Jump to content

Israelis Assault Award Winning IPS Journalist


Recommended Posts

Rue, I can see someone hit a nerve here.

I guess Gaza is in the same boat?? When the former state of Palestine was broken up to create Israel

There has never been a state of Palestine. Palestine was a territory belonging to the Turks which was administered by various other entities for the past 75 years or so. It was broken up first to form Jordan, then the remains were split up to form Israel and Palestine. Large chunks of the latter were then isplit off and taken over by Jordan and Egypt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Note - I put all three responses to White Doors, Argus, and Rue in one post, due to a session-time-out two responses were lost, and I don't have time to re-write them.

Israel violates international law not because it is on the West Bank but because it governs Israelis on the west Bank with an Israeli civilian government but Palestinians under its military government.

Which has translated into de-facto apartheid for Palestinians. Caught up in the national intoxication after the "miracle" victory of the '67 war, Israelis foolishly pursued a dream of reclaiming biblical Israel without considering the long-term consequences and questions (ie - how do we continue to be a Jewish state and a democracy if we are oppressing the democratic rights of people who are under our legal system?) of that decision. The consequences were that over decades of oppression, popular opposition to the occupation has translated into violent resistance, which has made apartheid-like policies necessary in Palestinian areas.

Had Israel settled for a ceasefire, rather than a land-grab, it would not be in this situation right now.

Again you make sweeping accusations with no proof.

Two words - Settlement construction.

Listen up just who is the Ambassador and what did he say. I note you did not reference his name or his actual comments. Why is that?

Because you didn't reference the name or comments of the official you quoted. I wasn't aware that I needed to be held to a higher standard than yourself.

Where I really take umbrage with your comments is in the following statement where you claim you need assistance in defining what homicide and terrorism is;

I wasn't aware of Samir Kuntar, period. So rather than take the word of a pro-Likhud hack, I wanted some independent info. Now I know who he is, and yes, he is a murderer.

You also again repeat the demonization myth stating Israel has no reason to try secure its border other then to be evil and hurt Palestinians.

Can we make a deal here jackass? Can you stop accusing me of using strawman arguments if you're going to do the same thing?

To summarize what I said much earlier - Israel got itself into the occupation mess because it was caught up in the hype of it's victory of '67 and believed it was destined to reclaim biblical Israel because of it's divine greatness (which was proven by the miracle victory) and didn't realize that the reason it won in '67 was the 15 years of rigorous training and planning prior. So they rushed into the West Bank and Gaza without any real long-term plan, without thinking about any existential questions of what the decision meant for the future of Israel, and now - they're stuck because of political gridlock - because no political party has enough clout to make any sort of bold move forward, because any concession towards peace is an opportunity for right-wingers to demonize the left as cowards and anti-Israeli.

You know nothing of the IDF and what it does on the ground or in the air.

And neither do you, which is why we both rely on expert analysis to form our opinions.

You provide zero evidence for your subjective comments.

Dito for you, brother.

I would love to be able to take you and place the body parts from a terrorist attack all over it and ask you to tell me which part of those kidneys and spleens are Palestinian and which ones are Israeli.

Why? So you could tell me something I knew when I a kid? There's little you could tell me about the human impact on both sides as a result of this conflict that my Zaida hasn't already taught me, thank you very much.

Yet another security expert sitting in Canada pontificating as to how to handle terrorists.

You're doing the same thing. Get off your high horse once in a while, it's good for your sperm count.

You think your views on Israel and terrorism do not reflect your bigoted views?

No, because a long time ago I decided to take an objective look at the conflict, and spent years learning and reevaluating my positions. My main arguments are only seen as "bigoted" by pro-Israeli fanatics such as yourself, and Palestinian fanatics.

For those of us who don't see the world in black and whites, where good and evil isn't determined by what side of the fence you're on, this isn't a radical concept.

I'm sorry you think this conflict is a battleground in some "clash of civilizations" between the West and Islam, that's not what bothers me. What bothers me is your using us Jews as a proxy for your wet-dreams of killing Muslims. We've been exploited and oppressed by you Gois for quite some time now, we don't need you doing it anymore - especially when you're claiming to be "our friends" but you're anything but.

Edited by JB Globe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Response to GostH's comments;

"Rue, I can see someone hit a nerve here."

No I am just constipated. Seriously I sound more angry then I am. Its just how I write. I

You stated;

"When the former state of Palestine was broken up to create Israel..."

Gost there was no former state of Palestine. That is the point. There was no soverign state. That is something crucial you must try understand. International law defines rights based on whether a territory is in fact a soverign state or territory not part of any sovereign state.

You stated;

"This now becomes an international dispute, because it involves two or more countries." The fact that it is an international dispute does not change international law or the actual international laws being violated. There is again a crucial difference between international relations and international law, they are not the same and should not be assumed to be one and the same.

You stated;

"We all have heard of the illegal settlements Israel is building in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

The fact that people widely believe something to be true does not make it true. Read what I wrote. The settlements themselves by law are not illegal, it is the method of government being used on the West Bank that violates international law. The fact that most people will not take the time to try understand the difference is unfortunate but that is the case about most things in life. You can go on the interenet and find many lists of things people assume are true but aren't and such things have become the pith and substance of our cultural assumptions. Its why some people assume for example stories of someone being the son of God and sent by God to save the world originated with Christianity or that Jews consider themselves superior to others and that is why they use the word "chosen" or that Mulsims are one monolithic belief system.

You state;

" So in order to get around the international dispute, they are categorized as non-nations."

No not at all. In fact if you misunderstand how international law works, and restate it incorrectly for political purposes to try blur the actual issues, that is what fuels even more conflict. The idea of creating refugees was a deliberate exercise by the Arab League of Nations to do precisely what it has achieved, keep people like you from paying attention to the actual legal issues whether they are international or domestic and go off on tangents based on emotional anger and assumptions of moral bad behaviour and victims and oppressors.

You stated;

" Which strikes me as odd since Gaza and West Bank have their own government and military."

The governments of Gaza and the West Bank are not sovereign state governments. In fact they exist because Israel tried through the Oslo Accord to try assist in the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state with Jordan, by setting up PLO autonomy to rule the West Bank and Gaza. That was an interim initial process to creating a framework that then would have been used to create a soverign state.

That never happened. Yasir Arafat deliberately violated the Oslo Accord and told Jordan and Israel h e had bargained in bad faith and they should have realized this all along. Those were his words. He stated that. He stated tp both they should have known he was only shitting them along. That is why Oslo blew apart. It left Jordan and Israel and Bill Clinton looking like Jackasses. The PLO then blew up internally after Arafat died.

The PLO has always been simply a loose umbrella coalition of hundreds of political terrorist cells, each with their own leader, none elected. Arafat was simply a figure head. The vast majority of these cells had no intention of every recognizing Jordan or Israel as soverign states and still believe all of Jordan, Israel and the West Bank belong to them.

The government you refer to in the Gaza and the one on the West Bank are the remains of the PLO splitting in two. However both within Hamas in the Gaza and within the Abbas PLO of the West Bank remain hundreds of internal political cells each with their own leader and ideas. This idea that there are two neat governments in place is bull. Hamas is a series of cells of leaders and on any given day those cells form internal coalitions then break up and form new ones. Likewise on the West Bank.

You state;

"But not a recognized one by international standards because they are consideres non nations."

International law has certain criteria it uses to define what a soverign state is. It has nothing to do with international standards or morality or what is considered morally good or bad and everything to do with having an administration that is accountable and can provide basic services such as collecting taxes and enunciating policies that can be depended upon.

You stated;

"But the UN mandate was to break up the Caliphate to create Israel after WWII."

Absolute and utter nonsense. Would you please make an effort to try expand your horizons and find out what actually happened. There was no UN mandate ever to do such a thing. In fact the UN inherited a mandate from the League of Nations that referred to creating a Jewish state in Palestine. It was the British who deliberately violated that mandate and unilaterally seized 85% of Palestine and created TransJordan, then flooded both Transjordan and the remainder of Palestine with Arabs from outside Palestine to prevent a Jewish homeland from being created.

The UN in fact abandon its mandate inherited from the League of Nations and it was the arab League of Nations that upon the expiration of this mandate that unilaterally declared a war to rid Palestine of all Jews.

The UN in fact did nothing when Jewish refugees found themselves without a home after World War Two or when 900,000 of them were expelled from the Arab world of the Middle East in the early 1950's. The UN did nothing when the Arab nations invaded and were trying to kill out the Jews of Palestine.

To suggest the UN had a mandate to break up Palestine is absolute bull. Britain already did that by unilaterally creating Jordan. More to the point this thing you refer to as a Caliphate as if it was a state is absolute nonsense.

The remainder of Palestine that the British did not illegally annex and create a puppet monarchy with to pay back Faisal by appointing one of his son's the King of Jordan and the other the King of Iraq another puppet state they created was not a nation. In fact the French took parts of it to create its colonies Syria and Lebanon again to illegally created puppet states for the French.

Jordan and Iraq and Saudia Arabia were all created as British puppet monarchies to protect their power in the area. The Faisal family that was the source of all of its monarchies was the family Britain paid back for assisting it defeat the Ottoman Empire in World War Two.

In fact Faisal had originally agreed with the Jews to two kingdoms one Jewish, one Muslim in the Middle East and it was the French and British who then interceded to prevent that from happening by lying to Faisal and playing divide and conquer telling Faisal the Jews would betray him. Had Faisal not listened to the French, he would not have been expelled from Syria and sent to Saudi Arabia. Had Faisal trusted his vision there would simply be one Middle East state in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the West Bank with a small Jewish state no different then Switzerland or Monaco in its midst and we would have had a far different outcome then we have today. Today's conflict comes about because of Nazi Germany, Britain and France flooding the Middle East Arab world with anti-semitism to promote their own strategic divide and conquer interests. To this day the West and the Russians and Chinese play the Muslims and Jews against each other in the Middle East to maintain their influence and control over oil. Nothing is easier to manipulate then a fundamentalist Muslim cleric blinded by his faith.

You stated'

" Glad the Caliphate had a say in it." The Caliphate had no government. Stop trying to pretend it was a government with elected people who could say anything. Read what actually happened. It was the Arab League of Nations that did all the talking for Palestinians. It was the Arab League of nations that created Palestinian refugees and forced them into camps and told them they would never be allowed in other Arab countries as citizens because they would be left in camps to rot as a reminder to the world they must give all of Israel back and until they do Palestinians will sit their as a monument to this outrage.

It was the Arab League whot old Palestinians they would rid Palestine of Jews in a few weeks and they could return to a Jew free Palestine. Caliphate? There was no government. The closest thing to a leader was the Mufti of Jerusalem the puppet of Hitler.

Now let's get real. Find out who went in and ran the Egyptian, Syrian and Iraqi military and domestic police forces and ran their governments. It was former Nazis and in particular SS and Gestapo officers who fled Germany. The uniforms and goosestepping of these armies and helmets and salutes come straight from the Nazis. The muhkbarat political secret police in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and so many Arab nations is based on the Gestapo.

May I suggest you take a look at how many German SS and Gestapo went to the Middle East and what their role was after World War Two in Syria and in Egypt with Nasser before you lecture on the Middle East.

It was bad enough half of Israel came because they had no choice because of the holocaust but then to add insult to injury, the Nazis then came to live openly in Damascus and flout their continued attempts to manipulate Arabs into continuing their war against Jews. There is a lot you seem to be unaware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israelis Assault Award Winning IPS Journalist Mohammed Omer

Well, the Dutch shouldn't hold their breath.

That said, I do hope that someone gets a good chewing out over this incident, thank goodness that Omer is still alive - not in great shape - but certainly better than being dead - like his reuters counterpart Fadel Shana whose death has yet to be addressed what so ever by Israeli authorities.

Ahhh, yes - but this is par for the course for Israel and her various security apparati - whether the Shin Bet or IDF.

I can only wish Mohammed Omer a speedy recovery - as well as hoping that he will stay safe.

You guys should try flying EL AL somethimes... then news like these will not seam outrageous...

My Russian female friend took a trip to the holy land recently and I guess stood out of the crowd somehow...

Oh boy was she given an unforgettable experience.... Right here at Pearson airport... they brought a mobile curtain to have her undress...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JB I now shall respond to your comments;

"...Caught up in the national intoxication after the "miracle" victory of the '67 war, Israelis foolishly pursued a dream of reclaiming biblical Israel...."

Excuse me but all the above is your subjective opinion. Its not based on fact just your personal opinion. So I won't respond to it other than to say I respectfully disagree with it as being to simple and too narrow in postulation.

You stated;

"The consequences were that over decades of oppression, popular opposition to the occupation has translated into violent resistance, which has made apartheid-like policies necessary in Palestinian areas."

Again the above is for me too partisan. Had you simply stated Israel's policies of occupation on the West Bank and in Gaza have proven to be counter-productive or said something like by shifting the conflict from a conflct between states to a conflict between two peoples for the same land, I would have agreed. The reference to oppression I find only half accurate since you do not also refer to the role the PLO and Hamas and the terrorist groups have engaged in oppressing their own people and inciting certain adversarial Israeli responses. You know Israelis are required and subject to the same security checks and carrying the same cards as Palestinians on the West Bank and resent the IDF presence just as much as the Palestinians do and you would know that had you been there and witnessed how the IDF are spat at by both sides. You would also know had you been there that Palestinians and Israelis are equally subject to search and seizure by not just the IDF but PLO, Hamas and Jordanian, Lebanese, Egyptian or Syrian armies and Hezbollah when they are in those countries for the exact same reasons. Apartheid? Or is it what happens when terrorism forces countries to become police states and engage in abritrary search and seizure because they do not know how to tell the difference between a terrorist and innocent civilian?

Until you criticize Hamas and the PLO and everyone for the exact same reasons, I challenge you as being too partisan.

You stated;

"Had Israel settled for a ceasefire, rather than a land-grab, it would not be in this situation right now."

They did offer a cease-fire not once but many times you know that. In fact the rejection of their attempts is what led to Likhud getting elected. The rejection of Oslo and many other attempts at a two state solution are independently documented. I think you are being unfair to Israel in such comments. Do I think Likhud has beligerent policies absolutely. But I also think they came about precisely because when Labour tried to be moderate Labour was mocked and ridiculed. I also see the same phenomena on the other side. I think every time Israel answers with force it makes Palestinian moderates week and their extremists stronger. It works both ways. Extremism on either side causes the moderates on either side to lose face and credibility. When people are under attack they turn to warriors not peaceful people.

You stated;

"Two words - Settlement construction."

Here I agree that settlement and construction on the West Bank has been very counter-productive and incited and made the problem worse.

You stated;

"...you didn't reference the name or comments of the official you quoted. I wasn't aware that I needed to be held to a higher standard than yourself."

I did not quote any official. If I did, restate the sentence to me and I will kindly provide you a reference. I would agree with you if I have quoted someone I should be referencing it, and have to follow the same standard as you. I apologize if you think I expect a standard of you I will not follow. I agree that would be bull or maybe you are referring to someone else so if that is the case never mind the above comment.

You stated;

"I wasn't aware of Samir Kuntar, period."

Your lack of awareness of who the above person is I find very surprising in fact shocking. I can not imagine anyone not knowing who he is and what he did in fact to the point where I ask did you even live in Israel and if you did how did you not know what he did? It is like a Jew saying they do not know who Adolph Eichman is.

You stated;

" So rather than take the word of a pro-Likhud hack, I wanted some independent info."

I am not sure who you are referring to and how you arrived at such a conclusion but if you want to know what my particular bias is, if I was Israeli it would not be Likhud and anyone reading my comments would know its pure labour bias or old Mapai or maybe even the old Progressive Liberal party but anything bit Likhud.

With due respect I think you should resist such labels. Israeli political parties actually mean very little. Where they once played a prominent role in defining ideology in the first 20 years of Israel's existence they have in the last twenty years become completely fragmented to the point where political party ideologies don't really exist any more so your attempt to stereotyep some of us trying to use such labels is probably not as helpful as you think it is. I doubt anyone you think supports Likhud actually does if they don't live in Israel and really know what their platform is.

If you must know my personal bias, to be even more precise its based on the papers and views of the Centre For The Study of Public Policy at Queen's University and in particular Thomas S. Axowrthy and Mathew Johnson, as well as political analyst Gwynn Dyer and Western Political Science Professor Salim Mansur as well as most of the foreign policy approach of the current Foreign Affairs Minister. I have a distinctly Lester B. Pearson-Piere Trudeau- foreign policy bias and make no secret of it or my preference for Dwyer and Mansur.

Likhud? Yegards. Bebe scares the shit out of moi.

You stated;

"Can we make a deal here jackass? Can you stop accusing me of using strawman arguments if you're going to do the same thing?"

Well my Dad has always called me a horse's ass.Or if you would like just call mea fool like my wife does or an annoying rude ignorant Zionist like Buffy does. You would be right on all counts.

You stated;

"To summarize what I said much earlier - Israel got itself into the occupation mess because..."

May I respectfully suggest what you refer to summarizing some of us consider partisan generalizing, or stereotyping, or oversimplifying, or misrepresenting.

You stated;

"..we both rely on expert analysis to form our opinions."

Absolutely true. You are entitled to your opinion, and me mine and if we debate with any meaning we substantiate why we arrive at our opinions. Granted I have spent a great deal of time simply trying to suggest there is an opinion other than yours. If I have said anything that belittles your right to have a different opinion or to suggest its inferior to mine I am a horse's ass. I disagree with you but not your right to disagree with me.

You stated;

"There's little you could tell me about the human impact on both sides as a result of this conflict that my Zaida hasn't already taught me, thank you very much."

The fact that you have a closed mind and demonstrate it with the above comment is unfortunate. I actually am not trying to tell you anything although I concede I can sound like a sanctimonious patronzing twat. I just enjoy debating. Any tone of patronization is unintended. The sarcasm though can be fun provided its mutual and no one is deliberately hurting one another. The moderators are pretty good about that.

Please do not think I am in the position to patronize you. Challenge and nag you yes. Cajoll yes. Talk down to you no. I am asking you to challenge yourself as I do me because I find having rigid closed minded perspectives is usually the result of unresolved feelings.

Surely we want to open our minds to see both sides of a conflict and not let our anger permit us to see it from just one side and with due respect the fact you see it from one side doesn't make it two sided simply because you are not Palestinian but Israeli. That doesn't automatically give you a pass from being bias in fact if anything it may be why you are bias.

I could tell you many things my grandparents went through....so? I did not live them. What I can tell you is one thing. I learned not to use what happened to them to hate or be angry. In fact their very words taught me the exact opposite and how people survive precisely because they refuse to become hateful and angry when they just as easily could have. My family legacy is about gentiles who helped save Jews and a gentile country that has given me everything all my ancestors dreamed of. It also is about gentiles in the name of Christianity who did horrendous things to us and how people in the name of Christianity, Islam and Communism did the same thing. I have also been the target of some intense hatred by other Jews towards me. It is why I honestly say, I hate all humans and religions when I do for the exact same reasons. I am not in the position to tell you anything, just challenge you to think there may be other ways to look at the same thing and not be so angry and yah I am maybe a large horse's ass when I am angry and then trying to tell someone else not to be.

How about you? do you use what you claim to have heard from your Zaida to rationalize hating and being angry at Jews or as we both know what you really mean, Israel for existing? You think you are the only Jew conflicted between his humanitarian and democratic tendencies and the ethnic exclusivity Zionism calls for? Of course it conflicts and therein lies the challenge. You may not agree but I think its possible Jews can maintainstain a state organ to protect their Jewish identity while at the same time not harming non Jews. You may not think so, I do. You see failures, and so do I but I also see the successes you do not see. I see triumphs you do not see. I see things Jews have been able to do in Israel they can be proud of not ashamed of. I do not just see failures in Israel. I see successes and hope and a model of how an opressed people despite 6 wars against it and a permanent campaign of terror to wipe it out, despite all its problems, sees non Jewish citizens given rights no Jew ever had in the Muslim world or in the Christian world.

I also challenge myself when I criticize both Israelis and Palestinians, to try find something positive to counter every negative I find. I just am not interested in using the conflict to be righteous and hate Muslims or Jews and believe me there are some fundamentalist and Orthodox and sanctimonious Jews I have been in some heated arguements no different then I have sanctimonious fundamentalist Christians or Muslims or anyone else.

You stated;

"You're doing the same thing. Get off your high horse once in a while, it's good for your sperm count."

That was a good one. First off I think at this point my sperm count is a moot point. I doubt any of them swimmers are going to win any gold medals at the olympics. Secondly actually I do not do the same thing. I do not talk about Palestinians and their cause and right to exist the way you do Israelis and the state of Israel. I criticize them both using the same standards. My pieces on this forum have been critical of people like you because I feel you have gone too far to one side. I have been equally as sanctimonious with others who I felt when too far the other way. I am consistent in being a sanctimonious blow hard against everyone. I am an equal opportunity ass annoying the right and left equally. To know me is to say shut up.

Most of all I have never hesitated in suggesting I am an idiot. I am not proud of that fact but when I say it I say it in a good way. I do not assume my opinion is the only one although I am better looking then anyone else. That is a fact. In fact I find it the most enjoyable when people are not afraid of my opinions and do not take them personally. Ghost I blasted and he did not miss a beat or take it personally. Bush Chaney the American Imperialist CIA agent to or Black Dog. They give as much as they receive. Its fun. I also enjoeyd Buffy slapping me across my Zionist face. Spunk is good.

You stated;

"No, because a long time ago I decided to take an objective look at the conflict, and spent years learning and reevaluating my positions."

With due respect you don't even believe that. Your comments above are clearly subjective not objective and I think what you are really saying to me is, you have arrived at the opinions you have because you believe you have figured it out for now. It will change just as the anger behind the words you now state will change.

The difference between us is I say, I have arrived at my opinions and positions, precisely because I have not figured it out and would never suggest to anyone I have as you are now doing.

As I age I realize how stupid I am not how smart I am so that is why I never would dream of thinking I could patronize you. Maybe that is one way to tell the difference between a young and an old man? Could it be our essential difference is that I have learned that things are not as absolute as you may think tbecause I have made more mistakes? Could be. I know some people say with age comes wisdom. I find that with others. I find older people wise because of their life experiences but I would never expect you to think that of me-just suspect me and challenge me. I do not expect respect from anyone. I don't look for it at least not unless they make me pay for something first. Then they at least have to hand it to me and not throw it at me unless of course its peanuts.

You stated;

"My main arguments are only seen as "bigoted" by pro-Israeli fanatics such as yourself, and Palestinian fanatics."

First off I am anything but a fanatic. That would suggest I have a high energy level of intensity. I preferred your reference to my low sperm count better. Secondly I do see you as bias and partisan. Do I think you are a bigot, no. I am not in the position to judge anyone.

More then that I would not say because I am myself conflicted and imperfect and have many biases. I am tempted to call certain people bigots but if I do it is in reaction to their words and in the heat of the moment. In retrospect I doubt very much I am in the position to judge anyone morally given my low sperm count and unrequited love for Buffy the Zionist Slayer who I have responded to in the exact same way as you-why because I think young people should be shown more time in debates becayse I hope you will not end up having to do or be like I did and am.

You stated;

"For those of us who don't see the world in black and whites, where good and evil isn't determined by what side of the fence you're on, this isn't a radical concept."

Actually you do and the above comment unintentionally does just that.

You stated;

"I'm sorry you think this conflict is a battleground in some "clash of civilizations" between the West and Islam, that's not what bothers me. What bothers me is your using us Jews as a proxy for your wet-dreams of killing Muslims. "

I can't speak for others but I have made it clear many times in my posts that anyone who exploits the Middle East conflict to justify hating Muslims or Jews is equally as wrong. Now that I read this comment it has dawned on me you may be referring to someone else in terms of the killing of Muslims so if that is the case never mind but I absolutely would agree with that person's statement this is a cultural conflict between different civilizations.

You stated;

"We've been exploited and oppressed by you Gois for quite some time now, we don't need you doing it anymore - especially when you're claiming to be "our friends" but you're anything but."

Again it now appears to me you are talking to someone else neause you know I think it would be totally wrong to use you as a proxy to express hatred against Muslims and I know you know that. Of course you have the right to object and call me out as wrong if you think I am asking you to kill someone.

I can not ask anyone to kill anyone for any reason.

You do not have any responsibility to justify not wanting to hate anyone to me.

I challenge you only because of your anger not because of your opinions. I challenge you to throw away your anger towards Jewish identity and then see what happens.

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
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

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