Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

clark · 2005-07-19 06:27:49

So the real question before us is how are we going to respond to the steady influx of foreign colonists? Do we let them supplant us, endeavor to neutralize them through assimilation, or outright forcibly repel the invasion?

There are some militant jihadi-wacko Islamists asking the same questions.

Palomar · 2005-07-19 06:54:32

The old nation-states at war model doesn't really apply here because the enemy has no state but rather acts as a parasite or in symbiosis with sovereign states. A law enforcement approach doesn't really apply either because this is an act of war, we're dealing not with criminals but with fanatical self-styled warriors bent on killing as many of us as they can. They're attacking our nations and our culture, not running a crime syndicate.
But there's a third model that's only been hinted at in various discussions here and what the hell, time to lay it on the table.
In the case of terrorism within Western nations what we have is a case of two very different and opposed cultures occupying the same space. There are many historical examples of this, whether one chooses to go with whites vs. American Indians, Romans vs. Gauls, or perhaps most relevant, European Chistendom vs. Islam during the Middle Ages, doesn't much matter. In all cases, one of those cultures is always snuffed out in the territory of overlap. Sure, some diffusion takes place but in essence only one survives.
Perhaps going even further than militant jihadi-wacko Islam, "serious" Islam, as defined by those who take the religion to the point of actually praying five days a day in the office, dressing in traditional garb, etc. is an alien element within American, Australian and European society, one in which the fanatics grow. Foreign colonists.
So the real question before us is how are we going to respond to the steady influx of foreign colonists? Do we let them supplant us, endeavor to neutralize them through assimilation, or outright forcibly repel the invasion?

*I'll be interested to see what the responses are to your post, Cobra. I mean besides the usual obfuscation; beating around the bush; paying a smidgen of recognition to it then deliberately going off in another direction (avoidance); worrying about the feelings of those poor, poor terrorists; etc.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-07-19 06:56:29

LO

The old nation-states at war model doesn't really apply here because the enemy has no state but rather acts as a parasite or in symbiosis with sovereign states.

Say wich.
This is not quite different from any revolutionnary extreme right or left movement.

A law enforcement approach doesn't really apply either because this is an act of war,

you can't call a war wich ins't a war at a a state, I call a cat a cat and a terrorist guerilla a terrorist guerilla. Changing the name of things do not change their nature.
War at them isn't a regular army task untill intelligence has detected them

we're dealing not with criminals but with fanatical self-styled warriors bent on killing as many of us as they can. They're attacking our nations and our culture, not running a crime syndicate.

What else did the nazis with the Jews, the Slaves, the Tzigans and all opponents ?
So they are not criminals, not at all using crime syndicates means as drug and weapon traffic and kidnapping to collect money, killing of opponents ? ???

But there's a third model that's only been hinted at in various discussions here and what the hell, time to lay it on the table.
In the case of terrorism within Western nations what we have is a case of two very different and opposed cultures occupying the same space. There are many historical examples of this, whether one chooses to go with whites vs. American Indians, Romans vs. Gauls, or perhaps most relevant, European Chistendom vs. Islam during the Middle Ages, doesn't much matter. In all cases, one of those cultures is always snuffed out in the territory of overlap. Sure, some diffusion takes place but in essence only one survives.
Perhaps going even further than militant jihadi-wacko Islam, "serious" Islam, as defined by those who take the religion to the point of actually praying five days a day in the office, dressing in traditional garb, etc. is an alien element within American, Australian and European society, one in which the fanatics grow. Foreign colonists.

killing Red-Indians is your history.
Wacko guys, islamists ? Where far are you to go to distort facts to your point of view ?
Should know better that the romans didn't delete the gauls,
that interchristians religion wars in Europe were as wild as christians-muslims war at each others, and neither papists nor protestants succeeded to delete each others, that there are christians who pray God and go to churh thrice a day without no call for erasing them from the surface of the world.

BWhite · 2005-07-19 07:24:02

Bill, I'm curious as to why you're suddenly on this "police work" kick, what brought this on with such zeal?

I have always advocated strong police work and intelligence operations. The need to do so, ahem, more loudly is to shut the door on charges of "appeasement" which is a "TALKING POINT" the Right seeks to spread about the Left.

Besides, careful diligent intelligence work is the only way to fight a group that has indeed turned to crime (drug running etc. . . ) to help fund operations.

The "state sponsored" paradigm always was BS. It's the belief that a billion Muslims are trapped by evil leaders much like the case with Communism. I think the neo-cons really truly believed that the fall of Baghdad was to be like the fall of the Berlin Wall and that tens or hundreds of millions of Muslims would rush forth to embrace the West just like East Germans who drove Trabants all over Europe in an ecstasy of freedeom.

Sorry, that was just plain wrong. ???

Perhaps going even further than militant jihadi-wacko Islam, "serious" Islam, as defined by those who take the religion to the point of actually praying five days a day in the office, dressing in traditional garb, etc. is an alien element within American, Australian and European society, one in which the fanatics grow. Foreign colonists.

See, the neo-cons are not content to neutralize the whackos, they really do want a "Clash of Civilizations" - - I am all for working to secularize Islam, by the way.

The best first step is women;'s rights and those are best secured by readily available contraception. Women's rights don't mean zippo without access to safe, reliable affordable contraception.

But no, we cannot do that. Why?

Our own Taliban-like conservatives refuse to allow family planning as part of foreign aid. Abstinence only, thats the ticket!

= = =

What to do:

(1) Good police and intel work;
(2) Work to improve women's rights within Islamic nations, but without safe affordable access to reliable contraception those efforts will fail;
(3) Stop using petroleum as our primary fuel.

The Right loves to compare bin Laden to Hitler. Okay then, everytime you full up your SUV with $75 of gasoline you are sending bin Laden a check. Think on that.

Did the USA send Lend-Lease to Germany?

= = =

Our Administration is waging the "War on Terror" exactly BACKWARDS in so many ways they must either be complete imbeciles or they KNOW perfectly well that al Qaeda is not a real threat to our civilization and they wish to piggyback their agenda onto a trumped up "War on Terror"

clark · 2005-07-19 07:42:00

Hey Cobra, you wouldn't happen to be a supremacist, would you?

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 07:46:31

I consistently underestimate your ability to bash Bush more than terrorists in a post about terrorism. And I mean that in the most complimentary fashion. :;):

Besides, careful diligent intelligence work is the only way to fight a group that has indeed turned to crime (drug running etc. . . ) to help fund operations.

Granted, though it doesn't address the problem. In this case crime is a symptom, busting al Qaeda drug runners doesn't address terrorism, it just screws with one funding channel.

The "state sponsored" paradigm always was BS. It's the belief that a billion Muslims are trapped by evil leaders much like the case with Communism.

Depending on how one chooses to define it. Are a select few governments directly responsible for all the Islamic terrorism in the same manner that Moscow was behind countless Marxist rebel factions? No. But there are some states that most certainly do spnsor terrorism. They do need to be dealt with, though not always by direct military force.

See, the neo-cons are not content to neutralize the whackos, they really do want a "Clash of Civilizations" - - I am all for working to secularize Islam, by the way.

Filtering out non-constructive neo-con conspiracy stuff, so you're opting for "neutralize through assimilation" as pertains to the real question of how to deal with the "foreign colonist" issue?

On that there is room for real progress and discussion.

Our own Taliban-like conservatives refuse to allow family planning as part of foreign aid. Abstinence only, thats the ticket!

Okay. . . so the state-sponsored terrorism paradigm is BS but the peace through rubbers and pills paradigm is essential?

:laugh:

Sure, Muslim women having access to reliable contraception could help in many respects, both from a social standpoint and simply by reducing the number of future potential jihadis, but we've got a loooong way to go before that even becomes a practical issue in many of these countries.

What to do:
(1) Good police and intel work;
(2) Work to improve women's rights within Islamic nations, but without safe affordable access to reliable contraception those efforts will fail;
(3) Stop using petroleum as our primary fuel.

1) Part of the solution, ineffective by itself.
2) Requires far more elaborate modification of Islamic society before it can be implemented.
3) Agreed. Options are being developed. Impediments to nuclear power must be removed, hybrid cars should be encouraged in various ways. Hydrogen is not yet ready for prime-time.

Hey Cobra, you wouldn't happen to be a supremacist, would you?

Supremacist in what regard?

BWhite · 2005-07-19 07:47:18

Hey Cindy, what is your opinion on the US being prohibited from including realistic familiy planning (birth control) as part of foreign aid?

In that respect doesn't the American Taliban empower the Islamic Taliban by undermining women's rights?

clark · 2005-07-19 07:51:02

I take it that you are a supremacist then.

BWhite · 2005-07-19 07:52:23

True equality for women within Islam would be the fastest most effective method of assimilating that culture and neutralizing the patriarchal rage that fuels the jihadists.

Fear of women's liberation and homosexual rights are a large part of what inflames the radical Islamicist nut-jobs. That is a lagre part of why they "hate our freedoms"

Remember that female US Air Force captain who got in trouble for leaving the base in Saudi Arabia without a veil?

= = =

Of course, for Dobson and Falwell the battle is whether we will have a Christian patriarchy or an Islamic patriarchy.

And as I said a few days ago, "A plague on both houses!"

Edited By BWhite on 1121781328

Palomar · 2005-07-19 08:07:10

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719/ap_ … s_bush]New female Supreme Court judge?

*I nominate http://www.judgejudy.com/Bios/allaboutjudy.asp]Judge Judy (Judith Sheindlin). She is so incredibly sharp, no-nonsense, etc. I love it when she yells "You're an idiot!" occasionally to some doofus in the courtroom. :laugh:

Sometimes she's a bit too harsh, but most of the time I agree with her reasoning and verdicts, etc. I -really- would like to see her on the Supreme Court. :up:

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-19 08:07:56

What to do:
(1) Good police and intel work;
(2) Work to improve women's rights within Islamic nations, but without safe affordable access to reliable contraception those efforts will fail;
(3) Stop using petroleum as our primary fuel.

1) Part of the solution, ineffective by itself.
2) Requires far more elaborate modification of Islamic society before it can be implemented.
3) Agreed. Options are being developed. Impediments to nuclear power must be removed, hybrid cars should be encouraged in various ways. Hydrogen is not yet ready for prime-time.

(1) Buys time and minimizes damage from terrorism. Very very very few people are willing to be suicide bombers.

Those British boys may have been tricked by al Qaeda into thinking they would escape. That trick is spent.is

So, don't overestimate the terror "threat"

(2) This is a multi-generational project and we have many other unrelated items on our plate. Do (1) correctly and (2) loses a good deal of its urgency.

Of course, if the actual objective is distraction while another agenda is being advanced by stealth, then to say that ALL attention needs to be focused on accomplishing (2) allows right-wing sleight of hand.

Bush did not invade Iraq to fight terror. His real target was the United Nations.

Edited By BWhite on 1121782139

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 08:07:57

I take it that you are a supremacist then.

I wouldn't say so, but I suppose there's room for variance. I'm of the opinion that a group, whether racial or cultural has a certain expectation of supremacy within their own lands. I also believe that in most respects Western culture is better than the alternatives. As I've said on several occasions before, I could be perfectly content letting the rest of the world burn by their own devices if we had no interests at stake, but if we're going to interact we should do so in a manner that doesn't automatically assume we're in the wrong.

So if in your eyes that makes me a supremacist, fire away.

But then, we're all supremacists in our own way. :;):

True equality for women within Islam would be the fastest most effective method of assimilating that culture and neutralizing the patriarchal rage that fuels the jihadists.

Agreed. Unfortunately, handing out birth control in care packages isn't going to cut it. You're talking about very deep cultural changes that need to take place before we can even reach that point.

Palomar · 2005-07-19 08:14:55

But then, we're all supremacists in our own way. :;):

*The Islamofundie terrorists are supremacists.

-*-

Okay Bill...I'm getting to it; I had to nominate Judge Judy for SC first:

Hey Cindy, what is your opinion on the US being prohibited from including realistic familiy planning (birth control) as part of foreign aid?

I can't give an opinion because I haven't been aware of this.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-07-19 08:15:18

I'm of the opinion that a group, whether racial or cultural has a certain expectation of supremacy within their own lands.

Like muslims in muslim lands?

I also believe that in most respects Western culture is better than the alternatives.

Probably in the same way that some Islamo-facisits believe that in most respect their culture is better than alternatives.

My point to all of this is simply to show that your attitude is part and parcel of the problem. You're not a moderate.

Once again the extreme yells and hollars to try and get the middle to move, and both sides are doing it. That's the problem.

Not the group that goes to the bar, it's the one guy in the group who always wants to throw down, dragging the rest of us into the brawl.

BWhite · 2005-07-19 08:15:41

True equality for women within Islam would be the fastest most effective method of assimilating that culture and neutralizing the patriarchal rage that fuels the jihadists.
Agreed. Unfortunately, handing out birth control in care packages isn't going to cut it. You're talking about very deep cultural changes that need to take place before we can even reach that point.

More chickens and eggs, I am afraid. But with modern media and the internet much can be accomplished very rapidly provided we do not isolate those communities.

BWhite · 2005-07-19 08:17:10

Hey Cindy, what is your opinion on the US being prohibited from including realistic familiy planning (birth control) as part of foreign aid?
I can't give an opinion because I haven't been aware of this.
--Cindy

Wow! ???

Cindy, the American Taliban really is MUCH stronger than you realize.

BWhite · 2005-07-19 08:24:10

Cindy, http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/ … over/]read this

By next year the program will be in seven Egyptian governorates. The program will most likely end when USAID funds dry up.
"We're shifting our emphases to reflect changes in U.S. foreign policy," said Ken Ellis, the director of USAID Egypt.
Reproductive health programs are being phased out at U.S. Agency for International Development, in response to pressure for more emphasis on abstinence-only for contraception education and the Bush administration's reinstatement of the so-called Global Gag Rule, a policy lifted by President Bill Clinton.
It bars U.S. family planning assistance to any foreign health care agency that uses funds from any source to perform abortions, provide counseling and referral for abortion or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country. The agencies may perform abortions only when there is a threat to the woman's life or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Edited By BWhite on 1121783134

Palomar · 2005-07-19 08:25:13

Hey Cindy, what is your opinion on the US being prohibited from including realistic familiy planning (birth control) as part of foreign aid?
I can't give an opinion because I haven't been aware of this.
--Cindy
Wow! ???
Cindy, the American Taliban really is MUCH stronger than you realize.

*Actually I do realize the strength of what you call "the American Taliban."

But the would-be fury and intolerance of the Christian Coalition and Bush's fundie/evangelical friends are muzzled by the Bill of Rights.

The Taliban in Afghanistan had no muzzle. There were no safety checks or counter-balances within the framework of a government above them. They were the gov't.

I realize "the American Taliban" seeks to take control of our gov't and in many respects has much more power than it should.

But it is precisely the Bill of Rights and etc. which must be protected...from all terrorists.

The U.S. (despite all its wrongs, past crimes, etc.) IS the nation which spawned the Bill of Rights. That's precious, and we need to protect it.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 08:26:02

(1) Buys time and minimizes damage from terrorism. Very very very few people are willing to be suicide bombers.

Okay then, in that case it's what we're already doing.

2) This is a multi-generational project and we have many other unrelated items on our plate. Do (1) correctly and (2) loses a good deal of its urgency.

Okay, then we're back to "how do we remold Islamic society" long-term cultural imperialist planning. Like we're already doing.

So in essence your plan seems to be do what we're doing, but do it smarter without elaboration.

Where have I heard that copout before? :hm:

Of course, if the actual objective is distraction while another agenda is being advanced by stealth, then to say that ALL attention needs to be focused on accomplishing (2) allows right-wing sleight of hand.

True. I just advise that you watch that Left hand as well.

Quote
I'm of the opinion that a group, whether racial or cultural has a certain expectation of supremacy within their own lands.

Like muslims in muslim lands?

"Certain expectation" was chosen for a reason, and by and large they do have supremacy in their own lands. Even Iraq and Afghanistan are not being assimilated at a pace that will wipe out Islam within them. In both cases, we're dealing with a nation ruled by an overtly hostile regime that was defeated. In such cases, the rules are different. Afghanistan's government was entirely in league with and supported those that attacked us and Iraq's threatened our interests on more than one occasion.

But then you already knew that. :;):

Probably in the same way that some Islamo-facisits believe that in most respect their culture is better than alternatives.
My point to all of this is simply to show that your attitude is part and parcel of the problem. You're not a moderate.

When did I ever claim to be a moderate?

However, I'm of the opinion that when a group of people is trying to kill you for simply not being them, the time for moderation and pussy-footing has passed.

More chickens and eggs, I am afraid. But with modern media and the internet much can be accomplished very rapidly provided we do not isolate those communities.

Okay, so we need to make sure they can receive our corrupting media and have internet access?

This planning, while resting on sound concepts, seems to fall apart whenever the details come up.

Cindy, the American Taliban really is MUCH stronger than you realize.

Also note, "American Taliban" is acceptable terminology for homegrown Christian fundies but call a liberal a "liberal" and they say you're attacking them.

These are funny guys.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1121783271

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 08:29:46

I can't remember the last time I actually conversed with anyone about Mars here. :hm:

BWhite · 2005-07-19 08:32:00

I can't give an opinion because I haven't been aware of this.
--Cindy
Wow! ???
Cindy, the American Taliban really is MUCH stronger than you realize.
*Actually I do realize the strength of what you call "the American Taliban."
But the would-be fury and intolerance of the Christian Coalition and Bush's fundie/evangelical friends are muzzled by the Bill of Rights.
The Taliban in Afghanistan had no muzzle. There were no safety checks or counter-balances within the framework of a government above them. They were the gov't.
I realize "the American Taliban" seeks to take control of our gov't and in many respects has much more power than it should.
But it is precisely the Bill of Rights and etc. which must be protected...from all terrorists.
The U.S. (despite all its wrongs, past crimes, etc.) IS the nation which spawned the Bill of Rights. That's precious, and we need to protect it.
--Cindy

I agree.

Our Bill of Rights and way of life are threatened from many directions. To become too obsessed with one threat distracts us from another. In my opinion, a Christian patriarchy would be infinitely better than an Islamic patriarchy, but in truth I would prefer a third option. :;):

Multi-tasking is called for.

And good police work will keep the damage inflicted by Islamic nut-jobs to a minimum while we work on long term solutions.

= = =

By the way, the Taliban kills health care workers for teaching their women about how sex and reproduction works and the GOP cuts off their funding unless they teach "abstinence only"

Like I said, the American Taliban.

C M Edwards · 2005-07-19 08:40:23

But there's a third model that's only been hinted at in various discussions here and what the hell, time to lay it on the table.
In the case of terrorism within Western nations what we have is a case of two very different and opposed cultures occupying the same space. There are many historical examples of this, whether one chooses to go with whites vs. American Indians, Romans vs. Gauls, or perhaps most relevant, European Chistendom vs. Islam during the Middle Ages, doesn't much matter. In all cases, one of those cultures is always snuffed out in the territory of overlap. Sure, some diffusion takes place but in essence only one survives.

Hmm...

Indeed, there are a lot of parallels between the current situation with terrorism by islamic extremists and the early crusades. The problems between the Islam and Christianity had been brewing for some time prior to full blown war, just like today's.

Early in the crusades, Christendom didn't recognize Islam as a real, separate religion from itself, but rather considered it the major christian heresy of the day. Ominously, there's a modern tendency to consider the particular strain of Islam represented by Osama bin Laden as having no essential difference from other sects. During the crusades, the fall of Jerusalem to arab muslims lit the embers of conflict, but it didn't become a full blown war between the Muslims and Christians until Jerusalem fell again - not to the armies of christendom, but to the Seljuk Turks, a separate group of muslims who attacked christian pilgrims not just in the christian/islamic holy land but throughout turkish territory, and then put the blame off on Islam.

The Crusades could have been fought more easily and successfully by focussing on the Seljuks (who were much closer to home and already harassed by arabs on their rear flank). But no, in their ignorance, the forces of christendom decided to try and stamp out the entire Islamic world. No wonder they failed so miserably.

Our own conflict with Islamic extremists to date is going much better than christendom's did. Thus far, we have (largely) avoided the fatal error of valuing religious zeal over military intelligence. We're actually bothering to learn who our enemies are before plunging in. But not always, Iraq being the prime example, IMHO. Iraq wasn't at the heart of islamic extremism when we started this mess, any more than the arabian penninsula started the second millenium that way. But they are now. Throw in a major famine and some Cluniacs, and we could end up going the Crusades' route, too.

This current conflict with terrorst guerillas really is us against them. However, if we never take the time to determine who "them" is, we're gauranteed to be on the losing end. You don't win a war by making new enemies faster than you can defeat the old ones.

So please, Cobra, try to only stamp out one culture at a time.

Palomar · 2005-07-19 08:40:54

Reproductive health programs are being phased out at U.S. Agency for International Development, in response to pressure for more emphasis on abstinence-only for contraception education and the Bush administration's reinstatement of the so-called Global Gag Rule, a policy lifted by President Bill Clinton.
It bars U.S. family planning assistance to any foreign health care agency that uses funds from any source to perform abortions, provide counseling and referral for abortion or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country. The agencies may perform abortions only when there is a threat to the woman's life or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

*I completely disagree with this. Abstinence-only? How naive.

Though I am personally opposed to abortion on demand (in most cases; I doubt I'd opt for abortion even if my own life were in danger), it is a woman's right to choose and I must respect the right to choose.

If the Bush admin is seeking to stop that or control it, then yeah...they're no better than the patriarchal repressives in the Middle East.

Thanks for pointing it out to me, Bill. I wasn't aware of this particular issue.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-19 08:43:02

More chickens and eggs, I am afraid. But with modern media and the internet much can be accomplished very rapidly provided we do not isolate those communities.

> Okay, so we need to make sure they can receive our corrupting media and have internet access? This planning, while resting on sound concepts, seems to fall apart whenever the details come up.<

We shoot ourselves in the foot, or worse, all the time.

American culture is more easily spread with Big Macs and Nikes than JDAMs. But doing it that way means the US government won't have control over the process.

Do we want the global spread of American ideas or do we want the world to worship our flag and obey Washington?

The pinnacle of western political philosophy includes the rubric "one person = one vote" yet we are 5% of the global population (if combined with UK, Canada and Australia) - - if our "western memes" are to infect the entire world we must accept we cannot establish a traditional Roman-style empire.

Palomar · 2005-07-19 09:14:03

You don't win a war by making new enemies faster than you can defeat the old ones.

*That could also apply to the Islamic terrorists. They're going off half-cocked with bombings in Bali and other parts of the world which have nothing to do -- no part in -- the Iraq war. They are certainly not bending over backwards to make friends. :-\ They reassert that the name of their religion means "submission." And they mean it -- literal, hardcore interpretation. Submit to their religious laws and values or be killed as an infidel.

So please, Cobra, try to only stamp out one culture at a time.

Well, he doesn't need me to speak on his behalf of course, but I must say: I think this is an unfair statement.

The Islamic terrorists are trying to stamp -US- out. Not just the US, but the West: Western principles and values.

How is that -not- clear by now? ???

Cobra's posts are so well thought out, logical, concise. I know some folks will disagree with him, but how some people seem to continually misunderstand him puzzles me. :hm:

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#301 2005-07-19 06:27:49

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#302 2005-07-19 06:54:32

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#303 2005-07-19 06:56:29

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#304 2005-07-19 07:24:02

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#305 2005-07-19 07:42:00

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#306 2005-07-19 07:46:31

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#307 2005-07-19 07:47:18

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#308 2005-07-19 07:51:02

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#309 2005-07-19 07:52:23

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#310 2005-07-19 08:07:10

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#311 2005-07-19 08:07:56

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#312 2005-07-19 08:07:57

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#313 2005-07-19 08:14:55

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#314 2005-07-19 08:15:18

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#315 2005-07-19 08:15:41

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#316 2005-07-19 08:17:10

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#317 2005-07-19 08:24:10

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#318 2005-07-19 08:25:13

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#319 2005-07-19 08:26:02

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#320 2005-07-19 08:29:46

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#321 2005-07-19 08:32:00

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#322 2005-07-19 08:40:23

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#323 2005-07-19 08:40:54

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#324 2005-07-19 08:43:02

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#325 2005-07-19 09:14:03

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Board footer