Benazir Bhuto Killed In Suicide Attack

Discuss the latest news in the media and voice your own opinions about the news.

Postby parnassus » Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:15 pm

Mattie, your perception of the Middle East is much too simplistic. This is the second time you have called a non-Middle Eastern country 'similar' to the Middle East because of religious extremism - as if religious extremism is the hallmark of the Middle East and its defining characteristic. But it's not. And even supposing it were, it would be impossible to compare Pakistan with 'the Middle East' as if the Middle East is one monolithic mass. It's a huge region that is composed of lots of very different countries with very different issues to face. To borrow the proverb, it's like comparing apples with oranges.

Without doing research, can you name three active politicans from different Middle Eastern countries, explain their political stances, and describe the factions of the population in which they enjoy most support? Do you read newspapers from the Middle East? Are you aware of what's on the front pages of Al-Ahram and Al-Arabiya today? And if you can't answer these questions, on what are you basing your knowledge of the Middle East and your comparisons with Pakistan?

Middle Eastern affairs are very complex, and the varying politicial histories of its different countries bear very little resemblance to that of Pakistan. It's a false parallel.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby steven » Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:38 pm

i think it naive for us
Last edited by steven on Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
steven
Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:41 pm
Location: coventry, england

Postby Henri » Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:00 pm

Whilst Mattie may be wrong in some of his assumptions, it is not wise to underestimate the evident threat extremist Islam poses, not only to certain middle-eastern and south-east Asian countries (i.e Pakistan, Iraq), but also to the western world.

Pakistan is well known to be a hotbed of extremism, where the vast majority of suicide bombers from the Arab and Muslim world - and also the west - receive their training.

I have no doubt that the Qur'an itself preaches peace, equality, and justice, but those attributes are hardly applicable to the majority of Islamic countries.
Perhaps there is some sort of discrepancy between the teachings and how they are interpreted and applied.

In some Islamic nations, they seem to possess a strange aversion of democracy and freedom of speech - for instance, the sham democracies of Iran, the absolutist rule of the monarch in Saudi Arabia, and the disgusting reaction to the innocent naming of a teddy bear in Sudan.
Henri
Forum Master
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Reading, U.K

Postby parnassus » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:20 pm

Henri, we need to be careful with popular newspaper terms such as 'hotbed of extremism'. That was the language used to justify the war in Afghanistan, and then (more tenuously) in 'Iraq.

There have been training camps for militants to the north-west of Pakistan, yes, but this is largely because the terrain there is good for their purposes - the mountainous regions make it easy to hide, and the once nebulous border with Afghanistan made arms trafficking possible.

Bear in mind that the 7/7 bombers did some basic training exercises in the Lake District, and that the extremist preacher Abu Hamza was accused of trying to set up a training camp in Oregon. Neither Cumbria nor Oregon are particularly sympathetic to extremist thought, but that wasn't the point.

Finally, comparisons between the perception of democracy in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran can't be made very easily, again mostly because of their differing histories. Ayatollah Khomeini had overwhelming popular support in Iran when the Shah of Shahs was ousted - the Shah, who had the backing of Western powers and was seen as a liberal and enlightened influence. He may have actively promoted a Western (specifically American) lifestyle in Iran, but he was also extremely corrupt, and the Iranian revolution came as a backlash against him and the international governments that were supporting him. These paragons of democracy in the West had also backed the Shah in pretty much everything that he did, and the Iranian revolutionaries could not forget that. Iran remains a revolutionary Shi'a state, and a pariah in the Muslim world for being Shi'a. Saudi Arabia is different again, and Pakistan is different again. To talk of extremism makes very little sense unless you are familiar with its genesis in each of these places.

Now Bhutto's party and the government are openly clashing on the cause of her death. Al-Qaeda has denied responsibility, and as they aren't exactly slow to admit guilt when they have done something of this nature, it's reasonable to assume that the government's story is inaccurate - especially as they haven't provided anything to support what they say, although they claim to have 'strong evidence'. So why are we still talking about extremism, as if extremism could be the only possible reason for a death in One of Those Islamic Countries Over There?
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby steven » Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:41 pm

henri, when assessing
Last edited by steven on Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
steven
Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:41 pm
Location: coventry, england

Postby parnassus » Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:47 pm

vicky, i don't think it's possible for al qaeda to take responsibility for the attack given that they are not a centralised organisation but rather a loose group of cells. the way they are portrayed you would think bin laden was ab bond villian, sitting in his cave while stroking his beard and plotting his next evil scheme


I know that they are organised on a very local level, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for them to claim responsibility or that there is no larger sense of affiliation. It's a mistake to speak of bin Laden as the 'head' of al-Qaeda (a figurehead, perhaps) but in spite of the nature of the organisation, a hierarchy does exist within it. Sometimes that hierarchy is exaggerated by the press (how many people have been labelled as 'bin Laden's right-hand man' in the press now?) but it is still present.

henri, when assessing the status of political freedom in islamic nations, the mistake lies in assuming that muslims think the same as we do. they do not.


How do 'we' think? Who qualifies as 'us'?

There is a great variety of views and political stances within Muslim countries, just as there is in the UK. Be careful not to oversimplify things (especially in your description of what Islam is - to write it off as an Arabian tribal system is to completely ignore its differing cultural expressions across the globe) and remember that most people can't be categorised so easily. A whole host of political ideas have emerged from a purely Islamic framework, but they have been lumped into two camps ('moderate' and 'extremist') by people who are incapable of seeing that it is possible to be an orthodox, traditional Muslim and still support a democratic ideal. It's also possible to be an orthodox, traditional Muslim and support a theocracy or an absolute monarchy or advocate a system very close to socialism. The lack of recognition of this multiplicity of viewpoints is partly due to ignorance about Islamic theology and the history of Muslim-majority countries, which is a vast area of scholarship, but it also owes something to the lingering taint of orientalism, which simultaneously exoticises and demonises the Muslim world.

Its main principle is this: the brown masses are fundamentally different from us, and they aren't capable of thinking like us. This ideology has given birth to a lot of dubious phrases with pseudo-psychological undertones - 'the Oriental mind', 'the Arab mentality', etc. The logical follow-up to statements such as, "The mistake lies in assuming that Muslims think the same as we do," is an assessment of precisely how 'their' mode of thought differs from 'ours', and that almost always results in prejudicial comparisons between the teeming tribal hordes and the sophisticated intelligentsia of the West. The most (in)famous example of where this line of thinking takes us is revealed in a speech by Lord Cromer, who was speaking on the qualities necessary to good government (and the reason why such qualities were absent from Egypt):

"Want of accuracy, which easily degenerates into untruthfulness, is in fact the main characteristic of the Oriental mind...The European is a close reasoner; his statements of fact are devoid of any ambiguity; he is a natural logician, albeit he may not have studied logic; he is by nature sceptical and requires proof before he can accept the truth of any propostion; his trained intelligence works like a piece of mechanism...The mind of the Oriental, on the other hand, like his picturesque streets, is eminently wanting in symmetry. His reasoning is of the most slipshod description. Although the ancient Arabs acquired in a somewhat higher degree the science of dialetics, their descendents are singularly deficient in the logical faculty. They are often incapable of drawing the most obvious conclusions from any simple premises of which they may admit the truth. Endeavour to elicit a plain statement of facts from any ordinary Egyptian. His explanation will generally be lengthy, and wanting in lucidity. He will probably contradict himself half-a-dozen times before he has finished his story. He will often break down under the mildest process of cross-examination."

Of course, it is no longer right to dismiss entire peoples as being too feeble-minded to grasp the simple logic required to govern themselves, and so the nature of orientalism has changed. Now we accept, graciously, that Arabs, Orientals, Muslims - call them what you like, it's not as if there's any difference between them - are capable of thinking like us, and some of them (the enlightened moderates) choose to do so. The ones who don't are automatically labelled extremist (for men) or oppressed (for women), because how could 'they' reject 'our' political thought and possibly be anything else? The old racism may have undergone intensive plastic surgery, but it's still there, and for this reason we must tread very carefully on this topic.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Henri » Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:14 pm

henri, when assessing the status of political freedom in islamic nations, the mistake lies in assuming that muslims think the same as we do. they do not. liberal, post-enlightenment concepts such as freedom of speech, expression and association, capitalism, democracy, the rule of law and absolute religious freedom are rejected outright by islam.


Hmm, this strikes me as a rather 'extremist', and narrow-minded perspective, yet I can detect what you are attempting to assert. It is due to the vast differences in the political, legal, and socio-economic systems between Islamic states, and the Western, developed world, which has evoked this reaction from you. This is totally understandable, but there are many other things to be taken into consideration. To say that there is not diversity of opinion amongst muslims - wherever they happen to live - is akin to saying that there is not diversity of opinion in this forum. The concept of 'Jihad' serves as a prime example of widespread western misinterpretation of Islam.

its main principle is this: the brown masses are fundamentally different from us, and they aren't capable of thinking like us


This is, quite obviously, a completely ludicrous statement to make. People of all religions are just that - people, and wherever there are people, diversity of opinion, knowledge, and intellect can be found. Despite agreeing with the fundamental principles of what Vicky is saying, there are some aspects of her thought that I do not agree with.

There are real cultural problems with some aspects of Islam, problems that have, in many respects, hindered certain muslims from integrating into the communities of this country, whilst preventing Islamic states from reaching their potential.



The lack of recognition of this multiplicity of viewpoints is partly due to ignorance about Islamic theology and the history of Muslim-majority countries, which is a vast area of scholarship, but it also owes something to the lingering taint of orientalism, which simultaneously exoticises and demonises the Muslim world.


Vicky, your vehement defence of Islamic values and traditions is, at times, admirable and impressive, yet it can come across as slightly biased. Yes, there are a 'multiplicity of viewpoints", but this works both ways. It is perfectly understandable that people might question the values of Islam. They see that it is Muslims who were responsible for the awful acts of terrorism we in the west have experienced in recent years; they see that it is Muslims who are responsible for preaching hate in Britain; they see the feudal systems of some Islamic states, comparing them to the free and democratic political systems in Britain and the west. It is not difficult to comprehend why people may form these opinions. To conveniently omit these defects is comparable to the 'orientalism' you are defending.
Henri
Forum Master
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Reading, U.K

Postby parnassus » Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:58 pm

Vicky, your vehement defence of Islamic values and traditions is, at times, admirable and impressive, yet it can come across as slightly biased. Yes, there are a 'multiplicity of viewpoints", but this works both ways. It is perfectly understandable that people might question the values of Islam.


I haven't even mentioned 'Islamic values and traditions', as I'm not a Muslim and I'm not prepared to speak on behalf of Muslims by telling everybody what they value and what traditions they maintain. All I'm pointing out is that there is an unfortunate tendency to pigeon-hole Muslims, to assume that any problem occuring in the vague general direciton of the Middle East must be related to Islamic extremism, and that all strains of extremism not only have the same cause (hatred for 'us' and 'our' values) but manifest in the same way.

This isn't the result of bias. This is the result of living in Saudi Arabia, which has a huge and cosmopolitan expatriate population drawn from all over the world and is the cultural crossroads of the Middle East. This gave me the opportunity to meet all sorts of people from across the globe (there were nine languages spoken in my class alone at school) and to learn about many streams of Islamic thought, the history and politics of the surrounding countries, and so on. I don't think people here quite realise how two-dimensional and unrealistic some presentations of Middle Eastern and Islamic life, society, and history actually are. There is a tendency to look at everything Middle Eastern in contrast to 'our' own system, which we implicitly trust as a superior vantage point.

Your own post displays this tendency to a certain extent. You assumed that I was talking about Islamic traditions and values, supporting Muslims as opposed to the people who have formed their opinions through comparing Muslim-majority countries "to the free and democratic political systems in Britain and the west". But I wasn't making any such comparisons at all. My whole point was that this way of thinking is bogus.

It is not difficult to comprehend why people may form these opinions. To conveniently omit these defects is comparable to the 'orientalism' you are defending.


Did you accidentally write 'defending' in place of 'attacking'? If it wasn't a mistake, please reread my post as you can't have understood it properly.

Secondly, deciding that Muslim-majority countries must be extremist because Muslims have committed terrorist acts is an illogical inference - an inference that is strengthened and supported by centuries of the very orientalist thought that I was condemning. That thought is so ingrained in contemporary British perceptions of the Middle East - still - that it has acquired legitimacy. Perhaps as a result of Britain's colonial past, it seems to be a popular past-time to analyse and pass judgement on countries and systems of government that people actually have very little knowledge about - especially the Muslim-majority countries. The tacit assumption is that 'we' are somehow more qualified than the citizens of these countries to understand and talk about the said citizens. Bhutto's political allies may think that her opponents were behind her death, but that doesn't matter - we have already decided that it was the extremists up to their old tricks again, and we clearly know much more about the situation in Pakistan than Pakistani politicans ever could.

Do you see the problem?
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby steven » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:35 am

[quote="parnassus"][quote]
Of course, it is
Last edited by steven on Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
steven
Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:41 pm
Location: coventry, england

Postby parnassus » Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:31 pm

steven wrote:
Of course, it is no longer right to dismiss entire peoples as being too feeble-minded to grasp the simple logic required to govern themselves, and so the nature of orientalism has changed. Now we accept, graciously, that Arabs, Orientals, Muslims - call them what you like, it's not as if there's any difference between them - are capable of thinking like us, and some of them (the enlightened moderates) choose to do so. The ones who don't are automatically labelled extremist (for men) or oppressed (for women), because how could 'they' reject 'our' political thought and possibly be anything else? The old racism may have undergone intensive plastic surgery, but it's still there, and for this reason we must tread very carefully on this topic.


Vicky, it is not racist to object to a cultural practices of another ethnic group. Racism is the belief that some races are genetically superior to others.


No, racism can take many different forms. There are people who advocate that everybody has a basic right to the same quality of life providing they don't intermarry, emigrate, or mix any more than is necessary with people of other races. This is the official position of the National Front. Of course it's based on a notion of superiority, although some of its members would deny that. But these days such objectionable ideas are rarely based on the concept of superior genes or 'pure blood', but on psychology and mind and culture - which are treated as inseparable from race, albeit in a very subtle manner.

Secondly, which ethnic group were you talking about in your earlier posts? You spoke of Muslims a lot. Muslims aren't an ethnic group, and they don't belong to one particular culture. Assuming it were even plausible, how is your distinction relevant?

Culture on the other hand does not remain in place, it changes according to generation, lifetime and environment. It should not be immune from criticism but it is becoming increasingly so due to a philosophy born of post-colonial guilt known as cultural relativism. This is the belief that all cultures are equal and no culture may therefore criticise another.


Objecting to a point of view beginning with, "Muslims don't think the same as we do," is hardly symptomatic of either cultural relativism or postcolonial guilt. It means that I'm not prepared to accept such flawed stereotypes about the thought processes of 1.7 billion people as axiomatic.

It is itself racist because it perceives certain practices as being unique to the caucasians, arabs, latinos, africans, jews etc.


Lord Cromer and his ilk thought along these lines, and they could hardly be accused of subscribing to cultural relativism. You have also exhibited this attitude by suggesting that basic democratic concepts must be alien to Muslims because 'they don't think like we do'. Finally, cultural relativists typically don't see certain practices as being unique to distinct groups of people, because their focus is on the context rather than the practice itself.

It has succeeded in poisoning political debate to the extent that we are afraid to criticise human rights abuses which occur in foreign nations.


Not only do I disagree with your conclusion here, but I still can't see how it's relevant to what you wrote earlier. To put it plainly: are you suggesting that the stereotype you have attached to Muslims at large is legitimate because it is a criticism of 'culture', not ethnicity; and that in promoting it you are championing human rights?

Jiang Zemin, former head of the chinese communist party, declared democracy to be a "western concept", alien to "chinese values". But of course taiwan, which lives under constant threat, is evidence to the contrary.


You began by making a broadbrush pronouncement on what Muslims think and why they think as they do. I don't understand what Jiang Zemin has to do with things - unless the inference is that as he is 'non-western' too, his method of thinking and that of the Muslims is all of a piece. The resulting vagueness is one of the big problems that arises whenever somebody tries to define a political system by selecting an appropriate opposite (or 'antonym') from the world at large.

I have never held people of different beliefs to be inferior but i do believe them to be wrong and i see no reason why their beliefs should not be open to debate. . So when I hear for example that six months ago, the islamic republic of iran hung fifteen students for oppisition to the regime, i can't refrain from objecting to it just beacuse it's part of "persian culture" or "islamic culture".


Firstly, I didn't say that such killings could be justified as being part of 'Islamic culture' or 'Perisan culture'. From this snippet, it is clear that you believe the killings did occur because of the influence of Islamic and Persian culture, and that these cultural mores need to be tackled so that such murders don't happen. And this is where I disagree so strongly. Killings of that sort have little to do with religion or culture, and everything to do with the dynamics of power. Culture and religion alter the way such unjust events are represented to the people, but they aren't the causes of the events themselves.

You have assumed that in disagreeing with a particularly painful stereotype, I must be condoning everything that goes on in Muslim-majority countries, which is a very unusual extrapolation to make.

henri, while i accept that there is great diversity of opinion among muslims, there is absolutely no way that the laws laid out in the qur'an can be interpreted as arguing for a liberal, democratic system.


You seem to have changed your mind on the 'diversity of opinion amongst Muslims' over the course of this thread. Earlier you wrote that their thought processes had been created by 'the tribal structure of seventh-century Arabia', which sounds pretty inflexible to me, so what do you really believe? Are you talking about 'diversity of opinion' because it's the appropriate liberal platitude to give at this point, or do you honestly accept the breadth of opinion and interpretation amongst Muslim scholars and Muslims at large?

Finally, I don't think Henri claimed that Qur'anic laws lay out a pattern for liberal democracy. He pointed out that the Qur'an teaches certain moral principles. To elaborate on this, from my perspective as someone who can read the Qur'an in the original fus'ha Arabic and who attended classes in Qur'anic exegesis for years, I can say that such principles certainly aren't exclusive to democracies and that it is possible for Qur'anic values to be implemented in a democratic framework - and vice versa. Shar'iah law is quite organic. It was designed to be.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Dan » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:13 pm

I think you guys should cool it off a little in here, though you are only debating I feel some angst brewing.
Image
Dan
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: UK, England, Watford

Postby steven » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:10 pm

i wasn't speaking
Last edited by steven on Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
steven
Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:41 pm
Location: coventry, england

Postby parnassus » Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:01 am

i wasn't speaking of islam in partcular but of the "orientals" you referred to . your implication appeared to be that if we disapprove of some of the values of a foreign nation and culture then it is somehow akin to racism.


Please show me the paragraph that you inferred that from, as I can't see it in anything that I've written so far. What I wrote had nothing to do with disapproving of the values held by foreign nations and cultures, but defining foreign natures and cultures according to readymade conceptions and stereotypes - hence the Lord Cromer excerpt and the in-depth discussion of orientalism's implications for today.

'Oriental' was the term applied haphazardly to people from the Arabs through to the Japanese during the days of the Empire, although it was used primarily for Arabs and Indians. Even though the term was made to cover a huge geographical area and to fit so many disparate groups of people, it was an accepted part of the colonial vocabulary - after all, it's all 'the East', and it's all Other, so what do distinctions matter? My point was that this exact same way of thinking, with all its attendant baggage, is now being applied to Muslims. The term 'oriental' does not denote pluralism or cultural relativism or anything else in that line and it never has done, so I still don't understand why it suggests those things to you.

i mentoned that islam is based upon the tribal structure of 7th century arabia because that is the circumstances in which it originated. i wasn't implying it was unique to arabs or tribalists.


the mistake lies in assuming that muslims think the same as we do. they do not. liberal, post-enlightenment concepts such as freedom of speech, expression and association, capitalism, democracy, the rule of law and absolute religious freedom are rejected outright by islam. this is because islam is based on the tribal structure of 7th century arabia and as such does not take kindly to individualism.

That definitely says that because of their religion, Muslims are incapable of thinking outside of a tribal mentality - and you go on later to say that the contents of 'their texts' preclude Muslims from 'westernising'. Where does that leave British Muslims such as Qasim? Is he to be told how he thinks and why he thinks as he does by people who aren't Muslim and who have no education in the Qur'an or Islamic fiqh, or is he going to be allowed to speak for himself? The italicised paragraph is talking about 1.7 billion people, and it's just not possible to force them under the same umbrella - or to sort them neatly into boxes labelled 'moderate', 'extremist', etc.

I do believe that there is diversity of opinion among muslims but from what i have read of their texts, i doubt their God if he existed would be a Jefferson fan.


I do believe that there is diversity of opinion among Muslims, but...

Why the qualifier? That makes it sound as though you are prepared to acknowledge diversity of opinion amongst Muslims only if you can assess that diversity with tools of your own choosing: your own knowledge of 'their texts' and 'their God'.

Reading Qur'an is not like pulling a magazine off the shelves at Woolworth's and dipping in at will, or using Google to pick out verses that contain terms you've already decided to hunt for. It is a skill that takes years to master. Surat [chapters] are read in a different order from the order of compilation; the parts dealing with fiqh (jurisprudence and government) interact with four separate schools of thought, or madhabs; and there are many distinctions that have to be made - the difference between universal revelations and context-dependent revelations, the nuances and subtleties between different words (fus'ha Arabic is a very nuanced and delicate language), and so many other things. I would be here all night if I began to list them. You achieve this level of knowledge through years and years of study and hard work, and that is knowledge and experience that no one on this forum possesses. It's an insult to people who have actually studied intensively to make judgements about what 'their texts' say and what 'their God' is like, because we're effectively saying that what matters is not their knowledge, but our opinion.

Why does our opinion take precedence over their life's work?

Because it's a non-Muslim opinion - an opinion formed in the mind of someone accustomed to democratic freedoms, not an idea dreamed up by somebody with a tribal mentality. That's effectively the sum of it. And I've seen this attitude in action numerous times, the most recent occasion being when somebody invited me to speak at an informal gathering about Muslim women's lives in Saudi Arabia. When I suggested that I send a Saudi friend who is studying in London in my place, I was told that the organisers were hoping for something 'more authentic' (because an English Christian girl's take on Saudi Muslim women's lives is going to be more authentic than anything a London-educated Saudi Muslimah could say about herself, presumably). This attitude does make me angry, because it's prejudiced - but because it's not the sort of prejudice that leads to hateful rhetoric and violence, it's not so easy to recognise. And that is the attitude that I see creeping into this thread in places. Avoid it.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby steven » Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:25 am

your probably
steven
Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:41 pm
Location: coventry, england

Previous

Return to News and Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron