|
News: Shootings/explosion in Paris
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,763
|
Quote:
Originally posted by revel8
Lots of people in this thread also make the claim that the US is responsible for the rise of ISIS. Saddam's fall was down to the US but toppling a dictator does not automatically mean a rise in an ISIS-type movement. ISIS only was able to arise as a force because of the divisions between Shia and Sunni in Iraq. The Sunni areas were discontented with the democratically elected Iraqi government because it was Shia-dominated, as they were the majority. This feeling of resentment towards the Baghdad government enabled ISIS to grow as Sunni tribes decided that Sunni groups like ISIS were preferable to the Shia dominated Iraqi government. Without the support of the Sunni tribes in Iraq, ISIS would never have been able to develop into the force it was. ISIS is only a force because of the ongoing struggles between Shia and Sunni Muslims, and those have been going on for hundreds of years before the US was even a nation. Blaming it all on US foreign policy ignores history.
Also let's not forget that the civil war in Syria started as part of the Arab Spring. Syrian children were arrested and tortured by Assad's forces because they wrote anti-Assad graffiti. That kicked off an uprising against the regime of Assad. It is the policy of ISIS to conquer neighbouring people, and take their (non-Muslim) women as slaves, and like to murder homosexuals. That doesn't mean that Assad was not a brutal dicatator who tortured children too.
ISIS's interpretation of Islam is at odds with and abhorred by majority of Muslims, however they have attacted hundreds if not thousands of Muslims from other countries who have travelled to join them. Many more supporters have been denied travel to Syria and arrested, so they clearly have devotees and supporters in many countries. They do have some appeal to some Muslims. Let's not pretend otherwise.
|
Yeah, there were Arab Spring protests, but lets not pretend that it would have developped into a huge, long lasting civil war without the US support of the oposition. US used the Shia and Sunni schism, supporting the islamist Sunni groups which wanted to overthrow the Alawite government in Syria, funded them, including such radicals like al-Nusra.
And lets not pretend that there would be room for ISIS if US wouldnt have invaded Iraq in 2003. Thats delusional. US destabilized those countries, just like Libya and Egypt. Saddam, as a Sunni muslim, had won respect and support from both religious groups also thanks to his support to Shia community and mosques. But the puppet Shia regime instated by US and the occupation of the country by US was met with huge repulsion from the Sunni population what created the room for extremist groups to form. To get rid of Saddam like that, by force, was a huge strategical mistake, not even mentioning that the whole invasion of Iraq was illegal act of aggression made without the agreement of Security Council. US plays a very dangerous oil game in Middle East and millions of innocent civilians paid with blood for their irresponsible decisions.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 1,473
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BGKC
I'm an American! I have the right to be upset about where my tax money goes. I hate the fact our tax dollars go to ****ing Israel. Who are you to tell me I should be ok with America vicariously working through Israel to terrorize and strip the Middle East of all its resources all while exploiting the Islamic religion through ploys such as ISIS. The French are the terrorist tonight you ****ing blind ass bat.
All the money we spend on Israel's military could be going to raise us out of ****ing poverty. But no, so many people rather think like you which is why I'll gladly get the **** out now.
|
You're response is filled with so much misinformation its comical and you are simply and uneducated moron plain and simple. I will not further engage in a conversation with somebody so stupid and anti-semetic, anti american and simply just insane. So please GTFO of America and live somewhere else.
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/23/2010
Posts: 6,705
|
Quote:
Originally posted by revel8
Just thought that we should all remember that incident of just a few months ago, where that guy on a train in France was going to shoot all the passengers but was stopped by those three unarmed Americans. France is a target for terrorist attacks, some of them get foiled, some of them don't. More attacks in France and elsewhere will be attempted. The Paris attacks were not the first and not the last.
Also I think some people in here are being pretty disingenuous by pretending ISIS are not real Muslims because their interpretation of Islam is not the majority view. Remember there are many interpretations of Islam and they do differ enough to have specific names. You cannot just pretend that only the mainstream or majority flavour of Islam is 'legitimate' or true Islam. That is what bigots do. Let's not forget that Shia are a minority of Muslims. Are they somehow not 'true Muslims'?
Claiming that ISIS are not Muslims because they are a minority amongst Muslims is akin to claiming Orthodox Christians or Baptists are not true Christians because they are outnumbered by Catholics. No member of a minority denomination considers the other denominations more 'devout' or 'true' because other denominations have more believers. ISIS believe that they are true Muslims and they believe that their actions in terms of their version of Sharia Law are justified by Scripture. You can try debating the issue with them, but they don't care in being challenged and will likely just punish you for dissent. Sure majority of Muslims disagree with them, but majority disagree with Shia too. Islam, like Christianity and other religions has different splinters/sects/schools/denominations. The very fact that these differences exist enough to have identifying names acknowledges that different interpretations of religions exist. Claiming one denomination/school is invalid/false/heretical does not make it so. Such claims against different interpetations have long been the source of dissent and conflict.
Lots of people in this thread also make the claim that the US is responsible for the rise of ISIS. Saddam's fall was down to the US but toppling a dictator does not automatically mean a rise in an ISIS-type movement. ISIS only was able to arise as a force because of the divisions between Shia and Sunni in Iraq. The Sunni areas were discontented with the democratically elected Iraqi government because it was Shia-dominated, as they were the majority. This feeling of resentment towards the Baghdad government enabled ISIS to grow as Sunni tribes decided that Sunni groups like ISIS were preferable to the Shia dominated Iraqi government. Without the support of the Sunni tribes in Iraq, ISIS would never have been able to develop into the force it was. ISIS is only a force because of the ongoing struggles between Shia and Sunni Muslims, and those have been going on for hundreds of years before the US was even a nation. Blaming it all on US foreign policy ignores history.
Also let's not forget that the civil war in Syria started as part of the Arab Spring. Syrian children were arrested and tortured by Assad's forces because they wrote anti-Assad graffiti. That kicked off an uprising against the regime of Assad. It is the policy of ISIS to conquer neighbouring people, and take their (non-Muslim) women as slaves, and like to murder homosexuals. That doesn't mean that Assad was not a brutal dicatator who tortured children too.
ISIS's interpretation of Islam is at odds with and abhorred by majority of Muslims, however they have attacted hundreds if not thousands of Muslims from other countries who have travelled to join them. Many more supporters have been denied travel to Syria and arrested, so they clearly have devotees and supporters in many countries. They do have some appeal to some Muslims. Let's not pretend otherwise.
|
Religion is just like politics. Its legitimacy cannot be assessed objectively so it is greatly dependent on orthodoxy. The concept of religious 'orthodoxy' works pretty much the same as the principle of 'legality' in politics. Whatever interpretation of religion most people recognize/adhere to and whatever interpretation works best for the welfare of the majority, then that's most likely the correct one. Orthodox religious doctrines are a result of hundreds or even more than a thousand of years of careful study by the most knowledgeable religious authorities, scholars and theologians that they can't possibly be wrong, exegetically speaking. It's highly improbable that the majority of people including the clergies and the most educated scholars belonging to the mainstream denominations would be wrong and the religious extremists who are usually uneducated are the ones right.
Religious orthodoxy is to democracy while religious extremism is to fascism/totalitarianism. Just like its political counterparts, religious extremist ideologies are proven extremely FLAWED ideologies which only resulted to tyranny and bloodletting that they should now be discarded.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/22/2009
Posts: 11,092
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BGKC
I'm an American! I have the right to be upset about where my tax money goes. I hate the fact our tax dollars go to ****ing Israel. Who are you to tell me I should be ok with America vicariously working through Israel to terrorize and strip the Middle East of all its resources all while exploiting the Islamic religion through ploys such as ISIS. The French are the terrorist tonight you ****ing blind ass bat.
All the money we spend on Israel's military could be going to raise us out of ****ing poverty. But no, so many people rather think like you which is why I'll gladly get the **** out now.
|
Then don't live in America. Easy.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,793
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bríseis
Yeah, there were Arab Spring protests, but lets not pretend that it would have developped into a huge, long lasting civil war without the US support of the oposition. US used the Shia and Sunni schism, supporting the islamist Sunni groups which wanted to overthrow the Alawite government in Syria, funded them, including such radicals like al-Nusra.
And lets not pretend that there would be room for ISIS if US wouldnt have invaded Iraq in 2003. Thats delusional. US destabilized those countries, just like Libya and Egypt. Saddam, as a Sunni muslim, had won respect and support from both religious groups also thanks to his support to Shia community and mosques. But the puppet Shia regime instated by US and the occupation of the country by US was met with huge repulsion from the Sunni population what created the room for extremist groups to form. To get rid of Saddam like that, by force, was a huge strategical mistake, not even mentioning that the whole invasion of Iraq was illegal act of aggression made without the agreement of Security Council. US plays a very dangerous oil game in Middle East and millions of innocent civilians paid with blood for their irresponsible decisions.
|
At the time of the Arab Spring there was great optimism that these countries could finally have democratic freedoms. The Western countries are comprised of democracies and so wanted to support the spread of democracy in the region. I don't see why such intentions should be criticised unless you
a) don't believe in democracy or
b) don't think people living in Arab countries deserve to live in democracies instead of totalitarian regimes/military dictatorships.
Sometimes you have to try. Just because the attempts fail does it mean you shouldn't have tried? History is full of revolutions, many fail, but some succeed. There have been many tyrannical rulers making their subjects suffer. Is not the downfall of a tyrant something to encourage? I am not weeping for Saddam or Gaddafi being deposed. I will not weep if Assad gets overthrown either.
ISIS arose because there was opposition to the Shia-led government in Iraq. It was democratically elected and thus was dominated by the Shia majority. The Sunni who despite being a minority were previously the rulers, because Saddam was a Sunni. So the Sunnis resented losing power to the USA and subsequently to the elected Shia Government. So they felt disenfranchised by this turnabout in their fortunes and thus threw in their lot with the organisation that became ISIS. The Sunnis rejected democracy because it resulted in them losing their power.
You say that the Iraq Invasion of 2003 destabilised the country but that was more than 10 years ago. We have seen that Islamic extremist regimes can thrive in places where the US have not intervened. Examples are the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, thanks to Pakistan engaging in a proxy war with the likes of Iran, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, during the 90s in order to set up a friendly regime in Kabul. Al Quaeda thrived in Afghanistan and helped the Taliban in their war. All that happened without US involvement.
The civil war in Yemen that is currently happening is nothing to do with US invasion of Iraq, and yet Al Quaeda and ISIS are present there, fighting against both the Iranian backed Shias and the Saudi backed Sunni regime. Islamic extemists exist in countries independent of the US invasion of Iraq, as evidenced in Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan and a host of other countries. The ideology exists and is widespread in many forms and organisations. Pretending that this only happened due to the invasion of Iraq, ignores the reality of the situation. If you say history shows us from Iraq that invading a country leads to Islamic extremism, then you can also point out the rise of Al Quaeda and similar entities in the countries I mentioned above occur by themselves anyway without such an event.
You can argue that overthrowing Saddam was a huge strategical mistake, but similarly you could argue that the US overthrowing Hitler was a huge strategical mistake, as the result twenty years later was that the USA was faced with an adversary, the USSR, controlling the Eastern Bloc and exporting it's communist ideology to China, Indochina, Cuba etc. With all it's nukes the USSR posed more of a existential threat to the USA than the Nazi's did in 1943. During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963, I am sure some Americans would have been wondering maybe allying with Stalin in the 1940s was not such a great idea. Now we look back after the Cold War and don't have such doubts.
We simply don't know in 2015 what the Middle East will look like politically in 10 years from now.
The primary cause of ISIS is Islamic fundamentalist ideology and that existed long before the US invasion of Iraq. Some of you act as if 9/11 did not happen years before the Invasion of Iraq.
Sure the Invasion of Iraq leads to a situation now that is bad for the West. Who knows what the situation will look like in another decade?
ISIS did not ask for permission from the UN to exist and invade and conquer parts of Syria and Iraq. Putin did not ask for the UN's permission to anex parts of Ukraine. Some people like to believe that the courts and committees can through reasoned discussion resolve all conflicts, but the reality is when territory is disputed, borders are in actuality defined by what can be enforced by military means. That is the reality, it always has been the case and it still is so. The UN itself has delegates from countries that themselves are only countries due to events decided on the battlefield. If the UN was created 100 years before, the borders and countries and thus the delegates in the UN would be different.
I used to believe in the UN too, then I grew up and realised the Security Council Veto ability makes the UN impotent to act in the majority of major conflicts. UN Directives are powerless without the military means to enforce them.
I disagree with you, Bríseis, but I thank you for engaging in the discussion. I remain optimistic that things will be better in 2025 than 2015, but only time will tell.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,793
|
Quote:
Originally posted by fabbriche
Religion is just like politics. Its legitimacy cannot be assessed objectively so it is greatly dependent on orthodoxy. The concept of religious 'orthodoxy' works pretty much the same as the principle of 'legality' in politics. Whatever interpretation of religion most people recognize/adhere to and whatever interpretation works best for the welfare of the majority, then that's most likely the correct one. Orthodox religious doctrines are a result of hundreds or even more than a thousand of years of careful study by the most knowledgeable religious authorities, scholars and theologians that they can't possibly be wrong, exegetically speaking. It's highly improbable that the majority of people including the clergies and the most educated scholars belonging to the mainstream denominations would be wrong and the religious extremists who are usually uneducated are the ones right.
Religious orthodoxy is to democracy while religious extremism is to fascism/totalitarianism. Just like its political counterparts, religious extremist ideologies are proven extremely FLAWED ideologies which only resulted to tyranny and bloodletting that they should now be discarded.
|
I am an atheist, so I think all religions are flawed ideologies. Just because I disagree with them, won't make the believers suddenly change their life and renounce their beliefs though. Religions adhere to an orthodoxy but this changes over time. It is quite clear that there is no consensus of religious doctrines. Most religions that are old enough suffer from schisms caused by differences of interpretations. You cannot logically argue that the beliefs of the largest denomination are less likely to be wrong simply because they have the largest number of believers. That is akin to arguing that Catholics are the only true form of Christianity because they are the most numerous. No Christian from another denomination would ever agree with such reasoning.
Legality as a concept may stay the same, but what is actually legal and illegal changes in different places and different time. The US used to prohibit Alcohol for a period. Now it doesn't. Slavery was legal in some States, now it isn't. Things change in politics to reflect the wishes of the people.
I also disagree that the majority opinion is the correct one simply because it is the majority. The majority of people used to think the world was flat. It was Christian orthodoxy at one point that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and the Sun revolved around the earth. Galileo was imprisoned because he preached heresy by saying the Earth revolved around the sun. All those educated theologians over hundreds of years had reached a conclusion that became the established Catholic orthodox position on this issue. Galileo ended up being right and all those others were wrong.
The Bible and Quranic passages about allowing slavery was used to justify the practice of slavery by Christians and Muslims alike for hundreds of years. Now the majority of both oppose the practice. Clearly the majority opinion changed over time on this issue.
The Catholic Pope used to call on Papal Decrees for Crusades against heretics and unbelievers. The current Pope eschews such tactics. Clearly the majority opinion on such actions has changed within the upper clergy of the Catholic Church.
The leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al Baghdad claims to have a PhD in Islamic Studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad. He claims to be a scholar on his religion. Other scholars may indeed claim a different interpretation of Islam to him, and say he is doing it all wrong but we are talking about matters of faith. There is no evidence either way to support which religion is truer than another. It comes down to belief. Religious people believe certain religious beliefs are true and things that contradict that are false. People believe in their religion even if other people are telling them their belief is wrong. That is how religion works.
ISIS believe in their own interpretation of Islam. Other people telling them they are wrong is not going to change their minds. These people have strong enough belief in their religion to kill and die in it's name. ISIS don't exactly tolerate dissenting viewpoints being presented to them. You can claim this is because they are unable to argue their case effectively, but they are more likely to crucify you or behead you than agree to being wrong. This behaviour is at least sadly, observably true.
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/13/2010
Posts: 10,512
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/23/2010
Posts: 6,705
|
Quote:
Originally posted by revel8
I am an atheist, so I think all religions are flawed ideologies. Just because I disagree with them, won't make the believers suddenly change their life and renounce their beliefs though. Religions adhere to an orthodoxy but this changes over time. It is quite clear that there is no consensus of religious doctrines. Most religions that are old enough suffer from schisms caused by differences of interpretations. You cannot logically argue that the beliefs of the largest denomination are less likely to be wrong simply because they have the largest number of believers. That is akin to arguing that Catholics are the only true form of Christianity because they are the most numerous. No Christian from another denomination would ever agree with such reasoning.
Legality as a concept may stay the same, but what is actually legal and illegal changes in different places and different time. The US used to prohibit Alcohol for a period. Now it doesn't. Slavery was legal in some States, now it isn't. Things change in politics to reflect the wishes of the people.
I also disagree that the majority opinion is the correct one simply because it is the majority. The majority of people used to think the world was flat. It was Christian orthodoxy at one point that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and the Sun revolved around the earth. Galileo was imprisoned because he preached heresy by saying the Earth revolved around the sun. All those educated theologians over hundreds of years had reached a conclusion that became the established Catholic orthodox position on this issue. Galileo ended up being right and all those others were wrong.
The Bible and Quranic passages about allowing slavery was used to justify the practice of slavery by Christians and Muslims alike for hundreds of years. Now the majority of both oppose the practice. Clearly the majority opinion changed over time on this issue.
The Catholic Pope used to call on Papal Decrees for Crusades against heretics and unbelievers. The current Pope eschews such tactics. Clearly the majority opinion on such actions has changed within the upper clergy of the Catholic Church.
The leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al Baghdad claims to have a PhD in Islamic Studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad. He claims to be a scholar on his religion. Other scholars may indeed claim a different interpretation of Islam to him, and say he is doing it all wrong but we are talking about matters of faith. There is no evidence either way to support which religion is truer than another. It comes down to belief. Religious people believe certain religious beliefs are true and things that contradict that are false. People believe in their religion even if other people are telling them their belief is wrong. That is how religion works.
ISIS believe in their own interpretation of Islam. Other people telling them they are wrong is not going to change their minds. These people have strong enough belief in their religion to kill and die in it's name. ISIS don't exactly tolerate dissenting viewpoints being presented to them. You can claim this is because they are unable to argue their case effectively, but they are more likely to crucify you or behead you than agree to being wrong. This behaviour is at least sadly, observably true.
|
This is a bit off topic but the Catholic Church doesn't claim that it is the only true form of Christianity but rather the "fullness of truth." Orthodox, Catholic and majority of Protestant denominations all descended from the same branch of (Nicene) Christianity. They may have minor differences pertaining to certain scriptural interpretations but they all agree with and adhere to the essential Christian doctrines (which distinguish orthodox Christianity from heretical Christianity) that were firmly established in the Council of Nicaea. They are all true Christians. It is just that only one of them is the Church that can trace its unbroken historical lineage to the Apostles. And I don't think this is disputable.
Religious doctrines mirror religious (absolute) truth. There probably lies the difference between religion and politics. Unlike many political concepts and principles and laws, they don't and can't change. The only way that a religious doctrine can change is if it is still in its early development (pretty much all the examples you've mentioned). But once they've been fully developed and formally and officially established, they are considered "written in stone." Have you heard the Church ever changed its position on major issues like the use of condom, divorce, celibacy, female priesthood?
The Catholic Church has never taught as a doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe, nor that the sun was, nor any scientific theory. It has always viewed scientific study as tentative and different in scope from religious truth. Galileo was punished not because the church disagreed with heliocentrism, but rather because he tried to foment rebellion through it. Neither did the Church teach that the earth was flat or it was the common belief during that time. That is actually a myth. Also, the Church's position on slavery until the 19th century was neutral. It neither condemned nor condoned it.
ISIS are not true Muslims for the simple fact that there are more Islamic teachings that they PURPOSELY ignore and violate than those that they follow. They have little regard for the fundamental tenets of Islam. They have their own extremist ideology that they want to advance even if it violates a lot of the rules of the religion that they purport to follow. You don't need a PhD on Islamic studies to know that they're wrong about their interpretation of Islam.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Belgian police have arrested Salah Abdeslam, suspected of coordinating Friday’s attacks in Paris:
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/4/2012
Posts: 6,823
|
I hope the attackers are burning in hell. Hope Bagdadi and the rest of ISIS join them asap.
Quote:
Originally posted by fabbriche
This is a bit off topic but the Catholic Church doesn't claim that it is the only true form of Christianity but rather the "fullness of truth." Orthodox, Catholic and majority of Protestant denominations all descended from the same branch of (Nicene) Christianity. They may have minor differences pertaining to certain scriptural interpretations but they all agree with and adhere to the essential Christian doctrines (which distinguish orthodox Christianity from heretical Christianity) that were firmly established in the Council of Nicaea. They are all true Christians. It is just that only one of them is the Church that can trace its unbroken historical lineage to the Apostles. And I don't think this is disputable.
Religious doctrines mirror religious (absolute) truth. There probably lies the difference between religion and politics. Unlike many political concepts and principles and laws, they don't and can't change. The only way that a religious doctrine can change is if it is still in its early development (pretty much all the examples you've mentioned). But once they've been fully developed and formally and officially established, they are considered "written in stone." Have you heard the Church ever changed its position on major issues like the use of condom, divorce, celibacy, female priesthood?
The Catholic Church has never taught as a doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe, nor that the sun was, nor any scientific theory. It has always viewed scientific study as tentative and different in scope from religious truth. Galileo was punished not because the church disagreed with heliocentrism, but rather because he tried to foment rebellion through it. Neither did the Church teach that the earth was flat or it was the common belief during that time. That is actually a myth. Also, the Church's position on slavery until the 19th century was neutral. It neither condemned nor condoned it.
ISIS are not true Muslims for the simple fact that there are more Islamic teachings that they PURPOSELY ignore and violate than those that they follow. They have little regard for the fundamental tenets of Islam. They have their own extremist ideology that they want to advance even if it violates a lot of the rules of the religion that they purport to follow. You don't need a PhD on Islamic studies to know that they're wrong about their interpretation of Islam.
|
OFF TOPIC: What's your stance on the crusades?
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 31,020
|
Someone set off fireworks near memorials and everyone started running for their lives
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
French believe mastermind is hiding in Syria:
French authorities say they believe that a Belgian man was responsible for planning or ordering the terrorist attacks in Paris that left dozens dead.
NPR's Dina Temple-Raston reports that officials believe Abdelhamid Abaaoud is in Syria.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/18/2012
Posts: 25,853
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
Belgian police have arrested Salah Abdeslam, suspected of coordinating Friday’s attacks in Paris:
|
This still isn't confirmed, there's conflicting news reports coming from different places. I hope they really have got him though.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jack!
This still isn't confirmed, there's conflicting news reports coming from different places. I hope they really have got him though.
|
They say both men mentioned above were from the same hotspot in Belgium
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 6,141
|
Belgian press writes that there is a new operation going on, but that no one has been arrested yet
They are, however, forcing a lot of residents to leave their homes, even if they don't want to
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 31,020
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
French believe mastermind is hiding in Syria:
French authorities say they believe that a Belgian man was responsible for planning or ordering the terrorist attacks in Paris that left dozens dead.
NPR's Dina Temple-Raston reports that officials believe Abdelhamid Abaaoud is in Syria.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/16/2010
Posts: 8,041
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nialler
|
Lol...
Btw the man arrested on the picture is NOT Abdeslam.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 6,430
|
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenFootSounds
|
Makes me feel like I'm living in a SAW game the way the article states it
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2014
Posts: 12,514
|
Yasss, Anonymous better punchT.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jeeriz
Lol...
Btw the man arrested on the picture is NOT Abdeslam.
|
Yeah it was circulating around as him, until I found out later it wasn't.
|
|
|
|
|