Jump to content

Israel's New Best Friend?


Recommended Posts

Usually these are not "preventive measures, but provocations designed to incite retaliation.

For example, Israel broke a cease-fire; after which Hamas restarted its rocket attacks; after which Israel committed Operation Cast Lead.

That's an act of aggression.

Yeah the Arab side never starts anything.

Wait...there was the second Intifada wasn't there? :rolleyes: What was that Israeli sergeants name that got bombed right after Arafat walked out on the talks at Camp David?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Can you link me to your harsh condemnations of Israeli behaviour and intransigence?

How about you read back on this thread and any other Myata has participated in regarding Israel. I don't need to link it. It's all here.

He's been providing one side of the story only. He's also denying it. I'm not denying that I've been on the other side.

Or have you been "focused purely and exclusively on the Palestinian side of the conflict and ignored and discounted everything the other side has done to escalate and perpetuate the conflict?

Oh I get it. We're going to play grade 4 now. I'll argue with Myata. At least he'll try and make a point. With you it's a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No genius. Israeli preventative measures are air strikes, tanks rolling in and targetted assassinations. It's brutal, it's violent and it works. When Arab rockets fly, so do Israeli gunships and one side has typically come out on top.

I'm getting exhausted here... but have to keep on, in a faint hope that my statements would get noticed, somehow. So, for the n-teenth time, what about the appopriation of lands or in plain words, LANDGRAB? How does it figure in the picture? Or does it at all? I mean does it even exist (in your reality)?

We've both provided facts. You ignore the ones I present.

I pointed out a significant difference between these facts though. Mine relate to acts, clearly aggressive acts of continuing and even accelerating build up of occupied lands. While you only come up with citations. I see that in your view an inflammatory word would equal, or rather justify inacceptable, atrocious acts. That tells me that you aren't looking for a solution, as much as justification of the side you vested your support with, because in a conflict with this history it's plain impossible to make everybody start talking peace, friendship and love exactly one minute after midnight. But it would be possible to gradually reduce hostilities on both sides and along with it build up confidence and trust. But obviously, this is not the intent (at least, genuine one) here. Because one form of hostility and aggression, illegal landgrab is going on unabated regardless of other aspects of the conflict, the undeniable fact that we should stop treating as an odd curiousity, but rather as a persistent and conscious policy of the party that perpetrates it. And having corrected our vision in that way, we'll have to decide whether we could still support that party if it wouldn't modify its approaches.

You also lie and distort. You said Hamas offered a peace agreement and recognition of Israel. It did not. I provided citations showing their OFFICIAL position and you've discounted it as meaningless. Really credible... :lol:

I said that the plan was put forward by the Arab League, and it's clearly stated in the reference. But of course who else could be at fault for your inability to read plain English? If in your view, armless civilians "scare" uber armed occupying army into appropriating more and more of their land, it must be me and me alone that made you misread or misunderstood? or misrepresent? and so on the quoted link. Such is the nature of reality you live in and nothing could be done about it :((

You provide me with citations of Israeli leadership indicating they'll never accept peace with the Arab world. Go ahead. Do it. You're getting pathetic.

Nope, I'm not here to play word games. I know the difference between word and act. And I can see unjustifiable acts regardless of which side commits them. There's the essential difference of our positions in this dispute.

Now you're reallllly making me laugh. That's exactly what you've been proposing the Israelis do. Give up the occupied territories and withdraw back to 1949 borders for....nothing. :blink:

Only if you suggest that illegally occupied lands somehow belong to Israelis, and are up to them to "give up". Most of the world sees it as unquestionnably illegal practice with all lands returned as a condition of any meaningful dialogue of peace. Essentially this comes to a very basic question: could one take something that doesn't belong to them and claim it for their own? And we can already see where you're going with your answer.

Your claim of objectivity is pure comedy.

Please keep showing up your humoristic side when you've got nothing else to offer, it's very amusing.

Again, you really have a problem with the concept of 'reality'.

Reality would suggest that when one side is claiming they'll never accept peace with the other, you've got some pretty big problems.

But wouldn't it - the (full) reality be, by definition, hearing what each side is saying and seeing what they're doing? However some of us here appear to be having serious issues with multitasking. Checkerboard vision. Only see what I think, what I don't think I don't see therefore it doesn't exist.

Speaking of words:

CS monitor: Jewish settlers

Jewish Home party (member of ruling coalition in Israel) MP Uri Orbach:

We aren't in the government to support a Palestinian state.

Couldn't be made any clearer.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting exhausted here... but have to keep on, in a faint hope that my statements would get noticed, somehow. So, for the n-teenth time, what about the appopriation of lands or in plain words, LANDGRAB? How does it figure in the picture? Or does it at all? I mean does it even exist (in your reality)?

You're getting exhausted too eh? What about the land annexation and settlement? Really...what about it? It happened. Nobody is denying that. Nobody is saying it's a friendly gesture. The question is what reason do the Israelis have to leave? Please don't bring up international law. Like I said before it's impotent, grossly unfair and selectively enforced/respected.

I pointed out a significant difference between these facts though. Mine relate to acts, clearly aggressive acts of continuing and even accelerating build up of occupied lands. While you only come up with citations. I see that in your view an inflammatory word would equal, or rather justify inacceptable, atrocious acts.

I already addressed this. The militant Arab side has made their intentions very clear. They're not holding back out of respect for peace or anything noble like that. They're prevented and deterred by the looming threat of violent Israeli retaliation. Any violence against Israel is magnified and returned against the militants and where they live.

Is Israel to ignore the threats and inflammatory dialogue? Are they to pretend that Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas did NOT indicated they'd never accept peace? I think it's safe to suggest their intentions aren't exactly peaceful.

But it would be possible to gradually reduce hostilities on both sides and along with it build up confidence and trust. But obviously, this is not the intent (at least, genuine one) here. Because one form of hostility and aggression, illegal landgrab is going on unabated regardless of other aspects of the conflict, the undeniable fact that we should stop treating as an odd curiousity, but rather as a persistent and conscious policy of the party that perpetrates it.

The Arab world is not giving Israel any reason to stop. As far as they're telling Israel, regardless of whether they continue the occupation or withdraw, they're still going to be attacked and threatened.

I said that the plan was put forward by the Arab League, and it's clearly stated in the reference. But of course who else could be at fault for your inability to read plain English?

The plan put forth by the Arab League was more an ultimatum than anything. It was a take it or leave it affair. It did not negotiate with Israel on the offer and some of the conditions of it were ludicrous. The proposal itself, however, was at least a step forward in the sense that it entertained the possibility of long lasting peace.

Let's look at a few of the problems with it:

1. It was proposed immediately following the Passover Massacre

2. It did not invite Israel to the discussion

3. It demanded settlement of the refugee crisis based on a UN Resolution passed in 1948 which was completely and totally unpalatable to Israel (and the Arab League knew that).

4. Important factions were not factored into account (neither Iran, Hezbollah nor Hamas endorsed it)

The refugee issue is a non-starter. Personally I'd be in favour of the plan providing we could account for rogue states/militant groups and they dropped the refugee issue. Withdraw to the 1967 pre-war borders in exchange for formal recognition and official peace agreements. Couldn't we settle on that?

If in your view, armless civilians "scare" uber armed occupying army into appropriating more and more of their land, it must be me and me alone that made you misread or misunderstood? or misrepresent? and so on the quoted link. Such is the nature of reality you live in and nothing could be done about it :((

Don't be stupid. First off, they're not scared of unarmed civilians. Their scared of suicide bombers, rockets and guerrila attacks. They've a history of enduring these things. Second, they're not being scared into occupying territories. They're doing it because in their eyes they have no reason not to.

Nope, I'm not here to play word games. I know the difference between word and act. And I can see unjustifiable acts regardless of which side commits them. There's the essential difference of our positions in this dispute.

I'm glad you clarified that for me. Unfortunately for you the law would not respect the difference. In Canada, or anywhere with a legal system worth its name, a threat of violence is indeed a punishable offense. There's a reason for that. It's something to be taken seriously, especially from someone (the militant Arab world for example) that has a history of acting on those threats.

Only if you suggest that illegally occupied lands somehow belong to Israelis, and are up to them to "give up".

No I would merely suggest that they're in control of these lands and that nobody is going to 'force' them to give them up on the laughable grounds of 'international law'. So yes, I would suggest that those lands are therefore theirs to 'give up'.

Most of the world sees it as unquestionnably illegal practice with all lands returned as a condition of any meaningful dialogue of peace.

Myata that's such an outrageous and untrue claim I can't believe someone like you would even say that. There need not be ANY conditions for dialogue pertaining to peace and most of the world has most CERTAINLY NOT stated as such. That's patently false and I'd almost suggest you're deliberately misrepresenting facts.

Essentially this comes to a very basic question: could one take something that doesn't belong to them and claim it for their own? And we can already see where you're going with your answer.

Um...yes. Someone definetly can take something and claim it for their own. The validity of the claim can certainly be put to question, but the claim itself is pretty easy to make. If we're going to go down the path of useless and inept simplification, pretend Israel is a parent punishing children for misbehaving. Promise to behave and you can have your toys back. See? We can both dumb an argument down. :P

Please keep showing up your humoristic side when you've got nothing else to offer, it's very amusing.

I can't help it. Your claims of objectivity are something I'd expect from a clown...except clowns aren't even funny so...hmmm :blink:

But wouldn't it - the (full) reality be, by definition, hearing what each side is saying and seeing what they're doing?

Threatening is an action in and of itself. The fact that the ones doing the threatening are impotent to fulfil them does not in any way mean the threats are meaningless. You've decided they are, but you're among the loonie in that department, because most courts of law certainly wouldn't turn a blind eye.

Here's a final question I'll leave you with. What if Israel and the Islamic world came together and came up with an agreement where, if Israel withdrew to 1967 borders, and the Middle East agreed to recognize, coexist and declare permanent peace with them, we'd have a situation where both parties could reasonably benefit and be satisfied with?

If Israel refused an offer such as this Myata, I'd jump on your bandwagon in an instant. It hasn't been offered yet, however, and as long as both sides refuse to acknowledge that they both need to make concessions nobody is going to get anywhere.

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as long Canada doesn't give them money to fight wars like the US does. I wonder if the world would treat Israel different if Jesus wasn't a Jew? Don't most people when they think of Israel, think God and Jesus?

Maybe christian fundamentalists but, thankfully, that's NOT "most people"

Edited by Natchuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're getting exhausted too eh? What about the land annexation and settlement? Really...what about it? It happened. [ing] (m)

OK thanks for honest admission with my correction for being current.

Nobody is denying that. Nobody is saying it's a friendly gesture. The question is what reason do the Israelis have to leave?

If they want to maintain at least the appearance of being interested in a peaceful resolution, they should. No rather have no choice but to. It's plain obvious logic. One can't continue obviously aggressive acts at the same time, wouldn't it be like blowing ("peace") and sucking (more and more land) in the same breath.

I already addressed this. The militant Arab side has made their intentions very clear. They're not holding back out of respect for peace or anything noble like that. They're prevented and deterred by the looming threat of violent Israeli retaliation. Any violence against Israel is magnified and returned against the militants and where they live.

And that's just recreates and magnifies the spiral of violence with obviously very little possibility of any positive movement. But wait, you still haven't posted any evidence of them "not holding back". I can't claim 100% accuracy but I read international media daily and in several sources, and according to my view of the situation - and I'll be certainly grateful for any factual updates on that, there haven't been any serious attacks on Israel proper for a while now - at least several months, while unfriendly and aggressive Israeli construction of settlements goes full steam (references posted in many threads here) and there were also multiple reports of civilian deaths. The bottom line is, you can't any longer claim this "defence" or "retaliation" excuse for granted, without factual evidence that attacks on Israel proper, in the scale anywhere near Israel's actions in the occupied territories are still taking place. And that's what our convention shall be: analysis of situation based on objective, factual reports. And no "defaul" excuses other than as default justification of preconcluded opinion having little to do with objective reality.

Is Israel to ignore the threats and inflammatory dialogue? Are they to pretend that Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas did NOT indicated they'd never accept peace? I think it's safe to suggest their intentions aren't exactly peaceful.

"Ignore" and "commit gross violations" itself are soooooooo diffrent things. You know it for sure, so why waste my time explaining it to you?

The Arab world is not giving Israel any reason to stop. As far as they're telling Israel, regardless of whether they continue the occupation or withdraw, they're still going to be attacked and threatened.

"The Arab world" has also come up with a comprehensive peace proposal. It what you want to see (and feel), and claim as justification for absolutely unjustifiable by a civilized nation behaviour.

The refugee issue is a non-starter. Personally I'd be in favour of the plan providing we could account for rogue states/militant groups and they dropped the refugee issue. Withdraw to the 1967 pre-war borders in exchange for formal recognition and official peace agreements. Couldn't we settle on that?

I think that "refugee" problem is Arab's response to Israel's landgrab. Rather than hopping around the issue the "Quartet" should come up with a short list of principles of settlement. And agree to take real and practical measures against any party that destabilised settlement process. In another thread there was a suggestion to make a black tradeoff settlements - right of return. All, no exceptions other than mutually negotiated agreements, settlers out of Arab territories and complete freeze on settlement growth in East Jerusalem, till its status is defined in the future, for relinquishing claims to return to Israel proper.

I'm glad you clarified that for me. Unfortunately for you the law would not respect the difference. In Canada, or anywhere with a legal system worth its name, a threat of violence is indeed a punishable offense. There's a reason for that. It's something to be taken seriously, especially from someone (the militant Arab world for example) that has a history of acting on those threats.

Oh we do remember the existence of "law" after all? So does it address threats in the same way as actual violence? Or maybe justifies real deadly violence as response to verbal threats? Or maybe, allows to take somebody's possession and claim it for own?

No I would merely suggest that they're in control of these lands and that nobody is going to 'force' them to give them up on the laughable grounds of 'international law'. So yes, I would suggest that those lands are therefore theirs to 'give up'.

No a little more specifically, please, you think that because they occupy these lands they somehow have rightful possession of them? Because you can't "trade" something that doesn't belong to you, in an honest deal can you?

Myata that's such an outrageous and untrue claim I can't believe someone like you would even say that. There need not be ANY conditions for dialogue pertaining to peace and most of the world has most CERTAINLY NOT stated as such. That's patently false and I'd almost suggest you're deliberately misrepresenting facts.

It did though, not in the least through numerous UN and UNSC resolutions(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel). And now you have to prove that it's false, i.e there's a country in the world that recognises Israel's claim to the occupied terrtories.

Um...yes. Someone definetly can take something and claim it for their own. The validity of the claim can certainly be put to question, but the claim itself is pretty easy to make. If we're going to go down the path of useless and inept simplification, pretend Israel is a parent punishing children for misbehaving. Promise to behave and you can have your toys back. See? We can both dumb an argument down. :P

Yes I see that you want to have this discussion reduced to childish level. Yes one could "claim" and "punish" and that would also reduce their credibility as being honest party for peace to zero. That's the only point I'm making.

I can't help it. Your claims of objectivity are something I'd expect from a clown...except clowns aren't even funny so...hmmm :blink:

Your volume of humour in your argumentation appears to come all at the expense of factual evidence to support it. I guess laughter is the only option here...

Threatening is an action in and of itself. The fact that the ones doing the threatening are impotent to fulfil them does not in any way mean the threats are meaningless. You've decided they are, but you're among the loonie in that department, because most courts of law certainly wouldn't turn a blind eye.

Already addressed, but don't you simply admire it how these folks would decry the law and then cite it all in the same blow?

Here's a final question I'll leave you with. What if Israel and the Islamic world came together and came up with an agreement where, if Israel withdrew to 1967 borders, and the Middle East agreed to recognize, coexist and declare permanent peace with them, we'd have a situation where both parties could reasonably benefit and be satisfied with?

If Israel refused an offer such as this Myata, I'd jump on your bandwagon in an instant. It hasn't been offered yet, however, and as long as both sides refuse to acknowledge that they both need to make concessions nobody is going to get anywhere.

Well they did. This is no revelation it came up in multiple resolutions, statements of leaders and formal peace proposals (see above). We can't but assume that somebody somewhere just isn't interested, in the real and genuine sense. And it's about time to stop all pretence about it, if we want to see any movement on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I am glad to see our government not succumbing to the European trend and maintaining friendly relations with Israel.

Do you mean would it be treated better, or would it be treated even worse?

Do you think that Europe's pandering to the leftist, anti-Israel demographic overlaps with its rapidly growing Arab and Muslim populations? Sometimes I think that certain European elements are trying to appeal to this ethnic group, which we all know is overwhelmingly anti-Israel (and largely anti-semitic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadas self interests compell us in the case of the US.

But when it comes to rogue states such is Iran, Israel, North Korea, etc, that consistantly violate inernational and humanitarian law, and non state actors such as Hamas, Hezbollah etc that do the same thing contact should be extremely limited or non-existant.

How can you possibly lump Israel into the same basket and Iran and North Korea? How do expect you anyone in here to ever take a word you say seriously when you say such incredibly stupid things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd only add that massive foreign assistance to predominantly one side won't ever make it more perceiptive to the notions of peace and fair settlement. Guaranteed.

As DogOnPorch has already said, the Arabs (including the Palestinians, of course) have received massive amounts of money from various countries. Most notably the Soviet Union prior to its collapse. It's flat out false to .suggest that only Israel has received large amounts of foreign aid. It's also devoid of any context, as it ignores all the reasons for the grants Israel has received from the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that Europe's pandering to the leftist, anti-Israel demographic overlaps with its rapidly growing Arab and Muslim populations? Sometimes I think that certain European elements are trying to appeal to this ethnic group, which we all know is overwhelmingly anti-Israel (and largely anti-semitic).

Yes, it is definitely related. It also coincides with the growth of anti-Semitic rallies on the streets, as well as violence against Jews. Jews are already vastly outnumbered in Europe and by Muslims, which does not bode well for Jews in these countries. In the US, the population of Jews and Muslims is about equal, but with continued rapid Muslim immigration Jews will soon same the face situation in the US as in other Western countries.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is definitely related. It also coincides with the growth of anti-Semitic rallies on the streets, as well as violence against Jews. Jews are already vastly outnumbered in Europe and by Muslims, which does not bode well for Jews in these countries. In the US, the population of Jews and Muslims is about equal, but with continued rapid Muslim immigration Jews will soon same the face situation in the US as in other Western countries.

I guess it's one of the consequences of being an ultra-minority that doesn't proselytize or expand greatly.... and of having half of us murdered in the Holocaust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's one of the consequences of being an ultra-minority that doesn't proselytize or expand greatly.... and of having half of us murdered in the Holocaust.

Yes that's why the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state continues to be critical for the safety and well being of Jews worldwide. That being said, the world Jewish population is growing at a decent clip, while most other Western populations are declining rapidly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that's why the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state continues to be critical for the safety and well being of Jews worldwide. That being said, the world Jewish population is growing at a decent clip, while most other Western populations are declining rapidly.

While I strongly agree that Israel should exist forever, I think that linking any state to particular religion causes a lot of problems and I dont like the entire concept of linking real world nation states with super-natural sky-god beliefs, whether they are Christian, jewish, muslim or any others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I strongly agree that Israel should exist forever, I think that linking any state to particular religion causes a lot of problems and I dont like the entire concept of linking real world nation states with super-natural sky-god beliefs, whether they are Christian, jewish, muslim or any others.

Israel being a Jewish state is not primarily about religion, it is about ethnicity. Especially in the eyes of anti-Semites, but also just normally in many cultures, being a Jew is considered a matter of race. This is pretty much well understood in most cultures, except English speaking ones. Many languages have two specific and different terms, one for a follower of the religion of the Judaism, and another for an ethnic/racial Jew. English lacks this distinction, hence the confusion of so many English speaking people about whether being a Jew is a matter of religion, of ancestry, or some mixture thereof.

A great many Jews are atheists or agnostics, but they are no less Jews for being so.

Imagine if English only had one term that meant both "White" and "Christian", and there were no distinct terms for these two very different things. Think of the problems and confusion that would cause when engaging in debates of this sort. That is exactly the problem and lack of understanding many English speakers (including many American and Canadian Jews) suffer from when talking about Jews.

The reason English presently lacks this term is because in the English experience, pretty much everyone who was ethnically Jewish followed the religion of Judaism, and so there was little need for a distinction. But nowadays with so many Jews being atheists/agnostics, it is really time for English to adopt some term to mark the proper distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I strongly agree that Israel should exist forever, I think that linking any state to particular religion causes a lot of problems and I dont like the entire concept of linking real world nation states with super-natural sky-god beliefs, whether they are Christian, jewish, muslim or any others.

That's straight up anti-semitism. If you're opposed to Israel's existence as a Jewish state, you're opposed to the very foundation of Israel. No doubt this view is held by many of Israel's opponents, who reject the reality of Jewish nationhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's straight up anti-semitism. If you're opposed to Israel's existence as a Jewish state, you're opposed to the very foundation of Israel. No doubt this view is held by many of Israel's opponents, who reject the reality of Jewish nationhood.

That's my view, exactly. For the most part, Jewishness and Israel as a Jewish state are inseparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As DogOnPorch has already said, the Arabs (including the Palestinians, of course) have received massive amounts of money from various countries. Most notably the Soviet Union prior to its collapse.

We're talking about current state of affairs, when Soviet Union is long gone (about two decades) and Israel continues to receive massive grants including those for military assistence and massive buildup of illegal settlements.

It's flat out false to .suggest that only Israel has received large amounts of foreign aid. It's also devoid of any context, as it ignores all the reasons for the grants Israel has received from the USA.

Nobody suggested that "only". The connection is being made between the assistance Israel receives from the US and it's persistence with building illegal settlments. Continuing it (assistence) after all these decades when it became clear that settlements program is a long term deliberate plan that is not influenced by the developments in the conflict, would be nothing short of encouragement and sponsoring of that program. And that, of course (encouragement and practical sponsoring of aggressive activites) has nothing to do with promotion of peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel being a Jewish state is not primarily about religion, it is about ethnicity. Especially in the eyes of anti-Semites, but also just normally in many cultures, being a Jew is considered a matter of race. This is pretty much well understood in most cultures, except English speaking ones. Many languages have two specific and different terms, one for a follower of the religion of the Judaism, and another for an ethnic/racial Jew. English lacks this distinction, hence the confusion of so many English speaking people about whether being a Jew is a matter of religion, of ancestry, or some mixture thereof.

A great many Jews are atheists or agnostics, but they are no less Jews for being so.

Imagine if English only had one term that meant both "White" and "Christian", and there were no distinct terms for these two very different things. Think of the problems and confusion that would cause when engaging in debates of this sort. That is exactly the problem and lack of understanding many English speakers (including many American and Canadian Jews) suffer from when talking about Jews.

The reason English presently lacks this term is because in the English experience, pretty much everyone who was ethnically Jewish followed the religion of Judaism, and so there was little need for a distinction. But nowadays with so many Jews being atheists/agnostics, it is really time for English to adopt some term to mark the proper distinction.

Good points.

Still I think I think its problematic. The US is 80% Christian, yet if the world gets pissed off over something the US does, the world Christian community at large doesnt get automatically associated with it. Jews around the world are unfairly tied to Israel and defacto associated with all the stuff Israel does.

I dont like the idea of associating a nation state with any ethnic or cultural trait or any religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's straight up anti-semitism. If you're opposed to Israel's existence as a Jewish state, you're opposed to the very foundation of Israel. No doubt this view is held by many of Israel's opponents, who reject the reality of Jewish nationhood.

Yeah! Because not liking the idea of mixing religion and state makes me anti-semetic :lol::lol::lol:

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
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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