Jump to content

Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think


kuzadd

Recommended Posts

Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think

http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=12576

A new book by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed ought to have a profound and transforming influence on Americans' view of their government's confrontation with Islam. The book, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, presents the results of six years of Gallup polling in the Muslim world between 2001 and 2007. "With the random sampling method that Gallup used," the authors explain, "results are statistically valid with a plus or minus 3-point margin of error. In totality, we surveyed a sample representing more than 90% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, making this the largest, most comprehensive study of contemporary Muslims ever done" (xi). Based on this data, Esposito and Mogahed have determined that Washington's conflict with Islam is "more about policy than principle"

no surprise there, of course it is policy, imperial policy!

and all the "good germans" are on board, now, as in WW2

* "As we have seen in the [Gallup] data, resentment against the West comes from what Muslims perceive as the West's hatred and denigration of Islam; the Western belief that Arabs and Muslim are inferior; and their [Muslims'] fear of Western intervention, domination, or occupation" (141).

well the Muslims certainly get it, unlike the 'good germans'

* "As our [Gallup's] data has demonstrated, the primary cause of broad-based anger and anti-Americanism is not a clash of civilizations but the perceived effect of U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world" (156).

again, the muslims get it, "good germans" blindly and in fear follow the "leader"

* "[The Gallup data shows that] contrary to what the 'They Hate Our Freedom' thesis might predict, Muslims do not recommend or insist upon changes to Western culture or social norms as the path to better [Western-Muslim] relations. … Rather they call on the West to show greater respect for Islam, and they emphasize policy-related issues [u.S. interventionism; unqualified support for Israel; and protection for authoritarian Arab regimes]" (159).

again the muslims are on the ball, we get to read here everyday all the respect the west shows islam, denigration of everything in typical imperialistic style, the good "colonialists" at their best.

ya know, rip their countries apart, kill their people , to bad for them.

there religion is the religion of violence, I especially chuckle at that from the 'christian' crowd , the most violent pro-war faction,oops I mean the religion of peace LOL!!!!

Over and over again, Esposito and Mogahed show the nearly complete absence among Muslims of a desire to destroy America's equality of opportunity, liberties, or democracy. Indeed, the Gallup data show that these are the aspects of U.S. society that Muslims most admire. "

muslims speak for themselves sans the propagandist talking heads of the west

reccommended reading, for the sake of enlightening ones self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

muslims speak for themselves sans the propagandist talking heads of the west

reccommended reading, for the sake of enlightening ones self.

Save your money....just count the number of Muslims who have voted with their feet for the evil, wicked West...not just since 2001....but 1991....and 1981...and 1971....and.......then update the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Save your money....just count the number of Muslims who have voted with their feet for the evil, wicked West...not just since 2001....but 1991....and 1981...and 1971....and.......then update the book.

Washington's conflict with Islam is "more about policy than principle"

as you well know.

Count the years of American Foreign policy going as far back at the Carter Doctrine, which makes the statement above more then clear, and factual.

ON 23 January 1980, in his State of the Union Address, President Jimmy Carter announced a new American policy that came to be called the Carter Doctrine. Referring to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Mr. Carter warned that:

An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.1

The Carter Doctrine, which took many foreign capitals by surprise,2 came at the conclusion of these developments. In his statement, the President sought to persuade the world that American interests in and around the Persian Gulf were so vital that the United States would fight if necessary. Concurrent with Mr. Carter’s pronouncement came an intensified search by Defense and State Department officials for new military arrangements with Kenya, Somalia, Oman, Egypt, and Pakistan. Diego Garcia, the British territory in the Indian Ocean, also received new attention. On 1 March 1980, the United States Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force(RDJTF) was formally established by Secretary of Defense Harold Brown at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. Its primary mission was subsequently focused exclusively on deployment to the Middle East and Southwest Asia.3 By early 1981, when Ronald Reagan took office as President, the RDJTF was estimated to have grown to more than 200,000 CONUS-based forces, including 100,000 Army troops, 50,000 Marines, and additional Air Force and Navy personnel.4

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...eb/grinter.html

27 years of policy, minimally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muslims do not recommend or insist upon changes to Western culture or social norms as the path to better [Western-Muslim] relations. … Rather they call on the West to show greater respect for Islam, and they emphasize policy-related issues [u.S. interventionism; unqualified support for Israel; and protection for authoritarian Arab regimes]

As Pat Condell mentions in his latest video, Islam needs less respect from the West...not more.

From one of Mr Condell's links...

Free Speech and Radical Islam

By FLEMMING ROSE

February 15, 2008; Page A14

At a lunch last year celebrating his 25th anniversary with Jyllands-Posten, Kurt Westergaard told an anecdote. During World War II Pablo Picasso met a German officer in southern France, and they got into a conversation. When the German officer figured out whom he was talking to he said:

"Oh, you are the one who created Guernica?" referring to the famous painting of the German bombing of a Basque town by that name in 1937.

Picasso paused for a second, and replied, "No, it wasn't me, it was you."

For the past three months Mr. Westergaard and his wife have been on the run. Mr. Westergaard did the most famous of the 12 Muhammad cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 -- the one depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1203035863...tml?mod=Letters

Our whole culture is subject to Islamic approval...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=muse

From a 'good German'...

;)

-------------------------------------------------------------

Fifteen men on a dead man's chest.

Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum.

---Robert Lewis Stevenson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...27 years of policy, minimally

Yes...minimally indeed. But all having nothing to do with Islam. NATO actually bombed non-Muslims to protect Muslims in 1999. Ditto other aid campaigns to Muslim nations over many, many years.

If one wants to attack US foreign policy, then just do so. Such a discussion does not require embellishment with anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...minimally indeed. But all having nothing to do with Islam. NATO actually bombed non-Muslims to protect Muslims in 1999. Ditto other aid campaigns to Muslim nations over many, many years.

If one wants to attack US foreign policy, then just do so. Such a discussion does not require embellishment with anti-Muslim rhetoric.

The authors are in fact saying it is the policy that is the justification for the attack, and not the principle. In fact the attacks on Muslims have nothing to do with principle, though that is the spin.

here I'll quote in again

Washington's conflict with Islam is "more about policy than principle"

The anti-muslim rhetoric is not necessary, I agree and the muslims polled for six years, speaking for themselves, would agree with your postualtion.

This is about policy, it is only about policy and has always been about US policy.

during the Truman era

In fact, as early as 1949, the Truman administration investigated the most effective methods for preventing an enemy from using Middle East oil fields. Fearful of a possible Soviet invasion of the Arabian Peninsula, President Harry S. Truman put in place a plan to blow up the Saudi oil installations so as to prevent the Soviets from making use of the oil and thus becoming even more powerful.

In 1950, the CIA conducted a feasibility study that considered the use of radiological weapons as a way of making it impossible for the Soviets to benefit from the oil.

The CIA report ruled out the use of radiological weapons as a method for two reasons.

First, it was found that "denial of the wells by radiological means can be accomplished to prevent an enemy from utilizing the oil fields but it could not prevent him from forcing 'expendable Arabs' to enter contaminated areas to open well heads and deplete the reservoirs. Therefore, it is not considered that radiological means are practicable as a conservation measure." In other words, while such a method would have prevented the Soviets from using the oil, it would have also prevented the United States from using it upon reoccupation.

Second, the CIA report found that the use of explosives and conventional plugging methods of the oil heads could be effective enough in denying the Soviets the ability to access the oil. As a result, the Truman administration put in place an oil-denial policy using conventional explosives that were stored in the region. This policy was later reinforced by the Eisenhower administration.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/0213iraq_telhami.aspx

http://www.meed.com/economy/mena/news/a_tr...the_region.html

On 12 March 1947, US President Truman announced what became known as the Truman Doctrine to contain Soviet communism. The trigger was events in Greece, where the government was losing against pro-Soviet partisans. The results were momentous. They included the Marshall plan for rebuilding Western Europe and Nato.

On the day the doctrine was declared, an agreement was signed that granted oil majors Exxon and Mobil a stake in Aramco, previously exclusively owned by their US counterparts Chevron and Texaco. Securing Saudi oil was the cornerstone of the Truman Doctrine in the Middle East.

So middle east oil has long been a concern and policy issue of the US , which is exactly the point the authors are making.

Washington's conflict with Islam is "more about policy than principle"

they are in fact totally correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..So middle east oil has long been a concern and policy issue of the US , which is exactly the point the authors are making.

Washington's conflict with Islam is "more about policy than principle"

they are in fact totally correct.

No they aren't....lest America and the "West" would have "jihad" attacks from Japanese, Koreans, Philippinos, Africans, Guatemalans, Haitians, Chileans, etc., etc.

While 'oil' is certainly of paramount importance to US foreign policy, it is not the only thing and/or country to exploit resources and people. It is intellectually lazy to reduce the entire dynamic to Muslims and oil. The anti-Israeli rhetoric predates American dependence on imported oil, and at one time in the distant past, America was the world's supplier for oil production, distillates, and refining technology. The hydrocarbon economy, and requisite petroleum production, is important to the whole world, not just the "west" or America..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they aren't....lest America and the "West" would have "jihad" attacks from Japanese, Koreans, Philippinos, Africans, Guatemalans, Haitians, Chileans, etc., etc.

While 'oil' is certainly of paramount importance to US foreign policy, it is not the only thing and/or country to exploit resources and people. It is intellectually lazy to reduce the entire dynamic to Muslims and oil. The anti-Israeli rhetoric predates American dependence on imported oil, and at one time in the distant past, America was the world's supplier for oil production, distillates, and refining technology. The hydrocarbon economy, and requisite petroleum production, is important to the whole world, not just the "west" or America..

america had a "jihad" from Japan

those crazy kamikaze's

so your point is imo lame.

or intellectually lazy.

of course it isn't just about oil , but as even you concede oil is of paramount importance

it is in fact american policy that has played a role in the ME for years and years and years, and despite all the messin' around, the muslims polled still "don't hate you for your freedom" and all other rhetoric and propaganda spouted by the talking heads of the west.

Edited by kuzadd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll really have to check this out - Esposito's work has always been top-notch, and now it's backed up by the largest study on Muslim attitudes ever taken.

I think it's telling about just how factually-based the "Islam is the enemy" argument when we have Dogonporch using a comedian's out-of-the-ass sermons as some sort of counter to this study, as if the two are comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll really have to check this out - Esposito's work has always been top-notch, and now it's backed up by the largest study on Muslim attitudes ever taken.

I think it's telling about just how factually-based the "Islam is the enemy" argument when we have DogOnPorch using a comedian's out-of-the-ass sermons as some sort of counter to this study, as if the two are comparable.

I take it you don't agree with Pat Condell's comedic comments. :lol: Many do. Over 30,000 subscribers on YouTube. I'm just one.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell

Enjoy...he has some side-splitters.

:)

I note Mr Espisito's long track record of apologizing for Islam's radical behaviour. Dalia Mogahed...I think we can expect that from her, as well. I respect that both have good credentials, but, by no means can they be thought of as an unbiased opinion about Islam in any of its forms.

Meanwhile...

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL25548803.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7310439.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7304450.stm

...just another day in Denmark.

:lol:

----------------------------------------

Mexican Americans love education so they go to night school, take Spanish, and get a B.

---Cheech y Chong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* "[The Gallup data shows that] contrary to what the 'They Hate Our Freedom' thesis might predict, Muslims do not recommend or insist upon changes to Western culture or social norms as the path to better [Western-Muslim] relations. … Rather they call on the West to show greater respect for Islam, and they emphasize policy-related issues [u.S. interventionism; unqualified support for Israel; and protection for authoritarian Arab regimes]" (159).

Meaning they want to inhabit the West, tell the West what do do, and heaven forefend the West wants to take a reciprocal role in a Muslim country, all h*ll breaks loose in the London subways or on the skyline of New York. BULL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I knew when I saw this posted here, that it would rapidly turn into a 'bash muslims everywhere' fest. Of course a few of the regular frothing at the mouth posters have jumped in and done just that.

Feel the love, baby.

One would think that 'some' groups, having been the 'scapegoat of the day' previously, would not be so quick to perpetuate such a lie upon others...

tsk tsk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how did that story end?

Sure....please tell us where US foreign policy ranks compared to Mohammed cartoons requiring death squads and yet another jihad.

the point being, as you point out so often and with such relish. economics trumps virtue!

Therefore as the authors point out in the book, the war with Islam, is a continuation of policy.

Not one of principal.

How can you claim principal, when it is clear Bushco. LIED, the country into a war of plunder, a war of gain, a war of choice?? It's a joke. Where is the principal?Now there are 4000 dead soldiers. Where is the principal, sacrificing someone elses kids? Dead for lies, dead for plunder. Where is the principal?

When American policy, particularily regarding the oil is of "paramount importance", that my friend is policy, same policy , it has always been. To justify the policy there has always been the propogandic "boogey man/men" to get the people on board. It works the same way, everytime. You know this. You know economics trumps virtue everytime.

Simply put the authors are correct, it is policy, not principal, and this time, the west intends to go further then just two countries in the ME, hence the need for a really big boogey man to scare the pollyanna's.

So now it is all of "Islam" how convenient?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I knew when I saw this posted here, that it would rapidly turn into a 'bash muslims everywhere' fest. Of course a few of the regular frothing at the mouth posters have jumped in and done just that.

Feel the love, baby.

One would think that 'some' groups, having been the 'scapegoat of the day' previously, would not be so quick to perpetuate such a lie upon others...

tsk tsk.

It blows me away everytime.

Yet, it seems there it is, as quick to perpetuate a lie, as quick to swallow a lie, as quick to further propogate lies. Then they wonder, how did it happen to their ancestors?

Well this is exactly how it happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meaning they want to inhabit the West, tell the West what do do, and heaven forefend the West wants to take a reciprocal role in a Muslim country, all h*ll breaks loose in the London subways or on the skyline of New York. BULL.

wow, now you are a mind reader?

read my mind?

what card am I holding up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...minimally indeed. But all having nothing to do with Islam. NATO actually bombed non-Muslims to protect Muslims in 1999. Ditto other aid campaigns to Muslim nations over many, many years.

that was more crap btw.

again we see that was not for muslims, that was merely incidental.

trans-balkan pipeline for one!

I love the prime minister of kosoveobtw, he is a typical American "prop".

Ya know, like Saddam, Pinochet pick an american lackey in a client state.

and there is the new PM of Kosovo.

same circus, different clown!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on you people, we the great white people, have been taught insidiously to look down on any person of colour. And if you deny this then you don't understand yourself. We have also been taught, as the Presbyterians were, that we are the salt of the earth.

I have heard from a neighbour that all blacks, not exactly what he called them, are too lazy to work. A librarian destroyed some religious books donated to the library because they were from that #### East Indian religion. I have been told that all Native Peoples are drunks and lazy. And it goes on and on, the sad fact is that these are general feelings about anyone different than we are. I wasn't too long ago that Jewish people were included in this verbal abuse, and probably still are but it has become umpopular to say that.

When I told the librarian that the Chinese were reading and writing long before the much vaulted English were she was astounded.

Anyone ever read Pearl Bucks books, you would find that the Chinese do not consider us civilized. A lot of the things we value and use came from the Islamic nations. Why do we want to destroy them? Did bombing Iraq and destroying aritfacts and historical things thousands of years old prove anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll really have to check this out - Esposito's work has always been top-notch, and now it's backed up by the largest study on Muslim attitudes ever taken.

I think it's telling about just how factually-based the "Islam is the enemy" argument when we have Dogonporch using a comedian's out-of-the-ass sermons as some sort of counter to this study, as if the two are comparable.

You are familiar with one of the author's?

I think it is worthy of checking it out myself, as it is nice to actually read what , these people have to say for themselves. Not what western talking heads promulgate.

considering: a total of 6 years, between 2001 -2007 ,polling some 90% of the muslim population , would yield some substantial information with regards to attitudes, perceptions. The information should be considered extemely worth of consideration. If the goal of the west was really one of peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you don't agree with Pat Condell's comedic comments. :lol: Many do. Over 30,000 subscribers on YouTube. I'm just one.

The thing is, if I'm discussing a certain issue, and I'm looking for a solid argument or set of facts to counter a very comprehensive study, I'm generally not going to respond by posting the name of a comedian and telling people to "check his stuff out" - It would kind of make me look like, 1 - I was avoiding talking about the issue directly, in my own words, 2 - I didn't have any actual facts to counter those in the study. It would make my position look weak.

I note Mr Espisito's long track record of apologizing for Islam's radical behaviour.

Such as? I'm aware he EXPLAINS problems in the Muslim work, but explaining why things happen isn't the same thing as condoning them. But that's really besides the point - whatever Esposito's interpretation of the stats, that doesn't change the facts that were posted above - so what do you have to say about them?

Dalia Mogahed...I think we can expect that from her, as well. I respect that both have good credentials, but, by no means can they be thought of as an unbiased opinion about Islam in any of its forms.

No opinion is completely unbiased, but considering that both of them have to be accountable to either their university or board of directors, they are inherently more unbiased than Condell, who doesn't have to be accountable to anyone and can and does say whatever he wants, true or not. That and they have made studying Islam their life's work, whereas Condell hasn't.

How cute. So in response to the findings of the largest study on Muslim attitudes ever undertaken, you post three news stories about isolated incidents. Sorry, but that doesn't stack up.

Try harder next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How cute. So in response to the findings of the largest study on Muslim attitudes ever undertaken, you post three news stories about isolated incidents. Sorry, but that doesn't stack up.

All from the same day/week in Denmark. Fine...nothing unusual.

The thing is, if I'm discussing a certain issue, and I'm looking for a solid argument or set of facts to counter a very comprehensive study, I'm generally not going to respond by posting the name of a comedian and telling people to "check his stuff out" - It would kind of make me look like, 1 - I was avoiding talking about the issue directly, in my own words, 2 - I didn't have any actual facts to counter those in the study. It would make my position look weak.

You should perhaps look closer at his message. He is critical of all religions equally...including yours...whatever that may be. Myself, I dislike almost anything that gets in the way of me owning a hover car on Mars in my lifetime. I like to call it: "Where's My Silver Spacesuit Syndrome." I expected to be slurpping down blue coloured Moon wine with green skinned women by now...silly me for watching 2001: A Space Odyssey as a kid and dreaming of the future.

Such as? I'm aware he EXPLAINS problems in the Muslim work, but explaining why things happen isn't the same thing as condoning them. But that's really besides the point - whatever Esposito's interpretation of the stats, that doesn't change the facts that were posted above - so what do you have to say about them?

He's a well respected apologist for things like three isolated incidents. So is she. Sorry, I have my opinion, too. If I was a terrorist w/ bomb you might be 'forced' to 'respect' that opinion. But, since I'm civilized, you're allowed your opinion, also.

:)

No opinion is completely unbiased, but considering that both of them have to be accountable to either their university or board of directors, they are inherently more unbiased than Condell, who doesn't have to be accountable to anyone and can and does say whatever he wants, true or not. That and they have made studying Islam their life's work, whereas Condell hasn't.

So you did check him out. Excellent.

http://www.youtube.com/patcondell

Try harder next time.

Too busy looking under my bed for Danish politicians...they're everywhere, you know....

:unsure::lol:

--------------------------------------------------------

Open the pod-bay doors, HAL...

---Dave Bowman

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All from the same day/week in Denmark. Fine...nothing unusual.

What's that supposed to mean?

You should perhaps look closer at his message. He is critical of all religions equally...including yours...whatever that may be.

Why do you continue to position some two-bit comedian as the spokesperson for the new atheism? I mean - you'd probably want to go with Dawkins instead, wouldn't you? Although he's no religious scholar, at least he's not an idiot.

Personally I'm with Sam Hedges on this one - I don't find atheist zealots who hate religion any different than Christian, Jewish or Muslim fundies who hate other belief-systems different from their own - both have an unhealthy level of absolute certainity in the universal truth of their beliefs to be able to share space with those who have different viewpoints from their own.

But besides all that - how about we get back to the original post - specifically, the fact that this study contradicts many of your claims about Muslims?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But besides all that - how about we get back to the original post - specifically, the fact that this study contradicts many of your claims about Muslims?

What, in fact, do I claim about Muslims? I believe we are discussing the veracity of this study by a recognized 'expert'.

I mean - you'd probably want to go with Dawkins instead, wouldn't you?

Hawking & Thorne, actually.

Personally I'm with Sam Hedges on this one - I don't find atheist zealots who hate religion any different than Christian, Jewish or Muslim fundies who hate other belief-systems different from their own - both have an unhealthy level of absolute certainity in the universal truth of their beliefs to be able to share space with those who have different viewpoints from their own.

I'm an existentialist...but who's counting? "God" lies in the scientific method. I find belief in imaginary things unhealthy. But that's just MY opinion. You're free to worship God or gods all you wish as long as you don't try to blow me up or infringe on my rights and freedoms. Perhaps keep the prayers down to a dull roar so I don't have to hear 'em if you're Muslim (you're not...I assume).

Why do you continue to position some two-bit comedian as the spokesperson for the new atheism?

Because he makes a lot of sense at times...and that's all it takes. Again, with respect, you have YOUR opinion and I have mine. Both are valid unless you're just one of those who HAS to be right. Are you....?

:lol:

-------------------------------------------------------

I have a fweind in Wome known as Biggus Dikkus...

---Monty Python's Life of Brian

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's that supposed to mean?

The irony of Islam. Admit we're peaceful or we'll kill you. Who are they "speaking for" exactly?

Outcry over a Dutch politician’s anti-Islam film continued Monday, with hard-line Muslims in Indonesia calling for the man’s death.

A group of about 40 demonstrators from the Islamic Defenders Front gathered outside the Dutch Embassy in Jakarta, some of them carrying placards saying “Kill Geert Wilders,” the film’s creator.

“It is a great insult to all Muslims,” said the group’s spokesman Soleh Mahmud, who admitted he has not seen the film but was outraged nonetheless.

“The Dutch government must arrest him. Wilders must be killed because he has declared war on Muslims.”

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2008/03/31/fitna-protests.html

------------------------------------------------------

Speaking words of wisdom, Let it be, let it be...

---The Beatles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“It is a great insult to all Muslims,” said the group’s spokesman Soleh Mahmud, who admitted he has not seen the film but was outraged nonetheless.

Haha, I love that one! Classic, simply classic. Outrage without a concrete cause. Don't bother to see what you're outraged about, just flip the outrage switch and off you go. Yes, these people just serve to show how outrageously peacefull Islam truly is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...