Everybody In The Free World Should Be Forced To Watch This Programme

I think you have a point, reckless. There can't be tyranny without implicit acquiescence. Sometimes maybe it's easier (or safer) to lie down and take it, rather than struggle.

Tue, 2006-07-25 00:05

#5

Surely some of the worst human rights violations have been in China where the Communists have persecuted people merely for having a religion. They have reportedly killed over a million Buddhists in Tibet and are currently accused of killing political prisoners for their organs! Oh, of course, I forgot, we can't count them because they're 'friends' now and fund American capitalism.

Tue, 2006-07-25 00:12

#6

' ....Without the passive acquiescence ....zealots wouldn't get anywhere. ' ' ...There can't be tyranny without implicit acquiescence.. ' You're coming dangerously close to agreeing with the idea that there's no such thing as an innocent person. It's been a lifetime belief on my part that all religions are about control. 'Mind' control, 'body' control, absolutely every kind of control. And ya know, politics is exactly the same.

Tue, 2006-07-25 00:17

#7

Well, yes, except that acquiescence isn't necessarily a 'guilty or innocent' thing; more like self-preservation. The glaring exception would be India, where tyranny was overthrown, or at least the movement to overthrow, by Gandhi's non-violent resistance. This was tried in China, too, but alas was crushed while I watched it on TV. What did the rest of the world do? Fuck all. Maybe tyranny is reinforced by the acquiescence of the rest of the world.

Tue, 2006-07-25 00:18

#8

I should clarify: I meant, 'the movement to overthrow was begun'.

Tue, 2006-07-25 00:32

#9

I'm afraid I disagree, acquiescence is tantamount to condoning whatever it is the acquiescer is aquiescing to. They decline to object for whatever reason, very often for fear of retribution. The result is that the aggresser is nourished by lack of opposition and is encouraged to indulge their will. As I've said many times in the past, very often the only way peace can be enjoyed is when it's fought for and won. Neville Chamberlain tried the acquiescers route, and pacifists do the same. I am actually (inspite of what the likes of slimey think), a peace-loving man, BUT I know that I can only have it if I'm prepared to fight for it. Walking to the gas chamber is not an option. It wouldn't be if I was Lebanese either.

Tue, 2006-07-25 17:29

#10

tcook

It's all about money - not control. Control allows them access to money. I don't care if it's religion, state capitalism (there's never been a Communist state), capitalism or fascism. It's still about money. The people who supported Hitler were the arms dealers, the people who support Bush are the arms dealers - they are supported by the oil companies and the banks. These people genuinely believe that all of this is necessary to make the world go round. Do they ever step back, take a look and think a little? I doubt it.

Tue, 2006-07-25 17:41

#11

fergal

I don't think religions at their core are the problem - it's what people with power use them for that is the problem, like anything else. If you look at most religions their main point is 'look after your neighbour as you do yourself', which, if we all did, the world would be amazing and lovely, wouldn't it?

Tue, 2006-07-25 17:44

#12

"It's all about money - not control. Control allows them access to money." I think you've got the cart before the horse. Money allows them control. What good would money be if it didn't? These individuals already have access to much more money than they could ever spend - why go beyond it? Power. God status. It could be argued that it's just an extension of man's pursuit of freedom. That absolute individual freedom is only possible through crushing other's freedoms, and that all these tyrants and moguls want is to be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want without the slightest whiff of resistance or consideration for others. So you crush your enemies and you own everything else.

Tue, 2006-07-25 18:03

#13

bobblehat2023

Yeah, I think that's right. People who like power also often like money, too but lust for power is what almost all nasty leaders have been driven. Some of the worst 'communist' leaders of the 20th century, although living in comparably pleasant conditions when compared to most of their people - didn't use their positions for financial benefit in the way they could have done. And plenty of very rich people are happy to live on their yachts, surrounded by glamour models, doing comparatively little damage to the outside world.

Tue, 2006-07-25 18:11

#14

The dictator and/or warlord side of the equation MAY be about money, power (which by definition means control anyway), but the other side of the equation is composed mainly of acquiesers and pacifists. It's their reluctance to oppose the warlords/ moguls that allows the said bastards to establish their regimes in the first place. The theory of most religions may be benevolent, Fergy, but you tell me anywhere on this planet where ANY of them are practised in that way. Practically every war that has ever been waged had a religious element to it. It isn't enough to say '...but they are MEANT to be caring and peaceful...' if they are then used as a means of control and a reason to wage war on non-adherents. How come the moslem religion labels every non-moslem an 'infidel'? How bloody benevolent and caring is THAT? How come the catholic religion excommunicates everyone that refuses to LIVE their whole bloody lives by their creed? The jewish religion holds similar sway over jews. I'm not aware of a religion that is 100% loving and caring. Sorry honey, but they are all manipulating evil organisations, no matter how good the theory tells us they are.

Tue, 2006-07-25 18:24

#15

Radio Denver

George, I don't quite buy any theory that says without religion there would be no war or suffering. It would happen under any label. Religion serves a purpose and that is to unite society for the common good. The problem is there are no agreed upon standards around the world, so it ends up being one religion against another. Take religion out of the equation, you'll still have human instinct to contend with. Religion is just a word. To quote a popular movie...if I'm gonna die for a word, my word is Poontang! I'll die in the name of Poontang. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Share your state secrets at...
http://www.amerileaks.org

Tue, 2006-07-25 18:47

#16

"The theory of most religions may be benevolent, Fergy, but you tell me anywhere on this planet where ANY of them are practised in that way." Buddhism count? "...but the other side of the equation is composed mainly of acquiesers and pacifists. It's their reluctance to oppose the warlords/ moguls that allows the said bastards to establish their regimes in the first place." This is too simple. Pacifists oppose war on the grounds that it won't solve anything, ie. conquering one despot is an utterly useless act if you leave the country in a situation where another one can easily take his place. Saying that war won't do any good is different to opposing the dictator in question. I don't think Tony Blair should be in power. I don't think George Bush should be in power. So am I an 'acquieser' if I oppose revolution agains them? Isn't it true (I heard it somewhere,) that all the countries in the 20th century who fell under fascist regimes were debtor countries? You can't just say that stopping despots is a simple case of having backbone or some such, because it's easy to stand up and be opposed to them when you're in a relatively rich and free country. If you want to reduce the number of them springing up, you put *everyone* in that situation.

Tue, 2006-07-25 20:02

#17

Gary, I don't believe that wars wouldn't occur in the absence of religion either, what I'm saying is the religion motivated ones wouldn't, and THAT accounts for a healthy percentage. I disagree however that the purpose of religion is to unite society for the common good. It's about convincing society that the leaders of religion know what is best for others. They are mostly completely wrong. Jon, I guess if I was to say that Buddism isn't a religion in the sense that Catholicism, Islam and other christian religions as practised in the western world are, I'd be called everything from ignorant to plain stupid, but personally I tend to think of it more as a way of life than a hard-nosed religion. Your contention that war doesn't solve anything is patently erroneous. It solves all sorts of things, some good, some bad, but to sit on the fence in a volatile situation and do nothing solves nothing at all. What it DOES do is give succour to the oppressor and increase their confidence to do whatever they wish with impunity. To qualify what I meant about opposing despots, I was referring to the victims in their homeland. I wasn't really saying that opposition should come from outside forces, though ultimately, in the absence of 'home-grown- opposition, it usually falls to other nations to clean up the shit. It's become almost a religion on this site to hate and despise Tony Blair, but it's my guess the history books will remember him as one of the better PM's this country has ever had. I'm constantly amazed at how many people will jump on a popular band-wagon. I'm also sick to death at people banging on about the Iraeli 'over reaction' to the snatching of their soldiers. It's become the warcry of those that like to see themselves as informed and intelligent. How dare members of our government even think about taking the moral high ground in this issue. Has the 'over reaction' of Britain in starting the Falklands War been forgotten already? Where were those that advocate negotiation hiding back then? Emma, it's not such a contradiction sweetheart, in many FREE countries it's obligatory to vote for example. In any case you KNOW what I meant, you're just having a cheap laugh.

Tue, 2006-07-25 20:42

#18

Okay, Denver, for the sake of your eyes I've deleted it :O) In the end most wars stem from the simple fact that both sides believe that their way is right and are willing to fight to prove it. As Buddhism states there is no right way, there is no wrong way - there is only the Middle way.

Tue, 2006-07-25 20:54

#19

Radio Denver

Mykle > Cetainly, when you look at those people who the US see as enemies it usually seems to be those who cannot be controlled by the god-almighty dollar. I think that the thought that some people put spiritual wealth beyond material wealth is so alien to American politicians that it terrifies them. Brilliant mykle...a simply brilliant statement. Actually, I don't think my eyes can roll far enough back into my head to give that statement due justice. Let me try again.......nope...they can't go that far. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Share your state secrets at...
http://www.amerileaks.org

Tue, 2006-07-25 22:09

#20

"Your contention that war doesn't solve anything is patently erroneous." Ah, I didn't say that. I said, "Pacifists oppose war on the grounds that it won't solve anything", as in, that's usually the reasons for their objection, rather than their not being opposed to the dictator in question. I wouldn't say that war doesn't solve anything. "I'm constantly amazed at how many people will jump on a popular band-wagon." It's not a bandwagon just because it's a popular opinion. I disagree with most of his major policies, I don't think he's particularly honest, upfront or pleasant, and he's never said anything that's made me want to get behind him. Even if he *were* the best of a bad bunch, I wouldn't actively support him any more than I would a tory leader. History is more concerned with cause and effect than it is with character judgements, and any decent future book will leave it up to the reader to make their judgement of Blair based on the facts.

Tue, 2006-07-25 22:58

#21

Radio Denver

JC>Ah, I didn't say that. I said, "Pacifists oppose war on the grounds that it won't solve anything", as in, that's usually the reasons for their objection, rather than their not being opposed to the dictator in question. I wouldn't say that war doesn't solve anything. I consider myself a Pacifist, in that I oppose war, but not on the grounds that it won't solve anything. I firmly believe war is capable of making short-term solutions. I oppose war on the grounds that it kills, and killing is wrong. To kill someone, to deprive them of life, to prevent them from living is just simply plain wrong. Are other things wrong? Yep, you bet. Killing is the worst wrong. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Share your state secrets at...
http://www.amerileaks.org

Tue, 2006-07-25 23:05

#22

Yes, good point. I suppose pacifists come at it more from that point of view, while others who oppose war but don't consider themselves pacifists do so because they don't see it as a solution to the dictatorships. I reckon I'd begrudgingly support a war if I thought it would stabilise a country in which killing was already happening on a large scale. A war to end a massacre, say. But what you say about killing being an ultimate wrong, whatever the reason - that's a powerful argument, not to be waved aside on the grounds of being unrealistic.

Tue, 2006-07-25 23:10

#23

Popular opinion IS largely formed by the majority of less well informed or less intelligent people, who follow those more experienced in oratory and who have sharper minds. I've known hundreds of such people who will go along with whoever impresses them the most, mainly I guess, because the person they admire has opinions and a way of expressing them that leave them in awe. To be a successful politician you HAVE to master the art of, as one famously deceitful politician put it, being 'economical with the truth'. That can be anything from saying nothing to telling porkies with a trace of truth present. Any one who thinks that history books (as opposed to 'history') contain the facts and tell the tale impartially, needs to have a reality transplant. Most wars DON'T stem from the combatants both thinking they're right and are determined to foist their 'truth' on the opposition. Most wars have their genesis in greed and expansionist self-interest or religious incompatability.

Tue, 2006-07-25 23:25

#24

You know, maybe you are right George. Certainly the wars that Blair has involved us in have been based on Bush's greed, expansionism, self-interest and religious intolerance but then again we have foisted our 'truth' on them too :O) But what's been Blair's motive for backing Bush and joining in the slaughter? http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

Wed, 2006-07-26 01:50

#25

.

Wed, 2006-07-26 09:41

#26

I don't hate anyone, Lippy, I leave that to you. I see Bush as a very dangerous man with a hidden agenda and Blair as a deperate man who has followed too far down the wrong road. The road to Hell isn't always paved with good intentions. Sometimes it's decorated with little post-its starting off with "The end justifies the means' and laterly including "In for a penny, in for a pound." and "It will all turn out for the best." and ending with "Too late to turn back now!" It is obvious from the first two sentences you posted at the top of the thread that you are a hater, Lippy. You say: *"I could never describe the fullest contempt I have for all religions. They are the cause of 95% of the worlds problems and I despise them beyond description."* Of course with wit you would have said 'beyond belief". It is those who have contempt for, and despise, the beliefs of others that cause and support wars - not the beliefs themselves! Religion is not the problem it is hate, jealousy and greed that cause war. Greed inspires them and jealousy and hate fuel them. The chief of the 10 Commandments that God gave to Moses is... "Thou Shalt NOT Kill." Jews believe that, Christians believe that, Muslims believe that - for they all share the common heritage of the Old Testament. If we followed the true spirit of religion instead of greedy men full of hidden hate then there would be few wars and a much better world.

Wed, 2006-07-26 15:13

#27

"Popular opinion IS largely formed by the majority of less well informed or less intelligent people, who follow those more experienced in oratory and who have sharper minds." You're confusing 'following' with 'agreeing with'. If someone with a lot more knowledge on a subject makes a good argument, I might agree with their point, but that's not the same as following them or jumping on a bandwagon. "I've known hundreds of such people who will go along with whoever impresses them the most, mainly I guess, because the person they admire has opinions and a way of expressing them that leave them in awe." Well, your anecdotal evidence aside, people tend to agree with orators and commentators if it agrees with their own experiences and makes sense to them. So you can't just dismiss popular opinion on the basis that people haven't arrived at it totally independently. Most hear views from either side, and to say that the deciding factor is how always the rhetorical skill of the commentator is patently wrong. Of course, a popular opinion isn't necessarily right. But equally, I'm not going to have you tell me my opinion is less valid than yours just because it's more popular in this immediate vicinity. To say that someone is more likely to be wrong just because their opinion is shared by many others is a stunningly weak argument. You justify Blair in your own way, but if you must dimiss the opinions of those who're opposed to him, you'll have to find a better reason than bandwagon jumping accusations. "Any one who thinks that history books (as opposed to 'history') contain the facts and tell the tale impartially, needs to have a reality transplant." Nevertheless, as I said, decent, well written ones don't linger on character judgements, and don't declare certain Prime Ministers to be 'better' than others.

Wed, 2006-07-26 15:43

#28

Mykle has as much right to be here as anyone else, Missi. Whether or not you agree with him is beside the point. You hope for his "impending demise" - how productive is that? I don't agree with everything Mykle says, but I believe he is coming from a good place. I don't understand... just what exactly is your problem with him? Hatred will never solve any of these problems. Not towards individuals on this forum or anything else. Hatred will only fuel more hatred. Forgive me for sounding like a Born Again Christian (which I'm not, by the way), but live, acceptance, tolerance... aren't these the way to go? The Buddhist "Middle Ground." Balance. Personally I'm of the opinion that every grain of hatred we send out into the world is a form of real, physical energy that makes the world a worse place. And naturally the opposite. Which is why, Mykle, I'll send you a whole bunch of positive vibes to try and compensate for "Lippy's" caustic remarks... (PS. Mykle... if you are in fact a "she" and not a "he," forgive me for presuming otherwise! And please take the liberty of mentally replacing any gender-specific terms used above...) *** pepsoid *** [[[ " It is a pickle, no doubt about it " - The Oracle (The Matrix) ]]]

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Wed, 2006-07-26 16:14

#29

Thanks for the 'good vibes' Pepsoid - I did feel noticeably better this afternoon :O) Although you say you don't agree with everything I say I find I DO agree with everything you say - well, in your last post that is :O) Here are your good vibes amplified and returned with thanks.

Wed, 2006-07-26 21:30

#30

.

Wed, 2006-07-26 22:29

#31

Dr Jekyll

I love you all. Can you feel my grains of energy?

Thu, 2006-07-27 05:15

#32

Pepsoid, you -are- my hero for saying that. Very well said. Dr. Jekyll, I love you, too!

Thu, 2006-07-27 09:24

#33

I did of course mean "love, acceptance, tolerance"... but I suppose what I sort of unintentionally meant makes some sort of sense! (glad you felt the vibes, Mykle... x ) *** pepsoid *** [[[ " It is a pickle, no doubt about it " - The Oracle (The Matrix) ]]]

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Thu, 2006-07-27 19:38

#34

justyn_thyme

Bhuddism may well profess non-violence, but having just spent nearly a month in Thailand (my fifth trip), I can assure you it is far from being a non-violent country. Someone even told me about a case of two groups of Bhuddist monks in neighboring monestaries who fought a gun battle with each other over a land dispute. The Thai police are notoriously corrupt and frequently kill people and dump the bodies in the canals. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org

Thu, 2006-07-27 22:07

#35

.

Thu, 2006-07-27 23:28

#36

I'm going for my third trip (this year) in a couple of weeks Justyn and I agree that Thailand is not without violence - but it certainly isn't as bad as most Western countries I've been to. Strangely, I'd have said that Sharm El Shiekh in Egypt was one of the safest places I've ever visited but though the people were very friendly I think Thailand has the edge for kindness and good naturedness. Obviously you must be very fond of Thailand too since it was your fifth visit. You can't really blame the national religion for all the crimes and misdemeanours of everyone within that nation else Christianity would come off very badly.

Thu, 2006-07-27 23:55

#37

.

Fri, 2006-07-28 11:22

#38

www.unreasonablepress.com

I'm not going to have to go sending out more good vibes, am I...?! Of course, in Hollywood, monks of various description are constantly going around fighting each other, jumping in slow motion, dodging bullets and suchlike. Is this actually the reality, and the whole peace-loving, meditating, incense-burning stuff a myth...? *** pepsoid *** [[[ " It is a pickle, no doubt about it " - The Oracle (The Matrix) ]]]

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Fri, 2006-07-28 12:51

#39

richardw

These kinds of monk are by turns bullet-proof, iron and only very rarely pacifistic. I tend to think that my local community are very results-driven, and that they may be bonused or paid OTE. Of my friends that are Buddhists or proponents of other orientalist religions, I would say of them: their approach to contentment is very much like not looking at the mantelpiece when stoking the fire. That is to say, it's all very well to be sage and accepting, but sometimes you just have to break out the AKs and smoke the suckers selling mobile handsets on your doorstep. If I had my way, after solving the Israel situation I'd deal with People who Do Reiki and all the nonsense with stones, drawing ley lines and incense. In my day, if we wanted a gentle aromatic high we'd sniff poppers.

Fri, 2006-07-28 13:19

#40

Do you not think, though, that perhaps if more people were like these monks, there would be fewer of the problems mentioned above and elsewhere? The monks â€œleadâ€ by example. They also believe they are actually changing the â€œenergiesâ€ (or â€œvibesâ€ or whatever) of the Universe, by their quiet contemplation and meditation, as do nuns in their convents, with their prayers. If, however, one does not believe in such stuff, then there is no logical argument to convince you otherwise... *** pepsoid *** [[[ " It is a pickle, no doubt about it " - The Oracle (The Matrix) ]]]

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Fri, 2006-07-28 22:08

#41

Moimo

At some stage bhudism will probably also become corrupted. Remember it is the newest of the prominent 'religeons', probably hence the lack of a punishing god almighty and more a way of life. By the time of it's origins people were probably starting to dismiss the realities of some kind of supreme being. Remember Judaism, old testament, ten commandments, all the false idol stuff. The other prominent religeons were what we would describe as Pagan, Christianity turned on the Jews, all the disrespect of the Sabbath and giving over christ, Islam takes it a step further. I imagine it's only a matter of time until Buhdist teachings find someone to interprate them as Muslims/Christians, (whoever is the dominant religeon at the time), being the problem. nobody

Sat, 2006-07-29 11:25

#42

i'm not quite sure of your point Nobody but if you mean all religions tend to get corrupted over time it's worth pointing out that Buddha was born some 500 years BEFORE Christ. It has been argued that Christ had heard of Buddhism and it affected His philosophy and excasserbated His conflict with the Pharisees.

Sat, 2006-07-29 16:43

#43

As I was saying, the programme was horrific, for several reasons. They execute people in public as a way of instilling fear in the population. There were several photos of actual executions, one showing a row of lorrys with bodies hanging from the cranes. The hanging bit is hardly humane either, thay don't drop them and break their necks killing them instantly, they slowly hoist them by the neck and actually strangle them. There was also a short video clip of some poor soul being stoned to death by a baying crowd. That almost made me vomit in disgust. The judge who sentenced the 16 yr old was incensed by her impertinence by speaking up and told her he'd put the rope around her neck himself, and he apparently did. All this is in the name of their Sharia law and justice. The girls father didn't even know she was dead until his brother phoned him and said,'They've hanged your daughter'. There's apparently several more women on 'death row' including one girl of 13, though I believe that they have reprieved her. The 51 yr old man who raped the girl many times over a period of time was sentenced to 85 lashes! Big deal. The behaviour of the Iranian government/legal system is nothing short of barbaric and these people are building a nuclear bomb!

Sat, 2006-07-29 16:54

#44

"All this is in the name of their Sharia law and justice." In the name of, sure, but we know it goes deeper than that. Religion's the excuse.

Sat, 2006-07-29 16:56

#45

So you tell me what the reason is!

Sat, 2006-07-29 19:06

#46

If I knew for sure, I'd be either wrong or brilliant. But I think it's to do with deeper aspects of the human condition like greed, insecurity, fear-of-the-other. That sort of stuff. We know, for example, how opposed a male-dominated society can be to the idea of women being equals, possibly due to a fear of being usurped - of relinquishing the privileges and power that come with being male in a society where wives and daughters are expected to do your bidding. I think that's part of the root of these countries' 'moral opposition' to the West - people don't like to give up what they've got. So you get these men who try to use religion to justify and enforce this position. I may be off-course, but you see where I'm driving at? Religion itself is no motivated force, except at the fringes, the unimportant decisions - faith gives comfort and conviction - maybe courage too - but very little direction. Instead it's used to add moral weight to actions and beliefs inspired by human failings.

Sun, 2006-07-30 00:51

#47

styx

I watched the programme with a sense of loathing and a feeling that I would take up arms to prevent this sort of thing. And in a sense I did many years ago. I watched my father use his physical strength to cower my mother myself and my siblings into submission over the years. But then I snapped when I was strong enough. The programme just displayed the same misogyny but writ large, and backed up by religious teachings that were written by, um let me guess: men. G'wan, nuke 'em Israel. Mind you we were up to the same kind of thing over here a few hundred years ago. Does anyone remember the dark ages? Maybe give 'em 500 hundred years or so, and the Moslem chicks'll be walking around in mini-skirts, and Oh - My - God showing their hair. How will we poor men contain ourselves. I'm going into 'one' here aren't I? I'll shut up. But you catch my drift.

Sun, 2006-07-30 10:49

#48

When considering how Iran has come to be what it is today and the efficacy of 'regime change' the now stated purpose for the war in Iraq. It might be worthwhile to consider the ramifications of the 'regime change' that the CIA inspired in Iran 53 years ago. The CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran - because Mossadegh had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now BP - and restored to power the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi Shah to the Peacock Throne). The Shah's tyranny ultimately resulted in the Islamic Revolution of 1979 which inspired fundamentalists throughout the Muslim world. Here's an interesting review of Stephen Knzer's book "All The Shah's Men" which seems fairly balanced and has useful notes. http://www.garretwilson.com/books/reviews/alltheshahsmen.html

Sun, 2006-07-30 15:49

#49

I did not see the program but I'm sure it was very distressing and filled those who did watch with anger and horror! Most people probably thought that It would be wonderful if they could do something... Well, you can, support Amnesty International! The way Iraq treats its women is one of the many human rights abuses mentioned in The State Of The World by Amnesty International - though, of course, by no means the worst. http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/2md-summary-eng Amoungst the worst is surely Chechnya but as far as the Middle East goes it may well be Iraq not Iran... although at present the Lebanon is tragic with so many innocent children injured and dying while the B-team praises the Lord and passes the ammunition. Up to 50 people were killed - more than half of them children - when Israeli missiles struck a southern Lebanese village early on Sunday (today), flattening houses on top of sleeping residents. Civil defence workers said up to 50 civilians who had sought refuge in a building that collapsed were killed. The bodies of at least 27 children were found in the rubble... http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=713626 Every picture tells a story! http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=713704

Mon, 2006-07-31 16:56

#50

This thread is about the barbarians that live in and run IRAN! Take the second from last exit on the left before Iran to get to Lebanon. Or alternatively go the relevant thread.

Mon, 2006-07-31 17:14

#51