000) of Muslims at a peace-conference organised under the aegis of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Darul Uloom, Deoband.

This meeting was supported by other important organisations including All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow , and leaders of different faiths and sects.

The aim of this anti-terrorism and peace conference was summed up by Darul-Uloom's deputy rector Hazrat Maulana Qari Sayed Mohammed Usman, "Terrorism is the gravest crime as held by Quran and Islam. We are not prepared to tolerate terrorism in any form and we are ready to cooperate with all responsible people."

The highlight of this meet however was a fatwa sought by the Jamiat leader and Member of Parliament, Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani and issued by the Darul Uloom, Deoband.

This fatwa was against all forms of terrorism. The fatwa clearly stated, "Islam is a religion of peace and security. In its eyes, on any part over the surface of the earth spreading mischief, rioting, breach of peace, bloodshed, killing of innocent persons and plundering are the most inhuman crimes."

...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 06:53 am
Interesting articles OE.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 11:27 pm
It is absurd to argue that Islam is a terrorist religion, but it is equally absurd to argue that there is some sort of parity between Christian extremist violence and Muslim extremist violence.

A handful of Christian extremists, in the US, committing murder in response to abortion, while in no way excusable, cannot be compared to the global threat of extremist Islamists. To argue otherwise is just incredibly stupid.

This is not a contest between religions, nor a contest between the Bad Guys of one versus the Bad Guys of another.

That the societies that, generally, are associated with Christianity have advanced well beyond those that are associated with Islam, says little about either religion.

The teachings of Christ have not propelled the West towards modernity, nor have the teaching of Mohammed mired the Middle East in its current backwards state. However it is ridiculous for those who reflexively desire to take the West, Christianity, The US etc down a peg (in the name of objectivity), to suggest that the current extremists of Christianity pose the same threat as the extremists of Islam.

We all know about the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Thirty Years War. We all should also know that none of them are even remotely contemporary.

We have seen arguments that the turmoil in Northern Ireland is a religious war, but this is incorrect. Few, if any, wars are fought on the strict basis of differences in religious dogma, but there is virtually no reason to believe this was the case in Northern Ireland. The conflict in Northern Island was the result of class and political differences that could be associated with, but in no way flowed from, the teachings of a religion or religious sect. IRA bombers never recited passages from the Roman Catechism as they planted their deadly devices. Gunmen from the Royal Ulster Constabulatory never chanted anti-liturgical slogans as they mowed down their Catholic foes.

That Islamist extremists rely upon the very wording of the Koran to justify their crimes does not, necessarily, indict Islam, but it does reveal a foundation of religion in their movement that simply didn't exist among the Irish extremists.

It is wrong to condemn the totality of a religion and its followers for the actions of extremists. It is entirely unnecessary, intellectually dishonest, and politically revealing to attempt to counter this wrong-headed argument with an equivalent condemnation of any other religion (and most pointedly, Christianity).

There is a structual aspect of Islam that makes it difficult for moderate muslims to counter the extremists: There is no central governing bodies that transcend nation-states and regional territories. If the Iman(s) of a certain area ( ie Iran) find favor with extremist behaviors, there is no religious authority to which moderates can look for support and leadership. Unfortunately, a large share of the regional religious hierarchy seems to be more favorably disposed to extremism than moderation.

In any case this is the problem that faces the true believers of Islam. They can cede their religion to extremists or they can exert control. Obviously it will take courage, but that is standard fare for the truly religious. It is not the responsibility of non-believers to accept their claims that Islam is a religion of peace and justice.

It is amusing, to say the least, to see the greatest critics of Christianity come to the defense of Islam. Familiar religion is abhorrent, while the exotic sort is to be understood. Once again a familiar aspect of the anywhere but here, anyone but us loathing of Liberal intellectuals.

(I would have used "self-loathing," but these folks don't loath themselves. They consider themselves above and beyond the failings of their neighbors)
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 11:32 pm
old europe wrote:
Following the February declaration by Muslim scholars at the Darul-Uloom in Deoband, India came this - a fatwa condemning terrorism:

Quote:
India: Anti terror fatwa: But who Is listening?

11-06-2008
By Salil Kader


31 May 2008 was an important day for all those opposed to acts of terrorism being carried out around the world and which are wrongly attributed to Islam and its teachings.

On a hot Saturday afternoon New Delhi 's historic Ram Lila maidan witnessed a huge turnout (between 10,000-15,000) of Muslims at a peace-conference organised under the aegis of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Darul Uloom, Deoband.

This meeting was supported by other important organisations including All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow , and leaders of different faiths and sects.

The aim of this anti-terrorism and peace conference was summed up by Darul-Uloom's deputy rector Hazrat Maulana Qari Sayed Mohammed Usman, "Terrorism is the gravest crime as held by Quran and Islam. We are not prepared to tolerate terrorism in any form and we are ready to cooperate with all responsible people."

The highlight of this meet however was a fatwa sought by the Jamiat leader and Member of Parliament, Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani and issued by the Darul Uloom, Deoband.

This fatwa was against all forms of terrorism. The fatwa clearly stated, "Islam is a religion of peace and security. In its eyes, on any part over the surface of the earth spreading mischief, rioting, breach of peace, bloodshed, killing of innocent persons and plundering are the most inhuman crimes."

...


The religiously political equivalent of an obscure monastic order in Scotland rendering a judgment on a certain Christian behavior.

Not to be dismissed, but to be applauded and encouraged, and yet as evidence that Islam is self-regulating? Please.

In India, of all places, 10,000 to 15,000 people can hardly be considered a "huge turnout."
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 07:09 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The religiously political equivalent of an obscure monastic order in Scotland rendering a judgment on a certain Christian behavior.



Are you referring to the Darul Uloom Deoband and its influence in Islam? Because in that case, the problem seems to be your ignorance rather than the insignificance of that particular Darul Uloom.

...

And your unwillingness to spend 30 seconds Googling and reading up on a topic before publicly displaying that ignorance.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 07:41 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
In India, of all places, 10,000 to 15,000 people can hardly be considered a "huge turnout."


Finn seems intent on displaying other varieties of ignorance. Since 1947, when West Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) were separated from the rest of the subcontinent which became India, there has been no significant population of Muslims in India in any concentration outside of Kashmir. So 10,000 to 15,000 people who are interested in Islam is a large turn out in India, indeed.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 08:01 am
Finn displays his ignorance in other ways, as well. I have already pointed out that the difference between the people in "christian countries" and those in "muslim countries" is largely economic. In the places which can be called "christian countries," the population has something to lose.

Finn ignores the evidence about christian extremist groups in the United States. Finn constructs a strawman to the effect that christianity has assured economic and cultural development in the west, while Islam has retarded such development in the middle east--i made no such argument.

But he ignores the point about the Serbs altogether. Radovan Karadžić, the wacko Sarajevo psychiatrist who became the spiritual leader of the Bosnia Serbs is a fugitive, accused of war crimes, specifically that he ordered ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. One of his earliest and most effective moves in Bosnia was to hammer on the use of the term "Turk" for Bosnian Muslims, knowing the ancient antipathy of Serbs toward Turks would help to demonize the intended victims.

Finn displays an appalling ignorance of the situation in the Six Counties (Ulster is not an appropriate name, given that three of the nine counties of Ulster lie in the Republic). A few people in the Republic, and a great many people in the Six Counties will ask a person their name, knowing how easily one's religion can be identified by their family name. For ambiguous names, they'll even ask how it is spelled--for example, Kelly is a Catholic name, while Kelley is a Protestant name. Finn probably is ignorant of the fact Ian Paisley, the First Minister in Northern Ireland until he resigned just a little over a month ago, has been a Protestant radical since the 1950s. When the Presbyterian church in Northern Ireland would no longer allow Paisley to use their churches for his gospel mission, he founded the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. Paisley and the Free Presbyterians have publicly condemned the Catholic Church and various Popes, stating that Catholic doctrine and liturgical practice mean that they are not christian. But Finn doesn't think it's about religion.

There appear to be a lot of things which Finn things for no better reason than that he thinks he can contruct a position from which to argue--as opposed to thinking them because he has informed himself well and has come to a carefully considered opinion based on the information he has absorbed.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 08:44 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The religiously political equivalent of an obscure monastic order in Scotland rendering a judgment on a certain Christian behavior.


Is this the relevance you assign to all fatwas, or just the ones that go against your accepted view of Islam?
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 03:12 pm
This about sums up this thread-

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/07/14/article-0-01F23B3C00000578-533_468x685.jpg

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/14/politics/politico/main4257077.shtml
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 08:01 am


Perhaps, in your mind. I do not understand what you say. Why do you not just explain yourself, rather than use "sums up"?

Notice the cartoon has no caption, so there can be more than one interpretation. Captionless cartoons usually have ONE obvious meaning to all. This cartoon's meaning is understood, based on a reader's perspective. Therefore, can you give your perspective?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 12:53 pm
Foofie, even you can't be so dense as to think that anything Buttercup there says makes sense. Buttercup (a.k.a. Zippo) lives in his own little world where the only things that matter are the hatred of Jews and the hatred of Bush.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 06:34 pm
Setanta wrote:
Foofie, even you can't be so dense as to think that anything Buttercup there says makes sense. Buttercup (a.k.a. Zippo) lives in his own little world where the only things that matter are the hatred of Jews and the hatred of Bush.


I have no reply.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 03:30 pm
'Shariah'
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/15/2026 at 01:46:57