Why NZ really walked out on Ahmadinejad
NZ part of UN treaty conference walk-out
A walk-out by representatives from New Zealand and other western countries over a speech by Iran's leader at the United Nations Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in New York has come as no surprise to MPs here. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad slammed the United States in a 35-minute speech at the conference today, accusing it of threatening to use nuclear weapons towards his own and other countries. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton challenged Mr Ahmadinejad over his comments, while various diplomats were either appalled or didn't want to hear what he had to say and walked out. Foreign Minister Murray McCully said today Mr Ahmadinejad had a habit of making inflammatory and offensive comments on such occasions, and that he had told the New Zealand contingent, led by Disarmament Minister Georgina te Heuheu, it was up to them if they wanted to walk out during his speech.
Ummmm, why did we walk out? What was it that Ahmadinejad said that was so offensive that NZ decided to walk out rather than dialogue? What was said? Murray can't tell us...
"There was no particular phrase, it was a generally offensive tone. Some accusations against particular countries that were extremely offensive," Mr McCully said.
...oh there was no particular phrase huh Muzza? Because the US got up and walked out the moment Ahmadinejad mentioned a Zionist nuclear arsenal, are you telling us Muzza that phrase is magically offensive? Muzza can't tell us what the actual words that caused the offense were because Muzza ain't making the calls here, we walked out because the US walked out. National have sold our independent foreign policy down the drain in order to play lap dog to US interests, where our allies go, John Key breathlessly latches on and humps the leg of.
That's why Muzza is left with not one actual word that he can point to that was offensive to explain why we got up and walked, just some nebulous 'tone' excuse that was used to cloak the truth that this Government have rolled over for our allies.
NZ's ethical benchmark on foreign affairs is 'we do what we are told'. Great.
posted by Bomber @ 6:22 am
35 comments
35 Comments:
Muzza walked out because as the US's lap dog he has to follow the lead. Muzza don't even know whay he walked out in the first place. What a clown.
Not to mention TVNZ news reinforcing this position. I would have thought they were statements of fact, America is the only nation to use Nuclear weapons, they have the largest arsenal and they hold the world to ransom with them, yet have the arrogance to threaten war on those who are forced into another arms race because of that threat. Tell me Anon posters, if your neighbor was standing over you with a weapon, would you be thinking it might be in your interests to prepare yourself to be armed? The solution to Iran not pursuing Nuclear technology is to stop supporting Israels possession of them. And to give up on the ongoing thousand year Crusade to occupy the Middle East.
I do seem to recall a President of the US stating that 'everything was on the table' when it came to dealing with Iran.
Perhaps someone in McCully's office could explain the more nuanced parts of that for Iran's edification.
And you're taking Muzza's word that he left the choice to Teheuheu Bomber?
I find that hard to believe! I'm wondering just Who it is we're rolling over for? Certainly the US, but there is equal weight in the argument toward Israel as well. What did China and Russia do? No news on their delegations that I've seen reported...
Maybe we can alter our flag to reflect some more Stars (Of David) and Stripes (like Jackals).
"Why the fuck should we listen to a clown who thinks that the execution of homosexual in accordence to sharia law is acceptable?"
Gay rights and nuclear weapons have no link. If ignorance on one issue equals total ignorance, no country would listen to another, NZ included!
Its obvious to most that Iran vs Israel is the hotspot.
Israel is breaking international law by having nuclear weapons (thanks to USA) and they are used as a real threat to Iran.
Ahmadinejad is the most important voice in the world at the moment concerning non-proliferation.
McCully is a gutless swine.
He should have told the Iranians that we were walking out in protest for the Iranian govnts state sponsored murder, torture and continued detention of those who exercised their inherent human rights to protest against a regime who continues to abuse those rights.
"Are you saying that they are being misinterpreted when they say Israel should be wiped from the map?"
Well yes actually.
"To quote his exact words in farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".
THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=5866
Thats right...let Israel have nuclear weapons, and threaten and murder when they cant get there own way...and thats ok...but no no no Iran cant have nuclear weapons......umm isnt that fucken hypocritical????? I'd trust Iran before I would trust Israel.
In other words....if you are mates with the USA you can have nuclear weapons..
Below are the top myths the media tells us daily about Iran.
Iran Has/Wants Nuclear Weapons
.... Each and every inspect report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the National Intelligence Estimate has confirmed that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Additionally, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei, who has the final word in Iran on such issues, has denounced nuclear weapons as un-Islamic and stated unequivocally that Islam forbids the "production and stock piling of nuclear weapons." The Iranian fatwa against nuclear weapons is a registered document with the United Nations. Iran has been the only country to lobby for a nuclear-free Middle East....
Iran Threatened to Wipe Israel off the Map
(dealt with above)
For the record, Iran has not launched an attack on any nation in the past 300 years, but it has defended itself against assaults by other countries. Compare this track record to that of the biggest war monger in the Middle East, the same one that uses cluster bombs to take out innocent children.
The Iranians are Eagerly Awaiting the Arrival of "US Democracy"
American-style democracy has taken over the Middle East; just ask the Iraqis and Afghans how happy they are post-American liberation of their countries. Operation Iraqi Freedom has only cost 1.3 million Iraqi lives to date. In the last Iranian elections, an overwhelming 85 percent of voters turned out to pick the next president, and practically every pre-election poll showed President Ahmedinjad with a significant lead over his opponents. However, the West continues to claim Iran is not a democratic country despite it being the only Middle Eastern country with transparent elections and a fully functional parliament. Western hypocrisy of this magnitude must be respected, and the West has yet to call its allies (Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia) for throwing political opponents in jail and never holding elections.
By all instances, Iran is a democratic society, but to the United States and its allies, the very existence of a democracy in Iran is a threat. They removed this threat in 1953 when they overthrew the democratically-elected government and put in the totalitarian Shah. Speaking of democracy and sovereignty, the US would know a thing or two about those terms, considering for the past 30 years we have tried to overthrow the Iranian government and laid siege upon siege on the Iranian people. More recently, Congress voted to allocate 120 million dollars for anti-regime media broadcasts into Iran. It doesn't end there. The US also generously donated 60-75 million dollars to fund and support violent underground extremist groups like Mujahiden-Khalq (MKO), one of the largest terrorist organizations in Iran. Democracy in the Middle East is synonymous with murderous and catastrophic regime change.
Iran Is Five Years Away from a Nuclear Bomb
Every few months, the United States and Britain try to scare us out of sleeping at night by saying Iran is five years away from a nuclear bomb. Here's the problem: Iran has been "five years away from a nuclear bomb" for the past four decades, since the Shah began the peaceful nuclear program with US help. Those Iranians don't seem to be getting any closer to a nuclear weapon, which they don't seem to want by the way, but that won't detract the propagandist and war criminals. When the Qom facility was "exposed" by the United States last year, the neocons were quick to hawk it as proof of Iran's nuclear weapons program. However, they neglected to mention that Iran had openly revealed by it in a voluntary letter to the IAEA days before the US announced it. In addition, the Qom facility is incomplete and non-operational, and if the United States knew about the facility and did not reveal this information, then it too is in direct violation of the NPT. Unless, of course, the facility was not illegal, and thus there was no need to report it....
http://countercurrents.org/jawad030510.htm
"By all instances, Iran is a democratic society, but to the United States and its allies, the very existence of a democracy in Iran is a threat. "
Democracy with Iranian characteristics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76W-0GVjNEc&skipcontrinter=1
Enjoy brewer.
"Appeasers of religious fanatics vs Zionist aggressor."
I thought there were Religious fanatics in both of these instances. Seems to me the debate sits between those who read and investigate their opinions and those who swallow Rupert Murdoch corporate news pr spin. As evidenced by this thread, on one side of the argument links, and historical reference, even a translation from Persian. And on the other a repetition of what I'm likely to see on TVNZ at 6pm in a 30 second clip.
I know you think Ahmadinejad ia rthe democratically elected leader of a free country but many people in the West think he is a fanatical dictator with dangerously warped ideas on geo-politics.
If you want to listen to his rants then download it from one of the many extremist websites that will host them.
More Iranian community policing action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZMGdvgnbu4
Unfortunately for Brewer the proliferation of cellphones with video cameras and the internet makes it easy to expose his lies.
Now Brewer's going to use his old moral equivilency argument along the line of 'police torture people in the west too' which is true. Difference is in the West we regard this as a breach of human rights and then try and imprison them while these guys are given medals for their work of helping neutralise enemies of the revolution.
But do we consider our occupation of sovereign countries a breach of human rights? Oh no, that's a "War on terror". Moral equivalency, so are we in the West somehow superior to these raving fanatics? Is our Crusade justifiable? Because our atrocities are only directed at the 'other' are our morals more intact? It sounds to me like your argument is one of moral in-equivalency Anon. We could all link atrocities on you tube back and forth of 'community policing action.' http://wikileaks.org/ , but that could be protracted.
Iran obviously has a flawed regime, as is our- bordering on Fascist- Democracy, does that excuse either of our behavior? What I would like you to do however is point out an Historic example of any Middle Eastern country invading and occupying the West. Perhaps if we applied our morals equally to the 'other' we may not breed the fanatics that we're now expected to live in fear of? And while your at it, I'd also like and example of a successful exportation of Democracy.
http://www.juancole.com/2010/04/disqualifications-of-pro-baathists-throw-iraq-into-political-uncertainty.html
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175223/tomgram:_engelhardt,_all_the_world%27s_a_stage_%28for_us%29/
History shows us as being much more content to prop up Dictators and overthrow Democracies like in Iran not to mention various South Americanexamples.
Have we forgotten the History that led to the current governance of the Middle East and the radicalism of Islam?
Can't argue against video can you Brewer?
Not much you can say to defend your heroic democratic Iranian govnt when its enforcers literally shot women down in the street.
Still they hate Israel so they get a pass in your book.
If you bothered to do your homework you would see that most problems in the middle east are indeed caused by the west.....after all if was the american, british and french who carved up the area and installed their mates as leaders....without any regard for what the people living there wanted.
They also have funded people like, Saddam and Osama....so they have only themselves to blame.
The west exacerbates the problems in the Middle East to our own detriment and suffer from a similarly brutal nasty and discriminatory belief system, one of Empire. And I think you'd find if you engaged in history that the fringe of radical Islam has increased as a reaction to a very long history of occupation. Rhetoric is easy Gossman but give us some evedence to support you statements. If we look at the trajectory of Christian belief you'll also find it is very recently that it has been dissengaged fro the state, if you believe it really has, and it was and often still is just as guilty of attrocity.
"Can't argue against video can you Brewer?"
Quite frankly I see very little point in arguing with anyone whose opinions are formed by viewing video clips on youtube. Such a person might just as easily be convinced that the U.S. is a brutal police state by watching a clip of Rodney King being beaten to half death or that New Zealand is a nation of child killers after watching coverage of several recent notorious cases.
Anyone with an ounce of logic is well aware that dozens of videos can be cited showing the deaths by shooting and beatings of peaceful protesters and children in the occupied territories. If one were to apply your incoherent form of analysis to these, the inescapable conclusion would be that Israel is a brutal and lawless State. One can also cite many cases of fanatical behaviour by fundamentalist followers of Judaism such as Kahane, Baruch Goldstein, Rabbi Josef and that fellow who was recently charged with multiple random killing of Palestinians - to demonstrate (by your logic) that Israel is a theocratic State.
This kind of argument is futile.
"Quite frankly I see very little point in arguing with anyone whose opinions are formed by viewing video clips on youtube."
Of course you do because it's very hard to defend a regime which kills and tortures it's own citizens for protesting against the regime on camera.
No amount of copying and pasting from conspiracy websites can counter the truth that people can see with their own eyes.
What is amazing is that despite such images you still remain committed to defending such a regime despite having no personal interest in its success.
Radical Islam has increased as a reaction to a very long history of occupation has it?
Yes, currently its the 40 year occupation of Palestinian land which is driving this radicalism, of course the CIA coup in Iran to plant a dictator who's cruel leadership resulted in the radical response we see there now didn't help either. And please let's not forget many brutal interpretations of Islam have been fostered and used as a means of control mainly by regimes we in the West are propping up. Can I mention Osama being funded by the CIA or is that as obvious as America propping up Saudia Arabia? Oh that's right, you never talk about the West propping up these brutal regimes and their religions of control, that would interrupt your claim that Islam is innately evil wouldn't it Gos?
Forgive me but I was wondering if you could explain to me why the Ottoman Empire invaded Eastern Europe and imposed their perverted system of Religious Government on the nations they conquered?
Can you please explain why any empire in the history of earth has done any invasion? Using this example to disprove your first example shows you are talking in circles.
This can't have been in reaction to Western Imperialism as that only kicked off in the late 19th Century whereas the Ottomans conquered Constantanople in the 15th Century.
An Empire invades as empires do, but that isn't might is right normative empire behaviour, according to Gosman, in the case of those dirty muslims it was more akin to a Peter Saunders novel.
There has always been friction between the Christian and Muslim culture like many other religions, attempting to compare Muslim aggression and Christian aggression from the medieval area in the manner you are to suggest that the occupation of Palestinian land doesn't drive fanatical Islam now is just Trolling.
I can't wait until you bring up the Crusades as the next excuse. If you actually know anything about history you should realise that the Muslims were invading Western Europe almost three hundred years before the Crusades occurred. Have you even heard of the Battle of Poitiers/Tours?
And off you go on your empty point.
Have you heard of Dhimmi laws, Barbary Slavers, The Greek war of independence, to name just a few of the injustices carried out in the name of Islam well before Westerners "screwed up" the Middle East. Do you know why these things stopped? Not because of some Muslim Enlightenment but because the Western powers stopped them.
Have you heard of Al-kindi, author of 270 books on mathematics, physics, music, medicine, pharmacy, and geography, plus a commentator of Aristotle.
Al-Farabi, master of Greek philosophy, the author of ‘The Bezels of Philosophy and the Perfect State (appropriated by St Thomas Aquinas).
Ibn Sina child prodigy, author of the text ‘Canons of Medicine’, the corrector of Aristotle.
Ibn Rushd – the greatest Muslim philosopher of the West.
Al-Ghazzali the 11th century professor at Nizamiyyah college and the author of the monumental ‘The revival of the religious sciences in Islam’
Fakhr al-Din Razi mathmatician, physicist, master of Kalam, author of an influential encyclopedia of science: ‘one of the greatest masters of Islam’.
What about literature Gossy – al-Hariri’s ‘The Assemblies’ – we write the magic of the Arabic language off do we? What about ibn Shahid’s al-Tawabi or al Maari’s Risalah al-Ghufran, the appropriation of The Thousand and One Nights.
Let’s talk science Gosman, nothing of worth that has come from modern Islam writes off the scientific method we use, it was introduced by al-Baatani (he died 929), al-Baruni (he died 1048) and ibn Haytham (he died 1039). What about the creation of logarithms and algebra, he wrote kitab al-jabr wa’ muqabala (the book of inheritance), 300 years after he died the West were introduced to the zero and adopted Arabic numerals. Addul Wafa developed trigonometry and spherical geometry in the 10th century, came up with sine and tangent tables, and discovered variations in the moon’s motion. Omar Khayyam solved third and fourth degree equations by intersecting conic – the highest algebraic achievements of modern mathmatics. 500 years before Galileo, Al-Baruni discussed the rotation of the Earth on its axis, and Al-Battani measured the circumference of the earth. Ibn al-Haytham in the 11th century was a trailblazer in optics, his optical thesaurus is one of the most plagiarized texts in the history of science. Jabir ibn Hayyan in the 9th century invented numerous types of laboratory apparatus while introducing distillation for the puriofication of water, identified numerous alkalis, acids, salts, prepared sulphuric acid, caustic soda and nitohydrochloric acid for dissolving metals discovering mercury. Al-Majriti in the 11th century proved the principle of chemical conservation of mass – 900 years before Lavoisier took the credit. I suppose we should also junk the 1121 book by Al-Khazini – ‘book of the balance of wisdom’ – where he details the techniques of measurement and construction of balances, the law of mechanics and hydrostatics and physics not to mention the basics of gravity 566 years before Newton. I suppose we dump al-Razi’s book of the secret of secrets which focused on professional technology like distilling crude petroleum in the 9th century. I suppose we dump Ibn Sina’s 11th century ‘The canons of medicine’ which was a standard text in the West for 700 years.
I’m not even touching the social sciences of al-Tabri, al-Masudi, al-Athir and ibn Kaldun or the advanced trade or town planning or even environmental harams or hima, didn’t Ibn abd as-Salam formulate the first statement of animal rights in the 13th century?
I haven’t even mentioned art or music – but apparently all of that, every inch of it is wiped clean because because according to Gosman it is an innately evil religion – staggering, truly staggering.
Your argument about Islam being responsible for some enlightened thinkers is about as persuassive as if I was foolish enough to argue that Christianity can claim ownership for theideas of people like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and even Darwin. You might as well argue that Judaism is behind Einsteins work as well.
These great people achieved despite their restrictive religious belief structures, not because of them. If the Roman empire had continued to flourish without the perversion of the Abrahamic faiths warping it I would argue that these sorts of ideas would have come through regardless.
The difference between Islam and other Religious faiths is that it's founder laid down the basic law that everyone should submit to the laws as laid down by him AND that his followers should attempt to spread this warped faith any way they could, including via Warfare.
Not many other Religious founders expoused such an intolerant view of otrher faiths and approved the violent means of propogating the faith. Certainly not Christianity nor Judaism nor Buddhism nor most of the other main faiths.
If you want to be an apologist for Islam go ahead. Just remember under Islamic Sharia law your views and ideas would be violently suppressed.
"The difference between Islam and other Religious faiths is that it's founder laid down the basic law that everyone should submit to the laws as laid down by him AND that his followers should attempt to spread this warped faith any way they could, including via Warfare.
Not many other Religious founders expoused such an intolerant view of otrher faiths and approved the violent means of propogating the faith. Certainly not Christianity nor Judaism nor Buddhism nor most of the other main faiths."
Perhaps not the founders but definitely the followers. You cannot seriously claim that Christianity and Judaism have not been guilty of exactly what you are claiming against Islam.
Is this not the crux of this argument, All Religion, requiring your faith in flat earth mythology is guilty of a form of Totalitarianism. I haven't heard a single apologist for Islam as a faith in this thread, but a position which doesn't accept our reaction to Islam or the inhabitants of it's countries as a means which will achieve it's goal- if of coarse our current intentions are to save us from Islam, rather than global domination and Empire building.
Fortunately as you and Bomber point out, some incredible humans manage to surface despite the Religions or the Corporations which try to control them and aren't they the faces we should be thinking of when those drones drop their payload. Should we not denounce all jihadists and crusaders equally as the psychopathic criminals they are?
You don't understand it do you AAMC.
Islam was founded by a man who commanded his followers to violently suppress alternative ideas and spread the religion using violence.
Other Religions have just been exploited by ignorant people to further their own ends. These people have had to ignore and twist the particular teachings to suit their ownb perverted ends.
It is quite conceivable now for some insipid form of Christianity, as represented by say the Anglican Church, to claim the Christianity is founded on peace and harmony. This is not possible for Islam because Muhammed was a brutal warlord who engaged in genocidal policies against his enemies.
This is why Islam and those who support it are a threat to non-Muslims, regardless of your political persuassion. I have more in common with you than I would a true follower of Islamic belief.
And so how then Gosman do you suggest countries with Islamic governance be dealt with by the West?
"Islam was founded by a man who commanded his followers to violently suppress alternative ideas and spread the religion using violence."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Islam is,in fact, the only one of the three Abrahamic faiths that expressly offers protection to the other two.
As for "spreading Islam by the sword", Jerusalem was taken by Muslims from the Sassanids (Byzantines) in 614:
"With the Arab conquest, Jews were allowed back into the city.[58] The Rashidun caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab signed a treaty with Monophysite Christian Patriarch Sophronius, assuring him that Jerusalem’s Christian holy places and population would be protected under Muslim rule."
Then came the Crusaders in 1099, slaughtering Jews and Moslems alike. Again the Moslems came to the rescue:
"Jerusalem was conquered by the Crusaders, who massacred most of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants when they took the solidly defended city ....
In 1187, the city was wrested from the Crusaders by Saladin who permitted Jews and Muslims to return and settle in the city."
Then the Tartars:
"in 1244, Jerusalem was sacked by the Khwarezmian Tartars, who decimated the city’s Christian population and drove out the Jews"
Jews were again allowed to return under the Ottomans:
"In 1517, Jerusalem and environs fell to the Ottoman Turks, who generally remained in control until 1917.[64] Jerusalem enjoyed a prosperous period of renewal and peace under Suleiman the Magnificent – including the rebuilding of magnificent walls around the Old City. Throughout much of Ottoman rule, Jerusalem remained a provincial, if religiously important center, and did not straddle the main trade route between Damascus and Cairo.[67] However, the Muslim Turks brought many innovations: modern postal systems run by the various consulates; the use of the wheel for modes of transportation; stagecoach and carriage, the wheelbarrow and the cart; and the oil-lantern, among the first signs of modernization in the city.[68] In the mid 19th century, the Ottomans constructed the first paved road from Jaffa to Jerusalem, and by 1892 the railroad had reached the city.[68]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Crusader.2C_Ayyubid.2C_and_Mamluk_period
This is not to mention the "Golden Age of Jewish Culture" under Ottoman rule:
"The Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain, also known as the Golden Age of Arab (or Moorish) Rule in Iberia, refers to a period of history (711 - 1066) during the Muslim rule of the Iberian Peninsula (the former Roman and Visigothic Hispania) in which Jews were generally accepted in society and Jewish religious, cultural, and economic life blossomed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain
Mr Ahmadinejad had a habit of making inflammatory and offensive comments on such occasions, HIS SPEECHES TO THE U.N TELL ANOTHA STORY
Gee Gosman - you've gone quiet all of a sudden????
I'm gathering he's loathed to publicly admit to being a Crusader?
Yeah an infidel crusader.
I'm so glad we're learning to converse in the language of militant islam.
My guess is that Gosman has discovered the existence of gray.
I wish I lived in a world of black and white, good and bad.
No I think Grey is probably a safer place to inhabit.
And Anon, I believe it was George W Bush who used the term Crusade for their current sojourn. You should look into the Colorado Springs Military Academy or alternatively read this
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/12/hitchens-theocracy-200912
"I wish I lived in a world of black and white, good and bad."
You mean like jihadist do?
"You mean like jihadist do?"
Yeah, like jihadist's and Gosman do.
I also wish my life revolved around rugby, meat pies, beer and boobs.
Ignorance would be bliss.
"I also wish my life revolved around rugby, meat pies, beer and boobs."
At least you'd find a socially acceptable way to vent out your frustration instead of trying to defend jihadists.
Anyway I'm going to get pissed and have a root all in blissful ignorance and I most certainly know who will happier tomorrow.
So enjoy searching wikipedia tonight to try to defend you degenerage and ultimately pointless views
Post a Comment
<< Home