32
   

Attacks in Paris Stadium, concert hall

 
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2015 09:40 am
@revelette2,
There's no real difference, both want an Islamic caliphate, one that would definitely stretch into historic Moslem territory including most of Spain, if not the entire globe. The people are the same, angry young men with too much time on their hands and a sense of outrage and disconnect from society.

The main difference is that Al Qaida are on the back foot, Bin Laden is dead, and despite its Arab origins it's seen as a primarily Afghan group. IS has its own territory, and its own caliph, so of the two it's more successful. The reason people are joining IS and not Al Qaida is the same reason Chinese students support Manchester United and not Accrington Stanley.

Those people fighting under the flag of AQ seven years ago are the same people fighting for IS. In that nothing has changed, AQ was always a loose structured organisation with people adopting their flag to give some semblance of globalisation, now they're calling themselves IS.

The distinction between the two is broadly artificial and trying to discern a difference is just an academic exercise.

0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2015 09:44 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
I have heard that quite a few times, so it must be true. If it is, then the US along with others countries should do their part in concert with other countries to fight them.

It is only partially true. The Left has some sort of weird psychosis about the Iraq invasion, and they keep blaming the US for all sorts of nonsense that they tie to the invasion.

Islamic State does have some roots in our invasion of Iraq. But they also have roots in many other subsequent events.

The US should indeed join with the world to fight them, but not because of some imagined moral responsibility. Rather we should join with the world to fight them because Islamic State is a threat to the entire world.


revelette2 wrote:
To my uneducated mind, they seem to be different than AQ in that AQ wanted specific things, namely the west to get out of the ME. ISIS from little I understand seems more "religious" oriented which much more dangerous to my mind. (Unless of course I don't understand what I am talking about)

They both have the same goal.

They both want to conquer the world, commit genocide against all non-Muslims, and abolish freedom, democracy, and women's rights.

They currently have different strategies.

al-Qa'ida has abandoned their original plan to directly conquer the world, and now seeks to weaken the US and other strong nations, and only plans to go back to a campaign of conquest when they determine that they have successfully weakened us.

Islamic State is sticking with the original plan. They intend to conquer the world and kill us all right now. They don't want to wait around for some distant future when we are too weak to oppose them.

In al-Qa'ida's view, Islamic State is jumping the gun by acting now, when we are still strong enough to destroy them.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2015 09:51 am
@Frank Apisa,
In the same way your American extremists think the rapture is just around the corner, Moslem extremists believe the conflict in Syria is all part of Armageddon.

Quote:
Dabiq (Arabic: دابق‎) is a town in northern Syria, administratively part of the A'zaz District of Aleppo Governorate, located northeast of Aleppo. It lies around 10km (six miles) from the Turkish border. Nearby localities include Mare' to the southwest. According to the Syria Central Bureau of Statistics, Dabiq had a population of 3,364 in the 2004 census.

The town is the site of the decisive battle of Marj Dabiq between the Ottoman Empire and the Mamluk Sultanate in 1516. In Islamic eschatology, it is believed that Dabiq is one of two possible locations for an epic battle between invading Christians and the defending Muslims which will result in a Muslim victory and mark the beginning of the end of the world. The Islamic State believes Dabiq is where an epic and decisive battle will take place with Christian forces of the west.

In Islamic eschatology as found in the Hadith, the area of Dabiq is mentioned as a place of some of the events of the Muslim Malahim (which would equate to the Christian apocalypse, or Armageddon). Abu Hurayrah, companion to the Prophet, reported in his Hadith that God’s Messenger, the Prophet, said:

The Last Hour would not come until the Romans land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina (to counteract them).

Scholars and hadith commentators suggest that the words Romans refers to Christians. The hadith further relates the subsequent Muslim victory, followed by the peaceful takeover of Constantinople with invocations of takbir and tasbih, and finally the defeat of Anti-Christ following the return and descent of Jesus Christ.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabiq

So if you're a petty criminal in London, feeling isolated and disconnected from the country you live in, the temptation to become one of the best people on Earth, defending the faithful from the infidel during the last days of Earth, is pretty compelling.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2015 10:27 am
@izzythepush,
That is very interesting, izzy.
Many nominal christians believe Armageddon will be centered around the plains of Megiddo (Har Mageddon) and can happen only if Jews inhabit the holy land. This I believe is the central motivation behind Anglo American support for the repatriation of Jews after WWII.

Megiddo was a strategic location back in the day, just as Dabiq.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2015 04:48 pm
@Olivier5,
The invasion facilitated the rise, but it wasn't the sole originating impetus, and while you are, of course, correct that the French opposed the Iraq war I'm not sure I'm prepared to accept that it was on the basis of their foreseeing the rise of ISIS or a similar entity, certainly not solely.

France's refusal to support the invasion was and is a point of contention as respects the strength and validity of it's alliances with both the US and UK.

I don't think it's a black and white matter and it does largely come down to what one believes was the primary motivation for French resistance. I suppose if you are a French citizen who applauded the resistance you might think it was born of only geo-political wisdom and the noble motive of trying to reign in an imperial instinct in the world's sole superpower. If on the other hand you think of the invasion as geo-politically wise (notwithstanding the cocked up execution) and born of noble motives, you might see French reluctance as perfidy stimulated by a knee-jerk anti-Americanism. I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle of both positions.

I would hope the French didn't think they were purchasing any degree of immunity from Islamist terrorists with their resistance to the invasion. If they did it would have been a foolish and unseemly motivation. I doubt this was the case though,not because they are incapable of being foolish or unseemly, but because they are clever. Regardless, they, obviously, didn't get any, and whether or not they can starkly distinguish between the invasion of Iraq and what seems to be their plans for ISIS, they will be invading, at least, foreign airspace, and my guess is that they will be looking for assistance from the US and the UK.

We can and should provide them with such assistance for two reasons: 1) Achieving the apparent goal of France will benefit the US and 2) They are an ally of ours and were directly attacked. It really shouldn't matter how one feels about France failing to ally itself with the US in the Iraq invasion. If that was perfidious enough to be the reason for holding back assistance now, the alliance should have been scrapped long ago. As an ally, it is the right thing to do. Should, in the future, France continue to feel reluctance in meeting what we may deem to be its obligations as an ally then I would think we would need to very seriously consider dissolving the alliance. Not something that is likely to happen, but alliances are two way streets and the promise to come to an allies aid is not predicated on the assumption that you will always be 100% content with your ally's behavior.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2015 05:21 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Islamic State is sticking with the original plan. They intend to conquer the world and kill us all right now. They don't want to wait around for some distant future when we are too weak to oppose them.

In al-Qa'ida's view, Islamic State is jumping the gun by acting now, when we are still strong enough to destroy them.


We are strong enough to destroy them a few thousands times over and we should do so no later then yesterday with boots on the ground.
Olivier5
 
  5  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2015 05:57 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
France's refusal to support the invasion was and is a point of contention as respects the strength and validity of it's alliances with both the US and UK.

An alliance is not a boss-employee relationship. The US vocally opposed our colonial war in Algeria, with good reasons IMO, and we didn't wine that the alliance was being put in question...

Quote:
The invasion facilitated the rise, but it wasn't the sole originating impetus, and while you are, of course, correct that the French opposed the Iraq war I'm not sure I'm prepared to accept that it was on the basis of their foreseeing the rise of ISIS or a similar entity, certainly not solely.

Chirac is on record saying that the Iraq war would create "many Ben Ladens". And he was right.

Quote:
I would hope the French didn't think they were purchasing any degree of immunity from Islamist terrorists with their resistance to the invasion.

We're not that stupid, thank you.

Quote:
[The French will be invading, at least, foreign airspace, and my guess is that they will be looking for assistance from the US and the UK.

Any French response will be in self-defense, in response to an act of war, which the Iraq war wasn't. That makes a big difference.
Olivier5
 
  5  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2015 06:01 pm
@hawkeye10,
I think a simpler reason is that France is the second most active nation in the fight against ISIS. The first most active is the US but it's harder to get there. France has many many Muslims in its midst, and a few thousands of them have gone to fight for ISIS and returned. They are battle-hardened and radicalised. The UK faces the same threat, and in fact has suffered in the past from similar mass terrorist attacks...
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  5  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2015 06:03 pm
@Builder,
Quote:
As for the "rise of ISIS", it's no secret that Daesh is another paramilitary mercenary force under the wing of the CIA. Used to destabilise Libya before "liberation" of the nation's gold, if not her people.

BS
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2015 06:07 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
We are strong enough to destroy them a few thousands times over and we should do so no later then yesterday with boots on the ground.

Yep. Let's send them on their way to the virgins. Now. ISIS will collapse at the first serious push by a professional army. They're no vietcong.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2015 06:16 pm
This was brilliant....Daesh attacked France with mostly French or at least EU citizens, who were based outside of France. It really drives home that Europe can not solve the problem without EU wide cooperative security.

Quote:
How is it possible that Paris could be attacked twice in one year by terrorist groups? What went wrong with the French security apparatus? What lessons can we draw from this -- in France, but also in Germany and other European countries? Have we only been spared of attacks and dozens of deaths in Germany because we haven't dispatched any fighter jets to Syria, or do our intelligence services and police somehow work more effectively? If the latter is true, then how can European countries work together in order to provide better support to improve security? Which instruments are needed to prevent further attacks without damaging public life? And, yes, also: How can we quickly and more intelligently organize the influx and registration of refugees while at the same time making it possible to identify threats among the vast majority that is simply looking for refuge.

It appears that trans-national terrorist structures took shape right in the middle of Europe. If it is proven that the some preparations for the Paris attacks took place in Belgium and that they were orchestrated by strategists with the Islamic State, then it is true that all of us in Europe are threatened by this terror. But it will not be possible to find the correct response in a matter of just a few hours or days. And it also won't be a solution that can be described in a few short sentences.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/paris-terrorist-attacks-and-the-need-to-protect-our-freedom-a-1063051.html

Europe has neither the ability to monitor the invaders, nor the ability to know which ones are Daesh warriors, nor the security cooperation needed to deal with the ability of terrorists to operate all through Europe now that the border controls have been removed.

Europe is woefully unprepared for the threat, and the fact that so many on the left call this that and the other proposed solutions " disgusting" and "not who we are" does not help. These idiots need to stop removing from the table possible solutions that run contrary to their politics, this is about survival baby, political beliefs might need to change to deal with reality successfully .

Quote:
In such moments, it isn't helpful when harebrains on the Web, in some media and within Germany's own conservative Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, use the terrorist attacks in Paris as an instrument to agitate against the influx of refugees to Germany and to stoke hostilities against them. By doing so they do more to harm free society than to help it. Placing thousands of innocent refugees in the same context as the Paris murderers is disgraceful.


Label" garbage" and remove without consideration.....a move that we so often see from the left unable to support their opinions with facts evidence or argument.

Disgusting!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2015 10:42 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
BillRM wrote:
We are strong enough to destroy them a few thousands times over and we should do so no later then yesterday with boots on the ground.

Yep. Let's send them on their way to the virgins. Now. ISIS will collapse at the first serious push by a professional army. They're no vietcong.

We need to think about what we do after Islamic State collapses. Hand the territory over to Assad so he can finish committing genocide against his own people? Occupy it in perpetuity (as locals start to see us as the enemy and begin attacking us)?

The Iraqi Sunnis hate living under Islamic State, but the Shia Iraqis have been so abusive that the Sunnis feel that they have no choice but to do so. The Sunnis are not going to be happy campers if we tell them to go back to living under Iraqi government control.

Do we break Iraq and Syria into separate Kurdish/Sunni/Shia states? That might be the only way we can avoid a long-term occupation.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2015 11:00 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:
BillRM wrote:
We are strong enough to destroy them a few thousands times over and we should do so no later then yesterday with boots on the ground.

Yep. Let's send them on their way to the virgins. Now. ISIS will collapse at the first serious push by a professional army. They're no vietcong.

We need to think about what we do after Islamic State collapses. Hand the territory over to Assad so he can finish committing genocide against his own people? Occupy it in perpetuity (as locals start to see us as the enemy and begin attacking us)?

The Iraqi Sunnis hate living under Islamic State, but the Shia Iraqis have been so abusive that the Sunnis feel that they have no choice but to do so. The Sunnis are not going to be happy campers if we tell them to go back to living under Iraqi government control.

Do we break Iraq and Syria into separate Kurdish/Sunni/Shia states? That might be the only way we can avoid a long-term occupation.


Also Daesh has been holding territory with less than 5% of the men that the US MIlitary thought they needed to do it.....claiming that these guys dont know how to do it is hilarious.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 12:38 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:


Quote:
An alliance is not a boss-employee relationship. The US vocally opposed our colonial war in Algeria, with good reasons IMO, and we didn't wine that the alliance was being put in question...


Who said it was?

It's difficult to discuss these things with Europeans as a great many of you tend to be over sensitive to anything that might suggest America sees your country as a junior partner. In any case, I suspect there was a lot of whining going on back then. We just didn't have the internet and 24 hour news services to capture it. If you were of an age to appreciate what was going on I feel certain you opposed your government's actions, and as such you were unlikely to fault other nations for not supporting it. Clearly, not everyone in France was in opposition to that war.

Quote:
Chirac is on record saying that the Iraq war would create "many Ben Ladens". And he was right.


I don't doubt that he did, my point was that I don't believe this was the only reason for opposition. If you do, that's your option. Unlike many who participate in this forum I think a certain degree of patriotism is a good thing. With or without the Iraq invasion the ranks of the jihadis would have grown. France didn't participate and yet the attack on Paris occurred. The staff of Charlie Hebdoe weren't part of an invading force and yet they are dead. Europeans are pachyderms compared to Islamists.

Quote:
We're not that stupid, thank you.


Which is what I stated, but apparently you didn't read further then the bit that steamed you.


Quote:
Any French response will be in self-defense, in response to an act of war, which the Iraq war wasn't. That makes a big difference.


Not to the Muslims that are killed as a result of French attacks. You seem to have the mistaken idea that I am somehow criticizing France for it's response to the attack. I'm not at all. They do intend to hit back on ISIS (a good move) and they do intend to ask their allies for assistance (as they should). However, despite all of the pompous hot air from Kerry of Vietnam, I'm afraid France is likely to be disappointed by the level of assistance it receives from my country and it won't be because of any hard feelings left over from Iraq. Obama, unlike many of the elitist white
progressives who support him, is not a particularly big fan of Europe. He doesn't seem to be able to forget or forgive Europe's colonial period and the very rough treatment of native populations that marked it. It probably has something to do with his father and step-father.

In any case if you think that French counter-attacks will somehow be exempt from the appeasing lot's calculus that retribution breeds terrorists simply because they are a just response, you're mistaken. First of all the Islamists and their supporters don't think they need to be punished. For them, the attack on Paris was itself just retribution. Secondly, the apolitical families and friends of apolitical Muslims who end up as French collateral damage (and there will be some of that) are not going to analyze their losses in terms of whether or not France was justified, they are going to view France as just another head on Western hydra that is at war with Islam and Muslims. If they were inclined to become terrorists such deaths will be all the impetus they need. Finally the entire premise of the reaction results in terrorists theory is based on a belief that the West is guilty of original sin in this matter: colonialism. Everything that is done to it, by the peoples it exploited, thereafter is fundamentally deserved and we Westerners just need to shut up and take our medicine so all of the hate that has been festering since the Colonial Glory Days can dissipate. Each time we have the nerve to defend ourselves or retaliate (and let's face it, the desire and need for retaliation is a big factor in France's aggressive response) we piss off more Muslims and create more terrorists, or so the theory goes. Since the West began this mess, it's up to us to take the blows necessary to break the cycle.

Of course the theory doesn't seem to contemplate the reality that the Islamists will not be content with somehow evening the score. They're not looking for a catharsis of violence which might at some point come to an end when they perceive we have suffered enough and learned our lesson. They really do entertain fantasies of establishing a caliphate that is a good bit larger that its current size which approximates Britain's, and eventually converting the world to Islam; and by the sword if necessary. It's mad, of course, but then so is what they do to their hostages and prisoners. So is executing young people at a concert in Paris, one by one, and then blowing themselves up when their righteous activity is forced to come to an end by French police.

It's not atypical for people's principles to be malleable and dependent upon whether or not their ox is being gored. If an aggressive and violent reponse to Islamists is certain to give birth to new terrorists, who would otherwise not exist, and this is fundamentally a very bad thing which should take precedent over other considerations in determining foreign policy and national action,then it really doesn't matter whether anyone believes the aggressive violent response is morally justified. It will have the same bad result as a similar response that is based on some half-assed notion of machismo or economic gain. It's does create a potentially interesting debate, though, wherein one nation argues that while the terrorists they've created were necessary evils that couldn't be helped, the ones the other nation created were superfluous and a waste. After all we can only afford to create so many terrorists at any given time and if the US filled the quota with it's stupid invasion of Iraq, that makes it tough for other nations to justly create their share.

I will reiterate my position so that it is clear. I feel horrible for what the people of Paris endured. Watching the coverage and hearing talking heads report that someone in the concert hall was tweeting " They are killing the world, one by one," brought back terrible memories from 9/11 and made me sick to my stomach.

I don't believe that France (and certainly not the slain Parisians and those from other towns and countries) deserved to be attacked or did anything to bring the attack down on itself. Whether or not Syrian immigrants allowed into your country were properly screened (if that is even possible) is something your government should determine before it allows any more in, but by seeding terrorists among suffering people given asylum, ISIS, with evil cynicism took advantage of the generosity and kindness of the French people. That the murderers had the audacity to cry "This is for Syria" as they gunned people down is beyond belief.

Your president's response to the attack has thus far been nearly perfect as far as I can tell and the attacks launched against ISIS by French fighter planes was perfectly justified. I don't think France needs to concern itself over whether or not its attacks will lead to the creation of new terrorists. That is not the paramount consideration at hand. Even assuming the counter-attacks can be cited as the reason 18 new terrorists joined the ranks of ISIS, in their absence the same 18 young men would have become jihadis, but instead of a French air attack, a Danish cartoon or American pastor burning the Koran would have been their justification.

France should request the assistance of its allies in striking back against ISIS, and its allies, especially the US, should do all they can in support (and they can do quite a lot more than what is currently being talked about.

I am not going to change nor apologize for my opinions concerning France's quality as an ally at certain times in our history, but I recognize it as a valuable one and since we are part of an alliance with your country, we need to honor it. The past squabbles are of no impact at this time.

I sincerely hope and actually believe that the threat of a follow-up attack is very minimal but I recall how here in the US we were frightened for weeks; expecting additional attacks.

I can't say with certainty, but I have a sense that like 9/11 this attacks with be a game changer for France and the French. It is a terrible way to induce an appreciation of the world for what it is and not what we wish it would be, but clarity as respects reality is a good thing. Not everyone in France will see it this way and once the initial shock begins to wear off you are probably in for a serious debate about the future path of France. It may even get ugly. The terrorists accomplished what they set out to do, They injected terror in the everyday lives of at least Paris and probably the whole nation. Like most nations France has experienced terrorist attacks in the past, but this one was different in terms of scale and the random nature of the death and maiming. People could and did argue about whether or not the Charlie Hebdoe staff unnecessarily invited their deaths but the same can't be said for the victims of this attack. No one who kept their heads down and showed anything but "respect" for Islam and its prophet was any safer than anyone else.

They have also given cause for a great deal of anger in Paris and the nation and some have opined this too was part of their plan; that they hope the people of France will now act with anger and resentment towards Muslim citizens and immigrants, thereby setting the stage for (what else?) the recruitment of new "home grown" terrorists and the potential for new and continuous violence . I'm sure they will be quite happy if this attack leads to turmoil between Muslim and non-Muslim in European cities, but before this attack occurred, they demonstrated to the world that they revel in death and destruction. They truly are an army of psychopaths, and for such monsters I think it was enough that they could display their barbaric power in a major European city and thereby instill fear and despair.

Finally, I wish nothing but healing and grace for the people of Paris and France and to the extent my voice will be heard here, it will be calling for my nation to fully support yours in whatever action it believes it must undertake. I feel certain I will not, by any means, be alone, but I don't think this administration will begin listening to the will of the American people now.



Builder
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 04:07 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
THANK YOU!


I really hope people will get this now!


I see gungasnake reposted it.

Perhaps I need to post the Joe Biden interview, where he admits to supplying Daesh.


0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 04:52 am
Is this really the deal to make right now?

Quote:
The US State Department has approved the sale of $1.29 billion (£848.6m) worth of bombs to Saudi Arabia, as its military carries out air strikes in neighbouring Yemen.

President Obama pledged to bolster military support for Saudi Arabia after tensions were strained following a US-brokered nuclear deal with Iran.

The US Congress now has 30 days to stop the deal if it wishes to do so.

Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest buyers of US weapons.

The Saudi-led campaign against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen has drawn criticism, with several reports of civilian casualties on the ground.

Washington has backed the campaign and Saudi Arabia - who is a central ally in the air assault against the so-called Islamic State group in Syria and Iraq.


These guns will be used against Shia rebels in Yemen, people who are no threat to the West and more like us than the Saudi Wahhabists, and I wouldn't be surprised if any left over guns and bombs end up being smuggled to IS.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 04:55 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest buyers of US weapons.


And yet they're not "at war" with anyone. How many pennies need to drop, folks?

We were warned repeatedly in the past to keep the MIC in close check. Now they're calling all the shots.

Literally and figuratively.
hemant12
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 05:00 am
Hmm, This is really veru sad new, The first policeman to get there arrived at 10pm, about 20 minutes after the three gunmen burst into the concert hall last Friday night and began methodically killing fans who had turned out to watch the Eagles of Death Metal group.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 05:37 am
@Builder,
Do you for one second think that if we refused to sell such weapons to them that they could not buy them from most other nations on this earth that would be happy to get into the good graces of a government that control a large percent of the known oil in the world?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  4  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 06:21 am
@oralloy,
I don't really care what they like or not like. Sunnis can decide to do whatever they want. In fact, I would love to see an independent Kurdistan but that has to be their call.

It could very well be that ISIS represents the end of a significant Sunni presence in Iraq and Syria, by attrition. But as long as the Iraqis fight against one another without exporting their shitty jihad to us, I don't care too much.

We MUST destroy ISIS before they win over the state of Iraq, before they grow deadlier, before they put their hand onto something really dangerous like chemical weapons or (god forbid) a nuclear weapon.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 08:31:53