Wow.. just wow
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=154097
Printed Date: 28 January 2026 at 2:43pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Wow.. just wow
Posted By: Linus
Subject: Wow.. just wow
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:24pm
|
I was reading an article on aljazeera.com about how life in Iraq was better under Saddam and it's all the US's fault now. http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11136 - Article
Read a comment form a guy, and it made me sick.
I submitted my comments to AJ.com, but I wont be surprised if they arent posted. ------------- 
|
Jerry from Germany wrote:Replies:
Posted By: Funky
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:29pm
|
Oh, but you know better because you lived in Iraq before and after so you can comment?
K THX!  ------------- 
"Don't you hate pants?" |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:30pm
We dont run into peoples houses at night, kidnap them, then behead them if ransom isn't paid. -------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:31pm
------------- 
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:32pm
|
That guy is a moron. I hope they post my comments ------------- 
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:34pm
|
I bet life was better... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Apu
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:40pm
|
I opened this thread while listening to The Press Corpse by Anti-Flag. What are the chances? ------------- I need a new Sig... |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:40pm
|
Your point in posting this was....? We all already know there are
morons in this world, and you arent proving or accomplishing anything
by posting this or putting so much thought into an article that comes
from a slightly biased site.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:41pm
|
It kind of is our fault that Iraq is messed up now..I mean, you can't really deny that.
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: NiQ-Toto
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:41pm
|
How about i submit my fist to your face.
/cedric ------------- ///AMG What? |
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:42pm
|
I forsee this turning into a 7 page debate. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:44pm
Again: We arent the ones killing innocent people for the hell of it, or even on purpose. The insurgants ARE. -------------
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:47pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:48pm
No, we are killing innocent people everyday. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:49pm
Thanks for reading that correctly. -------------
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:52pm
|
-------------
|
Posted By: the flanker
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:55pm
|
agreed ------------- 
perhaps the greatest movie ever |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:55pm
Well, some of the time, we are doing it on purpose or for fun. We have some messed up people over in Iraq. But most of the time, it's an accident, but they are stil being killed. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:55pm
|
In any conflict all sides much wear an identfiable uniform, this is to limit the number of civilain causalties. They insurgents are scared wimps and do not care about the civilains, so they hide among them putting them in danger.
You keep talking about how the US has done things wrong, but not once have you spoke out against the violations of the insurgents. They kidnap people and hold them for ransom, that is a violation of the Genivna convention. They torture and behead people, that is a violation. Speak out against all illegal acts. EDIT: And yes, there are instances. But to balme the whole US for a freak is wrong. -------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:57pm
You do know the definition of a catalyst, right? Or is your definition different than everyone elses, as was the case with hero? Regardless, a catalyst is something that starts a series of events. IF we actually were the catalysts of what happened/is happening in the middle east, then we are indeed the reason for everything, or the majority of what is wrong. While I'm not sure I agree with that, that is what you just admitted to. -------------
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 1:58pm
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:00pm
Catalyst OF SORTS OF SORTS = we went in to dethrone Saddam. That's it. Period. Dont spin my words around. -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:02pm
Terrorize? I think to some degree, some people in the army are. -------------
|
Posted By: Jack Carver
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:03pm
No, actually a catalyst just makes stuff go faster. It doesn't start it. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:04pm
In chemistry, possibly, but not always. The definition I was given was that it initiates the conflict/series of events.
That doesnt matter, BECAUSE YOU SAID WE WERE THE CATALYST. I didnt twist your words around, and I didnt put words in your mouth. I explained to you what you said. OF SORTS means nothing, because given any meaning, a catalyst OF SORTS is still a catalyst. -------------
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:05pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:09pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:12pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:14pm
When we attacked Germany, our main focus at first was to get rid of Hitler. Afterward, we helped rebuild their country.. and even helped them get out of communism much later. -------------
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:16pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:23pm
It's not about favors. All we're doing is attempting to fix what we screwed up in the first place. Leaving Iraq now would cause pain and suffering for the people of Iraq, and staying there seems to cause a great deal of pain and suffering as well. Doesn't sound like we're doing them a favor either way. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:24pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:26pm
They might not enjoy us being there, but they KNOW that if we leave, it will be anarchy. They know that as soon as we finish our mission, life there will be better then it ever was. It ALWAYS gets worse before it gets better. -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:48pm
*Sigh*. The trouble with you, Linus, is that roughly half the time you're right on the money- and you labour under the belief that that justifies at best uninformed, or at worst downright ignorant opinions the other half of the time. I'll take it line by line.
Wrong. I know why you think you're right, but you aren't. The Geneva conventions are idealistc, and at times, obsolete. They were written to accomodate a conventional western notion of war- specifically, the army of the U.S.S.R. roling across the Fulda Gap into West Germany. The conventions are suitable for such a conflict, where the parties are easily discernable national entities. The parties to the conflict would be signatory states to the conventions, and each would abide by them (ideally), because both share contemporary western notions of morality. The Insurgency in Iraq fits none of this criteria. Those who are engaging coalition troops do not represent a state; they represent militias and insurgency groups, each of which claims different political and religious affiiliation and intention. They are NOT signatories to the convention, and thus are not bound - either legally, or in their own eyes morally - to abide by them. The United Nations have assumed a jurisdiction that these people do not recognize. 'Civilian' is far too black and white a term for this conflict. There are those who openly or covertly take up arms against the coalition, and then there is a large portion of the population who tacitly or materially support them. Becuase the coalition is not fighting a state-entity, there's no solid basis upon which there can be constructed aystem of definitions of combatants, infrastructure, and support personnel. Strictly speaking, the atatcks on coalition forces are legally considered criminal acts of a domestic nature, and so the geneva conventions have no relevance- because the aggressor is not a nation-state, but a domestic insurgency. The coalition chooses to abide by the conventions because to do otherwise would be morally reprehensible (and political suicide), but to assume the insurgents are bound by them is utterly incorrect.
They are not scared, nor are they wimps. Your moral analysis is utterly eurocentric. You cannot judge a group of people by a system of morality to which they in no way subscribe. The insurgency uses tactics which we consider morally reprehensible, but to them it's solid good sense- they're confronting a vastly more powerful military forces, and guerilla tactics are all that will work. They've adapted guerilla warfare to the complex urban environment. They have also systematically determined the cultural, sociological, legal, and moral vulnerabilities we have that preclude us from fighting out end of the war to its barbaric extreme. Recognizing those vulnerabilities, they have incorporated them into their tactics. My unit had a presentation from a USMC SSgt who was in Iraq for nine months fighting in very intense combat. He was a platoon sargeant, and on two separate occasions had an entire squad of his platoon killed in action (12 men per instance) as a result of carefully contrived ambushes. He disabused me of the notion of the insurgents being 'scared'. They're simply more willing to use tactics we would consider barbaric. They DO care about civilians- they are willing to risk their lives so that their families and neighbours can live a peaceful life full of western influence and in accordance with religious doctrine, then go to Allah when they die. As they see it, those who are killed in the fighting have simply been blessed with Paradise sooner. They operate on an entirely different set of moral criteria from us. You CANNOT allow yourself to forget this. EVERYTHING must be evaluated in context, lest you misjudge or underestimate our enemies.
I agree with you about how wrong these acts are, but don't confuse them with violation of the conventions. These groups were not anticipated by the framers of Geneva; everything was expected to happen under the auspices of a conventional conflict. Nearly everything they do is justified tactically, if not (by our standards) morally.
Prior to the Invasion, Iraq was a stable, relatively prosperous nation run under a brutal tyranny. Crime was very limited, and there was a stable infratructure. Much of this has beend estroyed or put on hold since the U.S. invasion. I do believe that in the long term the invasion will be better for the Iraqis, but America cannot deny blame for a tremendous amount of suffering in the short term. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 2:58pm
How? The fact that you said we were the cause of what is happening still stands, and it doesnt change the fact that a catalyst initiates the incedent. The reason behind the event has nothing to do with the fact that it started what happened later. And how do you go about inferring you any more educated than me? you dont know me, my background, my grades, GPA, anything about me other than what you see on this forum. -------------
|
Posted By: pb125
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 3:00pm
|
Brihard just owned this thread. ------------- 
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 3:03pm
It's how I roll. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 3:43pm
We didnt tell the insurgancy to start killing innocent womena nd children. We didnt tell the insurgancy to attack government officals and try to assinate them and their familes. We didnt tell the insurgancy to kill Iraqi national guard or police forces. We blew up some infrastructure, which we rebuilt or are in the process of rebuilding/making more efficient and better. -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 3:44pm
For Christ's sake. Read what I wrote again. Digest it for half an hour, then erase everything you just wrote and try again. You didn't grasp a single concept I brought up- further argument is useless until you make the effort to grasp the material I provided for you. Your morality is strictly black and white, and utterly centric around your grasp of morality with absolutely no admission about even the possibility that another moral standard may exist or be worth contemplating. Get off your moral high horse, then try again. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 3:47pm
|
That's odd. Where did your rather lengthy post go, Linus?
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 3:51pm
Knowing half the ofurm I need "proof" so I'm backing everything up. -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 3:51pm
You say you need proof like it's a bad thing... ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 3:54pm
-------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 4:01pm
|
Refute: "To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof:" OK. Noted. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 4:36pm
And you are the same way. I'm also waiting for a reply to my last post in this thread. -------------
|
Posted By: PlentifulBalls
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 4:42pm
Dont blame it on him either.  ------------- 
sporx wrote: well...ya i prolly will be a virgin till i'm at least 30. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 4:43pm
|
Borked pic, but sitll a definite LOL.
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 4:45pm
More then one definition buddy. -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 4:47pm
|
Personally I just call that 'B.S.' But that's just me.
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 5:01pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 5:11pm
-------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 5:12pm
That was weak, Linus. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 5:13pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 5:52pm
still waiting on a reply of sorts. -------------
|
Posted By: White o Light
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 6:02pm
Why did you say "of sorts" now you've changed EVERYTHING! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 7:34pm
|
I think linus knows he's wrong. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 9:27pm
I was at work, NOT avoiding this topic. Now I'm off to see United 93.. wont be back till after midnight, so it will have to wait till tomorrow. -------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 9:57am
|
*coughAmericanRevoluioncough*
Anyway, I don't see what the point of even arguing with Linus is anymore. When he knows he is wrong, such as many examples in this here thread, he just drags it out into semantics such as what a catalyst means, what "of sorts" entails, and what a refute is. Its not really about getting to a truthful answer, its about "winning the debate" with him. After reading through this thread I was laughing out loud reading his posts. He is the kind of person Steven Colbert is mocking. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 12:39pm
I am not aware of any time an American revolutionary or group of them, killing innocent people to prove a point. Not aware of any story where the revolutionaries kill innocent people over military targets. Revolutionaries used guerrila tactics. That is the ONLY similarity between them and the terrorist in Iraq now. -------------
|
Posted By: White o Light
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 12:41pm
Of sorts. -------------
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 12:44pm
Wow white that was weak. -------------
|
Posted By: White o Light
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 1:28pm
okay? -------------
|
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 2:12pm
|
i wouldn't necessarily call the insurgents scared wimps because they're hiding among innocents... i think it's smart. think about it... they're out-skilled, out-gunned... i wouldn't be prancing with a big sign on me that said i was an insurgent either. i'd hide... conceal myself... and when i had a chance launch an ambush... their mentality is that even if they kill one of us before they die... it's worth it. they're not dumb scared wimps.... i honestly think 9/11 was brilliant... |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 2:29pm
|
Tacticually, I agree. Same with the blitzkreig from Germany. And Pearl Harbor from Japan. Those 3 things were brilliant, tactically.
But that doesnt me I condone them in any way. They had smart military leaders that just followed what the main man said, doing something inumane and wrong. But, to justify what the terrorist are doing (thats what they are, terrorist), is dumb. To condone them hiding as civilians, and getting civilians killed, and KILLING civilians, is wrong. When the revolution happened, you can argue that the revolutiaries hid among the civilian population, sure. But they never used the civilians as human shields. They never killed the civilians to prove a point. They targeted military targets only. British ships, British troops, etc etc. It was never really a "Total War", unlike what the insurgants are trying right now in Iraq. -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 3:57pm
|
Noone's 'condoning' what they did, Linus, but as I tried to beat into you over and over and over in our PM session the otehr day, they operate on an utterly different moral and ethical frequency as us. You cannot judge a people based on a set of morals they do not subscribe to. You may initiate legal proceedings, or hunt them down based on the principle of enforcing your morality, sure- but so long as they subscribe to different moral standards there will always be conflict, and *that* is the crux of the problem. The issue isn't that the insurgents refuse to fall in line; they simply see a different line from you or I. They have their own moral inhibitions; simply that very few if any of them have an impact in the nature of the fighting. You see this as a war of two armed forces, when it's not. This is much worse- a war of culture. Islam and Christianity have been in a cold war for hundreds if not thousands of years, and Iraq is simply a brushfire where that conflict has once again turned bloody. Iraq is merely a microcosm for a larger world situation that I fear will boil into more widespread violence in the enxt twenty years. Wherever Islam fuels radicals (and yes, those who would wilfully kill us are few in number, but it doesn't take many), there will inevitably be violence, as they honestly feel it is justified. A guy who walks into a cafe with a jacket made of Semtex and screams 'Allah akbar' as he blows up a bunch of tourists doesn't think he's doing anything wrong- he's about to do Allah's work, and they genuinely, honestly in their hearts see it that way. That's how bloody frightening this is; these people are zealots of the worst order who literally do not see andy moral value in their own lives or those of others. It doesn't matter if they're 'wrong' or 'misguided', because only we believe that. This is the nature of the war. They will keep fighting so long as we give them the opportunity. There will always be some of them who cannot be scared into submission. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 4:10pm
Anyway, I know its a war of 2 different cultures. It's a war of 2 different era's, one born of the medevil ages, and one born of the 21st century. You say it's wrong to judge what they do by our standard, and it isnt. If we were to judge them by their standards, then that would be condoing killing inncoent people, and thats wrong. I know their morals are different then ours, but that doesnt mean we have to accept them, or even try to understand them. Wrong is wrong. -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 4:29pm
Blech. I was rearranging a few chunks of that and missed that. Now fixed; thanks. Though tourists made of semtex could be FUN. See, Linus, I know what you're saying, and in your alst statement there's only one - critical - mistake that you made. No, you don't have to accept their morals- but it is ESSENTIAL that you make an effor tot understand them. Willful ignorance I cannot abide; both parties must make an effort to at least understannd the other, for upon that basis amity CAN be built with time. In not making yourself part of the solution in that regard, you're part of the problem. I'm a serving member of my country's armed forces. I'm perfectly willing to go to Afghansitan if needed, and cap anyone who tries to mess with myself or my buddies or my allies- but I will NOT generalize culturally. Nor will I allow myself to be blinded by cultural blinkers. I recognize that everything we do in these peoples' home countries we must do to try to help them, and help them in a way they recognize and appreciate. Ultimately these people must have the final say in what happens to their country; we'll be there ten, fifteen eyars, but they're there forever. Kill the insurgents; absolutely- if they take up arms against our troops or their own people, they must be recognized and engaged as a tactical threat. However, if the larger poltiical context is not handled in a manner designed to reduce the CULTURAL conflict, we won't get anywhere. The U.S. WILL NOT have its way entirely in Iraq. Once the U.S. pulls out it's goign to find some things reverting back to how they were before, perhaps violently. Those compromises must be made now, so at least the American egress form Iraq can be accomplished peacefully. A balance has to be found that allows them the maximum cultural freedom while still enshrining the most important of the values we hold. We're not going to get everything we want though, and no amount of killing will guarantee that. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 4:51pm
Here's where you get me wrong- I dont generalize about Arabs, I dont generalize about Muslims, I dont generalize about Cadiens. I generalize about the insurgants becuase its not wrong to do so. The majority of them are the same, so it's not a stereotype to say what they do happens the majority of the time. The majority of them want Americans dead. The majority of them kill innocent people. The majority of them are fine with killing innocent people, and advocate it. The majority of them want some form of Saddams old government back. Now, there are exceptions, like always. There are some militias whos primary job is to kill other militias. There are militias who do what they can to help the US and the interim Iraqi government. There are even militias who recognize the difference between civilian targets and US targets. They will attack the US, but not civilians. There are many different types of insurgant groups, but the ones that think it's ok, or at least not bad, to kill civilians are WRONG, no matter what stance you have. They claim they fight for Islam, but the majority of Islam is peaceful and condems these actions. The majority of Islam is rationial. But every group, every religion, has it's freaks and idiots. -------------
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 4:56pm
I'm seriously dissapointed. That is all you could say to that? Jesus kiddo where's your creativitity. -------------
|
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 6:18pm
|
------------- 
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 6:52pm
Wha exactly are you trying to say? Im not sure i know the exact meaning of your statement now. It was...changed somehow. And you still havent replied to me yet. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 7:30pm
-------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 7:56pm
|
This thread is like the U.S. postal service. It doesn't deliver on Sundays.
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 7:59pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 8:00pm
|
This thread went from interesting debate to lame attacks on Linus. -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 8:10pm
|
Meh. This thread was never good to begin with. There are few debate thread that are actually good. -------------
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 8:12pm
|
The abortion and religion debates are usually rather entertaining. Especially when Hades gets involved -------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 9:03pm
Not that that ever stopped you before. -------------
|
Posted By: PlentifulBalls
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 10:30pm
|
I personally can't wait for the next 9/11. These gas prices are killing me. -------------
sporx wrote: well...ya i prolly will be a virgin till i'm at least 30. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 May 2006 at 7:18am
 .-------------
|