Salaam O Rachel* Salaam
Temporal March 20, 2003
#17 Posted by stuka on March 21, 2003 9:01:37 am
pmishra2:
This whole story of fighting for freedom is bullshit. These guys do not want Israel to just get out of the occupied territories, the stated aim of Hamas, Islamic Jihad now (and Black September and PFLP and Abu Nidal etc in the 70S) was and remains the detruction of Israel proper.
This whole story of fighting for freedom is bullshit. These guys do not want Israel to just get out of the occupied territories, the stated aim of Hamas, Islamic Jihad now (and Black September and PFLP and Abu Nidal etc in the 70S) was and remains the detruction of Israel proper.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#18 Posted by asfand on March 21, 2003 12:43:35 pm
Now I am wondering and I am sure many of you may have the same thoughts:
If an American Civilian got killed by Iraqi Army or any other Army in the world, just imagine how CNN would have been reporting it.
BUT
Since the Israeli Army has the divine right to kill the gentiles including the Americans, CNN and other western news agencies looks at the whole issue as a minor incident.
Just read the NY Times reporting below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/international/16WIRE-MIDE.html
American Protester Killed by Israeli Bulldozer in GazaBy
THE NEW YORK TIMESAZA CITY,
Gaza Strip -- An American woman in Gaza to protest Israeli operations was killed Sunday when she was run over by an Israeli bulldozer, witnesses and hospital officials said. Rachel Corrie, 23, a college student from Olympia, Wash., had been trying to stop the bulldozer from tearing down a building in the Rafah refugee camp, witnesses said. She was taken to Najar hospital in Rafah, where she died, said Dr. Ali Moussa, a hospital administrator. Greg Schnabel, 28, of Chicago, said the protesters were in the house of Dr. Samir Masri. Israeli almost daily has been tearing down houses of Palestinians it suspects in connection with Islamic militant groups, saying such operations deter attacks on Israel such as suicide bombings. ``Rachel was alone in front of the house as we were trying to get them to stop,`` Schnabel said. ``She waved for the bulldozer to stop and waved. She fell down and the bulldozer kept going. We yelled, `Stop, stop,` and the bulldozer didn`t stop at all. It had completely run over her and then it reversed and ran back over her.`` Witnesses said Corrie was wearing a brightly colored jacket when the bulldozer hit her. She had been a student at The Evergreen State College in Olympia and would have graduated this year, Schnabel said.
The Israeli military and the U.S. State Department had no immediate comment.
Groups of international protesters have gathered in several locations in the West Bank and Gaza during two years of Palestinian violence, setting themselves up as ``human shields`` to try to stop Israeli operations. Corrie was the first member of the groups, called ``International Solidarity Movement`` and backed by Palestinian groups, to be killed in the conflict. Several activists have been arrested in clashes with Israeli forces, and some have been deported by Israeli authorities. Schnabel said there were eight protesters at the site in Rafah, four from the United States and four from Great Britain. ``We stay with families whose house is to be demolished,`` he told the Associated Press by telephone after the incident. Mansour Abed Allah, 29, a Palestinian human rights worker in Rafah, witnessed the incident. He said the killing should be a message to President Bush, who is ``providing Israel with tanks and bulldozers, and now they killed one of his own people.`` Israel sends tanks and bulldozers into the area almost every day, destroying buildings near the Gaza-Egypt border. The Israelis say Palestinian gunmen use the buildings as cover, and arms-smuggling tunnels dug under the border terminate in the buildings. According to interim peace accords, Israel controls the border area, where there are clashes almost daily between Palestinian gunmen and Israeli soldiers.
If an American Civilian got killed by Iraqi Army or any other Army in the world, just imagine how CNN would have been reporting it.
BUT
Since the Israeli Army has the divine right to kill the gentiles including the Americans, CNN and other western news agencies looks at the whole issue as a minor incident.
Just read the NY Times reporting below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/international/16WIRE-MIDE.html
American Protester Killed by Israeli Bulldozer in GazaBy
THE NEW YORK TIMESAZA CITY,
Gaza Strip -- An American woman in Gaza to protest Israeli operations was killed Sunday when she was run over by an Israeli bulldozer, witnesses and hospital officials said. Rachel Corrie, 23, a college student from Olympia, Wash., had been trying to stop the bulldozer from tearing down a building in the Rafah refugee camp, witnesses said. She was taken to Najar hospital in Rafah, where she died, said Dr. Ali Moussa, a hospital administrator. Greg Schnabel, 28, of Chicago, said the protesters were in the house of Dr. Samir Masri. Israeli almost daily has been tearing down houses of Palestinians it suspects in connection with Islamic militant groups, saying such operations deter attacks on Israel such as suicide bombings. ``Rachel was alone in front of the house as we were trying to get them to stop,`` Schnabel said. ``She waved for the bulldozer to stop and waved. She fell down and the bulldozer kept going. We yelled, `Stop, stop,` and the bulldozer didn`t stop at all. It had completely run over her and then it reversed and ran back over her.`` Witnesses said Corrie was wearing a brightly colored jacket when the bulldozer hit her. She had been a student at The Evergreen State College in Olympia and would have graduated this year, Schnabel said.
The Israeli military and the U.S. State Department had no immediate comment.
Groups of international protesters have gathered in several locations in the West Bank and Gaza during two years of Palestinian violence, setting themselves up as ``human shields`` to try to stop Israeli operations. Corrie was the first member of the groups, called ``International Solidarity Movement`` and backed by Palestinian groups, to be killed in the conflict. Several activists have been arrested in clashes with Israeli forces, and some have been deported by Israeli authorities. Schnabel said there were eight protesters at the site in Rafah, four from the United States and four from Great Britain. ``We stay with families whose house is to be demolished,`` he told the Associated Press by telephone after the incident. Mansour Abed Allah, 29, a Palestinian human rights worker in Rafah, witnessed the incident. He said the killing should be a message to President Bush, who is ``providing Israel with tanks and bulldozers, and now they killed one of his own people.`` Israel sends tanks and bulldozers into the area almost every day, destroying buildings near the Gaza-Egypt border. The Israelis say Palestinian gunmen use the buildings as cover, and arms-smuggling tunnels dug under the border terminate in the buildings. According to interim peace accords, Israel controls the border area, where there are clashes almost daily between Palestinian gunmen and Israeli soldiers.
#19 Posted by Tipu on March 21, 2003 12:43:35 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#20 Posted by pmishra2 on March 21, 2003 12:43:35 pm
#17 stuka
It is the most nonsensical situation imaginable. We have a modest territorial dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians elevated to a brutal civil war. We have the worst kind of atrocity, the bombing of civilians, passed of as a freedom struggle.
For me the situation became crystal clear after Ehud Barak`s offer was rejected. That was the defining moment for a lot of middle-of-the-road folks --- we understood that if Yasser Arafat could not accept a compromise. Fundamentally, the people behind him do not believe in co-existence.
It is the most nonsensical situation imaginable. We have a modest territorial dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians elevated to a brutal civil war. We have the worst kind of atrocity, the bombing of civilians, passed of as a freedom struggle.
For me the situation became crystal clear after Ehud Barak`s offer was rejected. That was the defining moment for a lot of middle-of-the-road folks --- we understood that if Yasser Arafat could not accept a compromise. Fundamentally, the people behind him do not believe in co-existence.
#21 Posted by temporal on March 21, 2003 12:43:36 pm
Tahmed #2: and nazarhayatkhan #7:
islam has been hijacked by the ultra orthodox because of this very attitude…we…the silent, moderate muslims…by default (and not by design) have let them bring misery and scorn on us…it is about time we stand up and repudiate their ultra orthodox interpretation of this religion…
…why cannot i have my different interpretation?…if they go ahead and quote me ayahs of Qur’an, exhorting the believers to take up arms in the cause of justice…i will come back equally forcefully and refute it…in my humble view they can do so only if justice and harmony prevails in their society…only then can they exhort others to join their jehad…and since most…if not all muslim countries and societies lag behind…way behind... when it comes to social justice and peace and harmony and rights for their citizens…their call for any extra-territorial jehad is null and void…
…‘…Let us lose this small battle to the mullahs, and try to win the bigger battle’…you say…sorry bud, that time is past when we should give in to these ultra orthodox hijackers…please reconsider…to reclaim moderation we should adopt their tactics…we shall not give in an inch…
draw a line…no more terror…no more bamboozling in the name of religion…
rgds,
t
islam has been hijacked by the ultra orthodox because of this very attitude…we…the silent, moderate muslims…by default (and not by design) have let them bring misery and scorn on us…it is about time we stand up and repudiate their ultra orthodox interpretation of this religion…
…why cannot i have my different interpretation?…if they go ahead and quote me ayahs of Qur’an, exhorting the believers to take up arms in the cause of justice…i will come back equally forcefully and refute it…in my humble view they can do so only if justice and harmony prevails in their society…only then can they exhort others to join their jehad…and since most…if not all muslim countries and societies lag behind…way behind... when it comes to social justice and peace and harmony and rights for their citizens…their call for any extra-territorial jehad is null and void…
…‘…Let us lose this small battle to the mullahs, and try to win the bigger battle’…you say…sorry bud, that time is past when we should give in to these ultra orthodox hijackers…please reconsider…to reclaim moderation we should adopt their tactics…we shall not give in an inch…
draw a line…no more terror…no more bamboozling in the name of religion…
rgds,
t
#22 Posted by faisaluno on March 21, 2003 12:43:36 pm
stuka:
have you heard of effi eitam? do you know what position he holds in the israeli government? do you know what is his solution to the palestenian problem? and can you please explain to me how blond hair blue eyed people landed in the middle of middle east? who do you think spoke these words?
``I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.``
#23 Posted by Urstruly on March 21, 2003 12:43:36 pm
taimurmalik
Your post speak volumes about your good nature and innocence but I am not sure about theirs.
#24 Posted by temporal on March 21, 2003 12:43:36 pm
pmishra2 #15:
jehad is misunderstood…within and without islam:
---in pakistan it is a carte blanche to come to the aid of muslims worldwide…
---the ROW sees it justifiably as acts of terrorism
---my own views have been elaborated in the past (if you care: [http://63.194.130.82/cgi-bin/show_article.cgi?aid=00001128&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1] in that sense Rachel Corrie was a jehadi
---in addition to above i have stated unequivocally i am against loss of life through acts of terror, be it by individuals, organizations or states ...how many others you know here have been that explicit?
rgds,
t
jehad is misunderstood…within and without islam:
---in pakistan it is a carte blanche to come to the aid of muslims worldwide…
---the ROW sees it justifiably as acts of terrorism
---my own views have been elaborated in the past (if you care: [http://63.194.130.82/cgi-bin/show_article.cgi?aid=00001128&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1] in that sense Rachel Corrie was a jehadi
---in addition to above i have stated unequivocally i am against loss of life through acts of terror, be it by individuals, organizations or states ...how many others you know here have been that explicit?
rgds,
t
#25 Posted by stuka on March 21, 2003 2:19:13 pm
Tipu:
``Factions like Nidal & Habbash George are marauders who may want settlement of Palestenian but a knowledgeable person knows it is Arafat &Hanan & plo who are negotiating``
I acknowledge that rhetoric is different from reality. I also accept your point about Habash and Nidal being in that category. In my post I said:
``the stated aim of Hamas, Islamic Jihad now (and Black September and PFLP and Abu Nidal etc in the 70S) was and remains the detruction of Israel proper``
Remember, the PFLP was always allied with Fatah, the fighting wing of Arafat`s PLO. I repeat, upto the 1973 war, the Palestenian resistance believed that Israel could and would be destroyed. That changed after the war, and comprehensive defeat. Not before.
Even now, you say that Arafat is the main negotiater. Now, at least based on the knowledge that is in public domain, and beyond which neither of us have access, the main sticking points in Oslo were Jeruasalem and the return of refugees. The latter will change the demographic balance of Israel, thereby achieving it`s destruction.
Also, please remember that Hamas and Islamic Jihad did not join the Oslo negotiations because their stated aim is still the destruction of Israel. In terms of public support, the Palestenians support Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah to a far greater extent than the PLO. So Israel will only waste it`s time negotiating with Arafat.
However, I digress. The point of my original post was this. If the Palestenians had accepted the partition in 1948, they could have lived in dignity. Again and again they chose war, in 1967 and 1973, and the purpose of the war was the utter and complete destruction of a people. Therefore, if the Israelis do not shy away from brutalizing the Arabs, it is a result of what has happened less than a generation ago.
``Factions like Nidal & Habbash George are marauders who may want settlement of Palestenian but a knowledgeable person knows it is Arafat &Hanan & plo who are negotiating``
I acknowledge that rhetoric is different from reality. I also accept your point about Habash and Nidal being in that category. In my post I said:
``the stated aim of Hamas, Islamic Jihad now (and Black September and PFLP and Abu Nidal etc in the 70S) was and remains the detruction of Israel proper``
Remember, the PFLP was always allied with Fatah, the fighting wing of Arafat`s PLO. I repeat, upto the 1973 war, the Palestenian resistance believed that Israel could and would be destroyed. That changed after the war, and comprehensive defeat. Not before.
Even now, you say that Arafat is the main negotiater. Now, at least based on the knowledge that is in public domain, and beyond which neither of us have access, the main sticking points in Oslo were Jeruasalem and the return of refugees. The latter will change the demographic balance of Israel, thereby achieving it`s destruction.
Also, please remember that Hamas and Islamic Jihad did not join the Oslo negotiations because their stated aim is still the destruction of Israel. In terms of public support, the Palestenians support Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah to a far greater extent than the PLO. So Israel will only waste it`s time negotiating with Arafat.
However, I digress. The point of my original post was this. If the Palestenians had accepted the partition in 1948, they could have lived in dignity. Again and again they chose war, in 1967 and 1973, and the purpose of the war was the utter and complete destruction of a people. Therefore, if the Israelis do not shy away from brutalizing the Arabs, it is a result of what has happened less than a generation ago.
#26 Posted by pmishra2 on March 21, 2003 2:19:13 pm
#23 faisaluno
Its good to see you are an open racist about your views:
[quote]
and can you please explain to me how blond hair blue eyed people landed in the middle of middle east? who do you think spoke these words?
[end-quote]
OK, here is my equivalent in India: Can you explain to me what all these people who claim descent from Turks, Afghans, Arabs and Persians are doing in India? Shouldn`t they be sent back where they came from???
In other words, your argument is exactly the same as Modi and Thackeray. Enjoy the fine company ! Maybe you should meet your soul brothers sometime?
Its good to see you are an open racist about your views:
[quote]
and can you please explain to me how blond hair blue eyed people landed in the middle of middle east? who do you think spoke these words?
[end-quote]
OK, here is my equivalent in India: Can you explain to me what all these people who claim descent from Turks, Afghans, Arabs and Persians are doing in India? Shouldn`t they be sent back where they came from???
In other words, your argument is exactly the same as Modi and Thackeray. Enjoy the fine company ! Maybe you should meet your soul brothers sometime?
#27 Posted by stuka on March 21, 2003 2:19:13 pm
Faisaluno:
``have you heard of effi eitam? do you know what position he holds in the israeli government? do you know what is his solution to the palestenian problem?``
I honestly have no idea. I would be willing to learn.
``and can you please explain to me how blond hair blue eyed people landed in the middle of middle east?``
Faisaluno, I never said that there was NO migration from Europe at all. In fact, a major portion of the European Jewry that survived the Holocaust immigrated, either to America or to Israel. I even agree that the leaders, and therefore the public face of Zionism, were predominantly white.
Having said that, I mantain that the majority population of Israel in 1948 was consituted of Jews who were from the middle east. Countries such as Lebanoan, Egypt, Syria etc had a Jewish diaspora which moved to Israel. My point is that there was a two way transfer of population, and Israel does not constitute entirely of foreigners from Europe. At this point, thanks to immigration of Russian Jews, the demographic balance has shifted.
`` who do you think spoke these words? ``
I don`t know. Mind you, I would have been less critical of Arab suicide bombings if they had limited themselves to the occupied territories, and at most to settlers and military. However, they cannot claim a moral high point after targetting Haifa, Tel Aviv etc.
Secondly, my post was directed less at Arab methods and more at Arab demands. It was a chronological narrative of how Conservative opinion shifted from being neutral (in the sense of balance between Israel and Arab interests) to now being heavily pro Israel.
Since the birth of Israel to the 70S, Arab perspective of ``pro-Israel`` was based on a country`s acceptance of the state of Israel. The United States, in good faith,, tried to be neutral while mantaining support for the existence of Israel. The 1956 Suez Crisis being a case in point. It is a different matter that Arab perceptions painted America as pro Israel.
The point you make of American support for regressive Arab regimes is valid, but in that case the motivation was winning the cold war and getting oil rather than Israeli interests alone.
``have you heard of effi eitam? do you know what position he holds in the israeli government? do you know what is his solution to the palestenian problem?``
I honestly have no idea. I would be willing to learn.
``and can you please explain to me how blond hair blue eyed people landed in the middle of middle east?``
Faisaluno, I never said that there was NO migration from Europe at all. In fact, a major portion of the European Jewry that survived the Holocaust immigrated, either to America or to Israel. I even agree that the leaders, and therefore the public face of Zionism, were predominantly white.
Having said that, I mantain that the majority population of Israel in 1948 was consituted of Jews who were from the middle east. Countries such as Lebanoan, Egypt, Syria etc had a Jewish diaspora which moved to Israel. My point is that there was a two way transfer of population, and Israel does not constitute entirely of foreigners from Europe. At this point, thanks to immigration of Russian Jews, the demographic balance has shifted.
`` who do you think spoke these words? ``
I don`t know. Mind you, I would have been less critical of Arab suicide bombings if they had limited themselves to the occupied territories, and at most to settlers and military. However, they cannot claim a moral high point after targetting Haifa, Tel Aviv etc.
Secondly, my post was directed less at Arab methods and more at Arab demands. It was a chronological narrative of how Conservative opinion shifted from being neutral (in the sense of balance between Israel and Arab interests) to now being heavily pro Israel.
Since the birth of Israel to the 70S, Arab perspective of ``pro-Israel`` was based on a country`s acceptance of the state of Israel. The United States, in good faith,, tried to be neutral while mantaining support for the existence of Israel. The 1956 Suez Crisis being a case in point. It is a different matter that Arab perceptions painted America as pro Israel.
The point you make of American support for regressive Arab regimes is valid, but in that case the motivation was winning the cold war and getting oil rather than Israeli interests alone.
#28 Posted by rozaiba on March 21, 2003 2:19:13 pm
T #24 :
well said.
emotionalizing religion and letting it thus dictate terms brings false notions of arrogance.
well said.
emotionalizing religion and letting it thus dictate terms brings false notions of arrogance.
#29 Posted by tahmed32 on March 21, 2003 7:01:47 pm
temporal #24 I think it is clear that you and I agree on the ends, i.e. the need for muslims to fight islamic extremism.
And we even agree on some of the means: i.e. interpreting the Quran based on what our own common sense tells us. Not based on what some mullah tells us. That is fine.
I nevertheless must beg to differ on your use of the word jihad when what you really mean is nonviolent protest against oppression, and for the following reasons:
a. It implies that it is OK to carry nonviolent protest to the point of dying. If that is what Ms. Rachel Corrie did (and I doubt anyway that her intention was to lose her life in the process of protesting), then she in effect committed suicide. And as you know the Quran explicitly prohibits suicide. My reading of the Quran is that sacrificing one`s life is permitted only in the extreme case of saving someone else`s life. No lives were threatened here. While not wishing to sound flippant about the death of someone so young, and while applauding her defense for the underdogs in the Arab-Israeli dog fight (and that it basically what it is, with no heroes on either side), the sad fact remains that Ms. Corrie died saving a house from being torn down.
b. You approving us of the word ``jihad`` gets the mullah off the hook. So, if you MUST use the word, then at least put the mullah back on the hook by explicitly condemning the murderous actions they commit in the name of jihad. In my usual helpful manner, I shall even provide you with a list that you can attach next time you feel tempted to use the word ``jihad`` instead of something more explicit (like self-defense, or peaceful resistance, or socio-economic progresss):
1. 9/11 was NOT jihad. It was a barbarous act that killed three thousand innocent people from all over the world who were going about their business. AND it was carried out by a bunch of islamic extremists an no one else (as too many muslims do not have the character to admit, despite clear evidence).
2. Kashmir is NOT jihad. The lives of Kashmiris are not being threatened. If someone wishes to carry out a jihad, then the time and place would have been Gujrat when the mobs were attacking muslims, or Godhra when the mobs were attacking hindus: since the purpose would have been to save lives (muslim OR hindu - respect for life does not stop with muslim life alone). That would be jihad. Not creating mischief in other people`s land.
So, by the time you are done clarifying what you mean, you might as well just say what you mean (i.e. peaceful resistance), rather than trying to rehabilitate a word that is beyond repair. Islam is substance, not words.
And we even agree on some of the means: i.e. interpreting the Quran based on what our own common sense tells us. Not based on what some mullah tells us. That is fine.
I nevertheless must beg to differ on your use of the word jihad when what you really mean is nonviolent protest against oppression, and for the following reasons:
a. It implies that it is OK to carry nonviolent protest to the point of dying. If that is what Ms. Rachel Corrie did (and I doubt anyway that her intention was to lose her life in the process of protesting), then she in effect committed suicide. And as you know the Quran explicitly prohibits suicide. My reading of the Quran is that sacrificing one`s life is permitted only in the extreme case of saving someone else`s life. No lives were threatened here. While not wishing to sound flippant about the death of someone so young, and while applauding her defense for the underdogs in the Arab-Israeli dog fight (and that it basically what it is, with no heroes on either side), the sad fact remains that Ms. Corrie died saving a house from being torn down.
b. You approving us of the word ``jihad`` gets the mullah off the hook. So, if you MUST use the word, then at least put the mullah back on the hook by explicitly condemning the murderous actions they commit in the name of jihad. In my usual helpful manner, I shall even provide you with a list that you can attach next time you feel tempted to use the word ``jihad`` instead of something more explicit (like self-defense, or peaceful resistance, or socio-economic progresss):
1. 9/11 was NOT jihad. It was a barbarous act that killed three thousand innocent people from all over the world who were going about their business. AND it was carried out by a bunch of islamic extremists an no one else (as too many muslims do not have the character to admit, despite clear evidence).
2. Kashmir is NOT jihad. The lives of Kashmiris are not being threatened. If someone wishes to carry out a jihad, then the time and place would have been Gujrat when the mobs were attacking muslims, or Godhra when the mobs were attacking hindus: since the purpose would have been to save lives (muslim OR hindu - respect for life does not stop with muslim life alone). That would be jihad. Not creating mischief in other people`s land.
So, by the time you are done clarifying what you mean, you might as well just say what you mean (i.e. peaceful resistance), rather than trying to rehabilitate a word that is beyond repair. Islam is substance, not words.
#30 Posted by Tipu on March 21, 2003 8:13:20 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#31 Posted by pmishra2 on March 21, 2003 9:22:53 pm
Talk about complete lunacy !!
[quote]
EVEN THOUGH MANY THINGS ARE GOOD IN ISRAEL JUST AS IN AMERICA & NOT ALL ISRAELI OR AMERICANS ARE CONDEMNED BUT SELECTIVELY SOMTHING IN BOTH THESE COUNTRIES IS CAUSE OF 70% OF INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS OF SUICIDE BOMBING GULF WAR TERRORISM
[end-quote]
Sure, whatever. Just remain steadfast in your belief that Israel and America are the source of all problems in the world.
[quote]
EVEN THOUGH MANY THINGS ARE GOOD IN ISRAEL JUST AS IN AMERICA & NOT ALL ISRAELI OR AMERICANS ARE CONDEMNED BUT SELECTIVELY SOMTHING IN BOTH THESE COUNTRIES IS CAUSE OF 70% OF INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS OF SUICIDE BOMBING GULF WAR TERRORISM
[end-quote]
Sure, whatever. Just remain steadfast in your belief that Israel and America are the source of all problems in the world.
#32 Posted by Tipu on March 22, 2003 6:38:39 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- om_prakash: Aha_Snark Go interview someone else.... Pleas For Sanity as
- Aha_Snark: Re: # 187 om_prakash What... Pleas For Sanity as
- om_prakash: Civilian courts are severely... Pleas For Sanity as
- HP: #184 Posted by Aha_Snark So... Pleas For Sanity as
- Pew_Research: Re: # 39 Bulleya "...i... The Future of Indo
- Aha_Snark: Re: # 183 om_prakash "enemy... Pleas For Sanity as
- Aha_Snark: re: 182 HP Maybe you... Pleas For Sanity as
- om_prakash: "NO. Even the US... Pleas For Sanity as
