Will the West Survive?

Although I am not a high school drop out; I am more with bi-polar about trying to keep up with you brainy types. No offense intended, in truth I am envious.

All I really know is just bits I heard that at the end of the Roman empire they were fighting everybody and that's what brought them down. If we keep folks with philosophies like bush's (with us or against us) attitude we could go down in the same manner as that great empire. In other words I agree with the following:

Quote:

Well, America is making the same mistakes today that brought down Empires of the past........

I can just see in my over active imagination a picture of George Bush demanding Bush worship the same as Domitian and other Roman emperors demanded Ceasar worship. If george had lions I guess those of us who do not fall down on our knees would be fed to the lions; as it is I guess we are "traitors" or "unpatriotic" or terrorist sympathizers or outright terrorist ourselves and then we fall on the "against us" side.

0 Replies

In response to the 'religious bigotry', 'racist', and/or 'arrogance' charges, here is what Williams said in his essay:

Quote:

You say, "Williams, you can't make an indictment of a whole people and their religion!" I'm not, and let me clearly state: By no means are all Muslims murderers. But on the other hand, I've never heard broad Muslim condemnation of their fellow Muslims' murderous acts committed in the name of their God. If anything, there has been jubilation and dancing in the streets in the wake of Muslim attacks on Westerners. Contrast their response to the widespread Western condemnation of the, mild by comparison, behavior of a few coalition forces in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison

Now maybe this isn't politically correct. But can anybody say that it is wrong?

0 Replies

Re: Will the West Survive?
A blitzkrieg:

Foxfyre wrote:

The Muslim world is at war with Western civilization.

Sort of.

Quote:

We have the military might to thwart them.

No we don't.

Further, attempting to solve this conflict - which has been raging in one form or another for a mellenia - by resorting to traditional military actions will result in an increase in anti-American sentiment, of which terrorism is the tip of the iceburg.

Quote:

The question is: Do we have the intelligence to recognize the attack and the will to defend ourselves from annihilation? Their intent is clear, but let's refresh our memories with a bit of history.

I could make an cogent argument that the imperial amibitions and brutally ecumenical outlook of Western civilization makes Islamic aggression look petty by comparison.

Quote:

In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Tehran was taken over and 52 hostages held for more than a year. In 1983, U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up, killing 241 U.S. soldiers. In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was bombed, killing 270 people. In 1993, there was the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and in 2001, it was reduced to rubble, killing more than 3,000 Americans. In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, resulting in more than 200 dead and 4,000 injured. Who are the people responsible for these and other wanton murders of innocents, including the recent barbaric beheading of two innocent men? They were all Muslims.

Would you like me to run down a list of Western actions in Muslim countries? Imposing dictatorships, supplying ruthless leaders with weapons, repeated invasions, etc, etc, etc.

Quote:

Phil Lucas, editor of the Panama City, Fla., News Herald, in his April 4, 2004, editorial "Up Against Fanaticism," asks, "Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved?" Lucas says, "They can't get along with their neighbors on much of the planet: France, Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia, Spain, Morocco, India, Tunisia, Somalia, etc., etc., etc."

Muslims are involved in a disproportionally large amount of conflicts throughout the world. This is true. I'd be carefull what conclusions I draw based on this though.

Quote:

My colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell observes, "Those in the Islamic world have for centuries been taught to regard themselves as far superior to the 'infidels' of the West, while everything they see with their own eyes now tells them otherwise."

This is incredibly ironic, given the fact that one of Western civilizations central traits is the belief that Western values should be promoted into universal values, and that much of Western history consists of us conquoring other nations and attempting to impose our beliefs on them.

Quote:

He adds, "Nowhere have whole peoples seen their situation reversed more visibly or more painfully than the peoples of the Islamic world." Sowell adds that few people, once at the top of civilization, accept their reversals of fortune gracefully. Moreover, they don't blame themselves for their plight. For the Muslim world, it's the West who's to blame.

This is true, although it is hardly a revelation.

Quote:

History never repeats itself exactly, but we might benefit from the knowledge of factors leading to the decline of past great civilizations. Rome was one of those advanced civilizations. Rome was so caught up in "bread and circuses" and moral decline that it couldn't manage to defend itself from invading barbaric hordes who ultimately plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. The sooner we recognize the West is in a war for survival, the more likely we'll be able to escape the fate that befell the Roman Empire.

Indeed, we should look to history for some guidance here. I find it slightly bizarre though, that Williams looks into history and find justification for launching a military assault on the Islamic world based on some absurd notion that Islamic society is inherantly pugnacious and needs to be kept in check by American military might.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In response to the 'religious bigotry', 'racist', and/or 'arrogance' charges, here is what Williams said in his essay:

Quote:
You say, "Williams, you can't make an indictment of a whole people and their religion!" I'm not, and let me clearly state: By no means are all Muslims murderers. But on the other hand, I've never heard broad Muslim condemnation of their fellow Muslims' murderous acts committed in the name of their God. If anything, there has been jubilation and dancing in the streets in the wake of Muslim attacks on Westerners. Contrast their response to the widespread Western condemnation of the, mild by comparison, behavior of a few coalition forces in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison

Now maybe this isn't politically correct. But can anybody say that it is wrong?

Yes. It is wrong.

The assumption is that people in the Middle East are somehow less human because of their religion (i.e. they are Muslim) or their ethnicity (i.e. they are Arab). This is a bigoted opinion, and it is wrong.

First of all, the jubilation you are referring to (I assume after 9/11) is completely despicable. However it speaks to the dark side of human nature. It is part of all of us, and not specirifically Muslim.

I remember in 1991 during the first Gulf war, people in my church (yes a church) were selling tshirt celebrating the so-called "highway of death" where thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered by US bombs. Think of how you would have felt about this if you were Iraqi. (Incidently this marked an important point in my journey away from organized christianity.)

The celebrations in the Middle East also marked a small number of Muslims.

Secondly, 23% of Americans approve of the actions of this "small number" of soldiers in Abu Graib (i.e. sodomy and dog attacks). People tend to let themselves hate in times of conflict. 23% of Americans is not a small number.

Thirdly there was strong condemnation of 9/11 from within the Middle East. There is strong condemnation of the beheadings now.

In times of conflict, people tend to demonize their opponents. If you demonize people you fear, you don't have to treat them as human beings. You accept, or even celebrate their hardships.

This is true in the Middle East as well as in America. This explains how 9/11 terrorists can justify the murder of thousands of innocents. It also explains how soldiers can sodomize prisoners, and how 23% of Americans can support it. It explains how a country that is based on liberty and justice for all can imprison people as young as 14 years old for years, and it explains how Middle Easterners and Americans alike can celebrate the deaths of fellow human beings.

Muslims are human beings. They are subject to the same loves and joys and passions and hatred that we are.

In a conflict they can be driven by bigotry to accept things that are inhumane.

The perspective shown by Williams and others is not that different than the perspective of the 9/11 terrorists. They say our enemies, and everyone like them, are less then human and deserving of ill.

0 Replies

ebrown writes:

Quote:

Yes. It is wrong.

The assumption is that people in the Middle East are somehow less human because of their religion (i.e. they are Muslim) or their ethnicity (i.e. they are Arab). This is a bigoted opinion, and it is wrong.

I don't see that Williams said anything like that. What he observed is that it isn't Irish Protestants or Catholics or Lutheran Germans or Buddhist monks doing and/or condoning these attacks. It is radical militant Islamic terrorists. Muslims. To say they are Muslims is neither incorrect, racists, or bigoted. It's the truth.

Quote:

First of all, the jubilation you are referring to (I assume after 9/11) is completely despicable. However it speaks to the dark side of human nature. It is part of all of us, and not specirifically Muslim.

You know of people other than Muslims who are firing their rifles into the air, dancing, laughing, rejoicing when Islamic terrorists kill, burn, pull apart and hang civilian contractors on fences? Use car bombs to kill innocent men, women, and children? Assassinate civilian leaders who want to lead Iraq into free and open prosperity? Who fly airplanes loaded with innocent passengers into buildings? Really? Where are these non-Muslim terrorists on any kind of large scale?

Quote:

I remember in 1991 during the first Gulf war, people in my church (yes a church) were selling tshirt celebrating the so-called "highway of death" where thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered by US bombs. Think of how you would have felt about this if you were Iraqi. (Incidently this marked an important point in my journey away from organized christianity.)

Do you recall that it was Iraq who was the aggressor in 1991? That Iraq invaded and almost destroyed a smaller country and would have taken Saudi Arabia as well if the coalition hadn't stopped them at the border? Were the people in your church celebrating deaths? Or victory? There's a huge difference. Militant Islamic terrorists by contrast celebrate the brutal decapitation of a civilian who wasn't doing anything but helping them build an infrastructure.

Quote:

The celebrations in the Middle East also marked a small number of Muslims.

Small in comparison to the whole Muslim population of the world, I agree. I further agree, as does Williams, that most Muslims are not angry, not militant, not dangerous. But it is the small number who are getting the press. And there are almost no Islamic heads of state or other leaders who are standing tall to denounce terrorism and demand their Islamic brethren cease and desist. Their media is non critical and sometimes even complimentary of the terrorists. When Muslims will not condemn Muslims, a consent is implied.

Quote:

Secondly, 23% of Americans approve of the actions of this "small number" of soldiers in Abu Graib (i.e. sodomy and dog attacks). People tend to let themselves hate in times of conflict. 23% of Americans is not a small number.

Where do you get this 23%? And is it the specific activity in Abu Ghraib to which they consent? Or is it the belief that aggressive interrogation techniques can be justified when innocent lives are at stake? If it is the later, I would refer you to several other threads where this has been debated at length.

Quote:

Thirdly there was strong condemnation of 9/11 from within the Middle East. There is strong condemnation of the beheadings now.

Again show me in the Islamic media where there is strong condemnation or any condemnation. Where are the Islamic leaders standing up to publicly condemn these practices and promising retribution to those who do them? Yes a few have stated it is against orthodox Islamic law. But I have seen precious little public condemnation and/or demands to cease and desist.

Quote:

In times of conflict, people tend to demonize their opponents. If you demonize people you fear, you don't have to treat them as human beings. You accept, or even celebrate their hardships.

This is true in the Middle East as well as in America. This explains how 9/11 terrorists can justify the murder of thousands of innocents. It also explains how soldiers can sodomize prisoners, and how 23% of Americans can support it. It explains how a country that is based on liberty and justice for all can imprison people as young as 14 years old for years, and it explains how Middle Easterners and Americans alike can celebrate the deaths of fellow human beings.

Again show me where widespread terrorim is occuring that does not have fundamental islamic terrorists involved in it if not specifically doing it.

Muslims are human beings. They are subject to the same loves and joys and passions and hatred that we are.

Yes they are. And most aren't terrorists. It's just that most of the terrorists are Muslim.

Quote:

In a conflict they can be driven by bigotry to accept things that are inhumane.

The perspective shown by Williams and others is not that different than the perspective of the 9/11 terrorists. They say our enemies, and everyone like them, are less then human and deserving of ill.

Again I cannot find anything in Williams' piece to suggest this. What he is suggesting that people who strive so hard to 'understand the anger of the terrorists' and who 'sympathise' with the terrorists are the ones who are most likely to be overrun by them and cause the rest of us to be overrun by them too.

I think I'll stick with Williams' take on this. I vote for getting mad at the terrorists instead of those who oppose them.

0 Replies

ILZ writes:

Quote:

Further, attempting to solve this conflict - which has been raging in one form or another for a mellenia - by resorting to traditional military actions will result in an increase in anti-American sentiment, of which terrorism is the tip of the iceburg.

This seems to be the anti-War on Terrorism mantra lately. Lets don't fight them because they might get mad and hurt us.

0 Replies

we don't need to worry about terrorists, we have the roots of our demise in our own hubris.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

What do you call "terrorism"?

To say that most of the acts of violence, brutality and unspeakable inhumanity are done by Muslims is simply wrong.

If you define "terrorism" as violent acts done by muslims, and then make these acts somehow "worse" than acts done by christians or others ... of course you can justifyany hateful attitude, or even inhumane actions.

Look at the acts of brutality perpretated by the Lord's resistance army in Africa, the Serbian Christians, the Russian army, and Hindus at Bujarat. Why Is the genocide in Rwanda somehow less barbaric than 9/11?

You are simply defining "terrorism" as worse and use this to support your view that Muslims are more "barbaric" than anyone else.

In the 80's death squads supported by the US in Central America entered indian villages and murdered women, men and children en mass. Was this terrorism? Was this somehow OK? Why?

Foxfyre, you are walking a very fine line. You label and condemn some acts of brutality as "terrorism" while you ignore others. There is no logic here other than the logic of religious prejudice.

I don't support terrorism. Period. I don't support injustice or inhumanity period. It doesn't matter me the religion or the color of the skin, people should not be treated injustly. This is why I oppose the 9/11 attacks and suicide bombings. This is why I was horrified by Rwanda and apartheid South Africa and Tieneman Square.

I am mad at anyone who uses brutal violence against civilians. They should be prosecuted regardless of their relgion or their race or the color of their skin.

Perhaps at least you can agree with this.

This rhetoric that demonizes Muslims doesn't do anything to decrease the number of brutal acts the world.

I oppose "terrorism". I oppose hatred and bigotry, brutality and injustice. I will oppose it regardless of who does it or who is the victim.

.And I oppose the Americans who insist on spreading fear and hate in the hypocritical ruse of "oppsing" terrorists.

0 Replies

Then ebrown, you are saying that if all the Militant Islamic Terrorists laid down their bombs, rocket launchers, rifles, and others weapons of mayhem and took up peaceful farming tomorrow, there would be no noticable effect on the amount of terrorism in the world?

We did help stop the Serbs didn't we? Was that wrong? Was it wrong to oppose the Nazis in WWII? Was it wrong to oppose the USSR?

We didn't lift a finger to help the Rwandan Tutsi's who were being massacred.....oddly enough it was a small peaceful Muslim community who were the most helpful to the Tutsi and, though it was also largely Muslim Huti who were committing the Genocide, the Church attempted to appease the terrorists instead of protecting the innocent. As a result, Islam is the fastest growing religion in Rwanda today. The brave Belgium and French pulled their troops out almost immediately when some of their numbers were killed in terrorist attacks. This left nobody to stop the terrorists.

Of course it has not been Islam who has committed all the evil in the world. Nor is more than a small part of Islam evil now. But can you think of any conflict going on in the world today that does not involve Islam? If there are any, they are small and rare.

I still think Williams is right on target.

0 Replies

Oh Foxfyre, you are confusing the two very different issues.

1) I agree with you that opposing people who are commiting crimes, especially brutal barbaric crimes is a good thing. I am glad we opposed the Nazi's. I wish we had done more to stop the Serbs. We should have done more to stop the Rwandan genocide.

2) I disagree with you when you demonize Muslims. Even the arguments you use to justify your beliefs are simply aren't logical or based on facts.

You ask if I can think of" any conflict going on in the world today that doesn't involve Islam?"

I will answer that, but first I want to point out that this question shows an underlying prejudice. You are trying to justify your belief that somehow Muslims are more barbaric.

Now to answer your question -- yes.

The Shining Path in Peru and the FARC in Colombia are both active violent resistance movements. The North Korea- South Korea conflict is a very flammible situation with a heavily militarized border and threats of WMD's.

As with most prejudicial beliefs, yours are based on faulty premises that don't hold up under objective logic.

But just for laughs, can you think of any conflict going on in the world today that does not involve Christianity?

I will support reasonble actions to stop terrorists including military action at times. Terrorists are people who commit barbaric crimes against helpless civilians.

I will not support a holy war against Muslim's.

0 Replies

What I fear, is that when people openly start to shout 'most terrorists are Muslims', the public gets a picture which settles with 'terrorist=Muslim'. That is what I fear. You can say whatever you want, but after 9/11, anti-Islamic sentiments rose, both in Europe as in the US/Canada. I recall Muslim schools being burned, Muslim graves being damaged. This is not what the West stands for. But do not expect all people to understand all what's behind it - that a minority of Muslims is involved in terrorist activities for instance. That's why we should not fall back to polarization. Sadly enough, I do think that this is polarization, mainly because 1) it is not proven that conflicts in which Muslims are involved have their source in Islam, 2) not all terrorists are Muslim. By saying 'most terrorists are Muslim', you can imply by that that (in the eyes of the general public) 1) these terrorists have roots in Islam, which can lead to the assumption: Islam is connected with terrorism (again, in the eyes of the general public); and it can lead to 2) non-Muslim terrorists are being pushed to the background (also because most people in the West have no idea about non-Muslim terrorists through all the media attention Muslim terrorists get).

0 Replies

I don't demonize Muslims ebrown. Nor is Williams demonizing Muslims.

But he refuses to engage in the political correctness crap that makes some want to avoid phrases like radical militant Islamic fundamentalist terrorists when that is what they are. To pretend otherwise is just plain short sighted and foolish. And when other Muslims do not denounce their own who do unconscionable things, it can only be believed there is a measure of consent and/or approval. Those Muslims who do denounce it deserve much credit and appreciation for that and a lot more press than they are getting.

It is just as ridiculous to say "a certain hostile totalitarian regime' or a middle eastern country is developing nuclear weapons to avoid offending the North Koreans or the Iranians, or say 'South American combatants' to avoid offending the Peruvians. And yes there are other uglies going on the world. However, it isn't the North Koreans or the Iranians or the Peruvians or anybody else who has sworn to destroy us. It is only the radical militant Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who have sworn to destroy us and who have the ability to do it if we don't pay attention.

And is is because they are radical Islamic fundamentalsts that they consider it necessary to destroy us.

Could you please point out these Christian groups who, in the name of Christianity, are now determined to destroy a whole people? For that matter, those medieval ethnic cultures who comprised the Barbarians do not deserve to be thrown in the same class with modern Islamic terrorists. Except in a few isolated cases, they were nowhere near as ruthless.

Is it wrong to point out that it was Christians who conducted the Crusades and/or the Inquisition? Or that it was Nazis who exterminated six million Jews in the Holocaust? Why not? Wouldn't that hurt the feelings of people of the Christian faith or Germans? But in comparison, I don't know any Christians now who would deny that it was Christians who committed those atrocities and who do not officially denounce it now. I don't know any Germans who would deny it was German Nazis committing atrocities in WW II and who do not officially denounce it now.

Williams' thesis is that the people of the world who do value all the good things that humans of all races, cultures and religions are capable of must recognize there are bad people who want to control all the rest and who will do unconscionable acts to achieve that. In today's world, the only ones who fit that description and have power to wreck havoc on a global scale happen to be radical militant fundamental Islamics. And they do not deny it. And they aren't denouncing it.

0 Replies

None of you Anti-Muslim ranters have yet explained how you're going to identify the "radical militant Islamic fundamentalist terrorists" when you go over there to wipe them out. That's a point none of you will address. If Eric Rudolph lived across the street from you, and had never been identified as a radical militant christian fundamentalist terrorist, was friendly, smiled at you, was nice to your children and respectful to older people, all the while building bombs in his basement, you'd never know it. You'd think him a good guy. Furthermore, if all of you lived in poverty, and perceived it to be the fault of an oppressive government, you'd never drop the dime on him, or give any information to investigators. You'd think him some kind of hero fighting for you.

So, when you go over there to wipe out the radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, how are you going to find them? They can blend into the population, and get support from the population, and always will--unless and until the legitimate basis for greivances are removed in their homelands. While you cruise down the road in your gas-guzzlers, burning gasoline refined from Arabian oil, pumped out of the ground and sold to us by regimes rightfully seen as oppressive stooges of the West, they are breeding the terrorists.

So how are you gonna tell the good guys from the bad guys? You think the bad guys all wear black burnooses? You people fracture me. The more simplistic you can make the equation, the more smug and self-satisfied you are. What a bunch of clowns, and dangerous clowns at that--this kind of ignorance endangers us all by hindering the sort of reasonable policies which could get us out of this mess. The way clowns like Reagan and the Bush dynasty have screwed things up, with corporate welfare and getting into bed with the regimes which produce the oil, it could take generations to sort it all out, even if we start now. But we're not doing one damned useful thing about the situation, while the right regales us with childishly stupid chin music about " radical militant Islamic fundamentalist terrorists."

You can't tell the playerw without a score-card, and the right doesn't even know the name of the game.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

You make this too easy. The rhetoric of prejudice always has holes. They are not always as easy to see.

1) There are Christian groups in this country who, in the name of Christianity who are determinted to exterminate the Jews blacks and Mexicans.

2) Did you notice how you switched between "Nazi's" and "Germans". You didn't say the "German's" wanted to exterminate six million Jews. You didn't even say "radical German fundamentalists" - you said Nazi's.

In the same vein hy can't you just say Al Qaeda? What is this need to disparage an entire religion?

You are insisting on keeping the word "islamic" in the term for a group of people who are commiting barbaric acts. Yet you have admitted that the vast majoric of people who are "islamic" neither support or are involved. Furthermore you admit that there are many other brutal acts of barbarism commited around the world commited by people who are not "islamic".

At the heart of this discussion is racism, pure and simple. If you say you oppose Nazi's, I will agree with wholeheartedly. Say that Germans are brutal people and (as one with German blood) I will have words with you.

You are masking your prejudice in this flawed rhetoric. It doesn't cover you very well.

0 Replies

Ebrown, all radical militant Islamic fundamentalists aren't Al Qaida. Al Qaida is merely the best known, publicized, and probably largest terrorist organization. And you'll note that I do not say "Muslim" when condemning what Al Qaida and others do; I say radical militant fundamentalist Muslims/Islam.

The Nazis were not Nazis because they were German. They were Germans who were Nazis. Christians covered a broad spectrum of races and nationalities. The Crusades and the Inquisition were not carried out by French, Germans, Spanish, etc. They were carried out by Christians who were French, Germans, Spanish, etc.

The same is true of Islam. Are you saying Islam is a race? That would sure be a surprise to those from Indonesia, Arabia, Africa, U.S. etc. who are Asian, black African, and Caucasian. Therefore it is very difficult to make a case for racism strictly by the use of the term Muslim or Islamic.

Prejudice against a religion? Again, not unless I include all members of that faith. I haven't and I don't.

Can you read my previous post and honestly say I have not acknowledged that Islamic terrorists are not the only terrorists? Will you acknowledge that it is Islamic terrorists who are pledged to destroy us. What other groups have pledged destruction and jihad on practically the entire West? To equate regional conflicts with the global scale of the Islamic terrorist threat is to trivialize true global terrorism.

To not call radical militant fundamentalist Islamic terrorists what they are is just mushy, fuzzy, politically correct nonsense.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

ILZ writes:

Quote:
Further, attempting to solve this conflict - which has been raging in one form or another for a mellenia - by resorting to traditional military actions will result in an increase in anti-American sentiment, of which terrorism is the tip of the iceburg.

This seems to be the anti-War on Terrorism mantra lately. Lets don't fight them because they might get mad and hurt us.

Nobody is against the war on terror, we just disagree on how to best fight it. And this is no 'new' mantra - it is called 'logic' and it has been advocated by me and other rational people for some time now.

George Bush is not John Wayne, and real world events don't tend to follow the script of a Hollywood Western. Bellicose political rhetoric about "defeating evil" and "spreading freedom" with the the help of "God" may make for a good blockbuster, but as history has repeatedly shown, it doesn't translate into reality very well.

The profound irony of all this, of course, is that there are two sets of deluded, myopic people battling each other, each convinced that they stand for freedom, each convinced the other is inherantly evil, and both mistakenly convinced that the violent actions they are taking will further thier cause.

If I though the invasion of Mesopotomia in the name of some crusade against terrorism was going to further the interests of either the US or Iraq I would support the war. But it does niether, and no amount of vague jingoistic political ramblings or disingenuous "let's get 'em" rhetoric is going to change that.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote:

The Nazis were not Nazis because they were German. They were Germans who were Nazis.

They fell for a charismatic leader and ideology and afterwards realized their wrongs - similar to being in a sociological spell and finally coming out of it. I see it happening today in the manner of the Bushites and their neocon following. Very, very similar :sad: Let's hope all ya'll see the error in your ways before their is disaster. Afterwards, will I want all these followers put in prison without liberties - NO!

But I do believe the leaders should go to jail Exclamation

0 Replies

Will the West Survive?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know