Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Straus on Islamic Terrorism

  1. #1
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,186
    Amen (Given)
    495
    Amen (Received)
    336

    Straus on Islamic Terrorism

    Siam, please read the following article by Ian Straus ("executive director of Democracy International and U.S. coordinator of the Committee on Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO. He has also been a Fulbright professor of political science and international relations"). I would like to read your thoughts on it. Please keep your points succinct for clarity and readability purposes. Thanks.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ism-ira-straus

  2. #2
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    791
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    34
    a succinct response would be ---"dumb propaganda"---but that might be rude...so I will try to do better....?....

    first a summary of the points the article makes---

    1)The root causes are two, and only two: Islam, and Islamism.
    Islamism has emerged in stages, out of two historical contingencies: (1) The historical failure of Islamdom, as experienced in its replacement by Christendom as the leading global force 500 years ago. For Islam, this was an unacceptable, insane inversion of God’s order. (2) The reaction to this in the 20th century was in the manner of what scholars are nowadays calling “generic fascism.” This reaction was able to grow into a movement thanks to the reversal of the spirit of the times from imperialism to anti-imperialism in the decades after 1914. It picked up steam with the access of huge oil wealth after 1970.

    2)Islam, qua historical religion, is a root cause of and support base for its own terrorist subculture, which is, factually, “Islamic terrorism.

    3)We must support the efforts of honest Muslims to fight to eliminate the evil side of Islam. (El Sisi)

    4)Islamism is the large branch of Islam for which the religion serves as a militant political ideology. Its substance derives from the failure of Islamdom, in the face of the rise half a millennium ago of Europe — the bearer of the Christian religion that Islam was supposed to have corrected and supplanted — and from the eventual generic fascist reaction within Islam to this failure.

    5) If this long war is ever to be brought to a decent end, they will have to change dramatically. The outer circles, Islam and the Western talking classes, will have to change their ideological ways and sever their links to the intermediate circles — the Islamists and the radical Left. The intermediate circles will have to shrink and face strong pressures to sever their links with the inner, terrorist circle. It will then be possible to defeat that terrorist circle. “Defeat” meaning: succeed not only in driving back specific Islamic terrorist groups, as is necessary here and now, ready or not, but in reducing Islamic terrorism globally to a marginal nuisance level.

    My interpretation of the article---

    point 1) introduces the alleged causes and names the "good guys" of this scenario --- (superior) "Christendom". Point 2) then defines the term "Islam" as the primary "culture"/historical religion from which a "subculture" (a new "religion") emerges---that of "Islamic terrorism". Point 3) then goes on to refute the earlier points he himself makes by saying there are "honest Muslims"---? ( an oxymoron considering his own definition of the terms?) who are to be the allies of a supposed "Christendom" in their fight against the "other" (Islam and its subculture Islamic terrorism) and a "standard bearer" as an ally is El Sisi ---!!!!??? (a man who killed 900 people in a single day!!!is to be an "ally" and example of the West---if that does not shout out the moral bankruptcy both of this article and the West!!---)
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/06/08/...-under-al-sisi
    Then point 4) goes on to give a definition of Islamism as a "militant ideology" which is a branch of Islam. Point 5) links "Islamism" to a "radical left" and that they way to "win" is to move away from the "left" and "Islam" and I suppose---move towards the "right" and Christendom? (though he denies such a motive in the article).

    at any rate---a wrong premise will not produce a correct conclusion and in the case of this article, not only the premise itself, (point 1) but the definitions/terms (points 2, 4) as well as the analysis (an alleged "Islamdom" was replaced by a supposed "Christendom" and so Muslims/Islamists are upset) are all incorrect---therefore obviously, the conclusion cannot be correct either...

  3. #3
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,186
    Amen (Given)
    495
    Amen (Received)
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    a succinct response would be ---"dumb propaganda"---but that might be rude...so I will try to do better....?....

    first a summary of the points the article makes---

    1)The root causes are two, and only two: Islam, and Islamism.
    Islamism has emerged in stages, out of two historical contingencies: (1) The historical failure of Islamdom, as experienced in its replacement by Christendom as the leading global force 500 years ago. For Islam, this was an unacceptable, insane inversion of God’s order. (2) The reaction to this in the 20th century was in the manner of what scholars are nowadays calling “generic fascism.” This reaction was able to grow into a movement thanks to the reversal of the spirit of the times from imperialism to anti-imperialism in the decades after 1914. It picked up steam with the access of huge oil wealth after 1970.

    2)Islam, qua historical religion, is a root cause of and support base for its own terrorist subculture, which is, factually, “Islamic terrorism.

    3)We must support the efforts of honest Muslims to fight to eliminate the evil side of Islam. (El Sisi)

    4)Islamism is the large branch of Islam for which the religion serves as a militant political ideology. Its substance derives from the failure of Islamdom, in the face of the rise half a millennium ago of Europe — the bearer of the Christian religion that Islam was supposed to have corrected and supplanted — and from the eventual generic fascist reaction within Islam to this failure.

    5) If this long war is ever to be brought to a decent end, they will have to change dramatically. The outer circles, Islam and the Western talking classes, will have to change their ideological ways and sever their links to the intermediate circles — the Islamists and the radical Left. The intermediate circles will have to shrink and face strong pressures to sever their links with the inner, terrorist circle. It will then be possible to defeat that terrorist circle. “Defeat” meaning: succeed not only in driving back specific Islamic terrorist groups, as is necessary here and now, ready or not, but in reducing Islamic terrorism globally to a marginal nuisance level.

    My interpretation of the article---

    point 1) introduces the alleged causes and names the "good guys" of this scenario --- (superior) "Christendom". Point 2) then defines the term "Islam" as the primary "culture"/historical religion from which a "subculture" (a new "religion") emerges---that of "Islamic terrorism". Point 3) then goes on to refute the earlier points he himself makes by saying there are "honest Muslims"---? ( an oxymoron considering his own definition of the terms?) who are to be the allies of a supposed "Christendom" in their fight against the "other" (Islam and its subculture Islamic terrorism) and a "standard bearer" as an ally is El Sisi ---!!!!??? (a man who killed 900 people in a single day!!!is to be an "ally" and example of the West---if that does not shout out the moral bankruptcy both of this article and the West!!---)
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/06/08/...-under-al-sisi
    Then point 4) goes on to give a definition of Islamism as a "militant ideology" which is a branch of Islam. Point 5) links "Islamism" to a "radical left" and that they way to "win" is to move away from the "left" and "Islam" and I suppose---move towards the "right" and Christendom? (though he denies such a motive in the article).

    at any rate---a wrong premise will not produce a correct conclusion and in the case of this article, not only the premise itself, (point 1) but the definitions/terms (points 2, 4) as well as the analysis (an alleged "Islamdom" was replaced by a supposed "Christendom" and so Muslims/Islamists are upset) are all incorrect---therefore obviously, the conclusion cannot be correct either...
    "..What it does mean is, simply, this: We must support the efforts of honest Muslims to fight to eliminate the evil side of Islam. We must stop lying about Islam. We must stop embracing and reinforcing its claims to a special right to getting violently offended. We must instead join in the fight against its evil."

    Do you agree with this statement? Or do you think when professing Muslim terrorists shout "God is great" while spraying AKs, that such activity has nothing to do with a certain "evil side of Islam"?

  4. #4
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    791
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    34
    are u as a Christian implying that the statement "God is great" is incorrect and/or evil?
    further---Strauss is implying that U.S./NATO (West) represents "Christendom" and therefore their irrational invasions, killing and destruction, crimes against humanity...etc are "Christian"? do YOU agree with this?

    "special right to getting violently offended" has been a particularly "Western" privilege--consider, the U.S. has been "violently offended" time and time again---a U.S. ship exploded and this so "violently offended" the U.S. that it started the Spanish-American war, which bled into the Philippine-American war when the Philipinos wanted independence from the U.S.---and this so "violently offended" the Americans they went to war over it...!!!...Such delicate American sensibilities were also "violently offended" in the mythical "Gulf of Tonkin" incident when a single bullet scratched the Maddox (U.S. warship) which incited the U.S. into the Vietnam war...!!!!...and we have not even gotten to Europe yet!....for example, in 1830, on the pretext that their consul had been insulted, the French got so "violently offended" they invaded Algeria...and so on...
    ...such sentiments---that the West is entitled to privileges that the rest of the world has no right to, is very prevalent in Modern Western thinkers as well---such as Sam Harris---who plainly states in his writing that it is perfectly acceptable to kill innocent people in a "clash of ideas"!!...
    ---in other words---It is perfectly good, acceptable and right for a "Westerner" to kill for "God and Country" but not for anyone else..........So,....Would YOU agree with such sentiments?

    As to the statement by Strauss---how can I possibly agree with anything that is so blatantly incorrect (and illogical) in the context of the article?---How is it possible that a "honest Muslim" can exist if Islam is evil?....obviously a Muslim is one who believes and follows Islam---and if Islam is evil then so is the Muslim---how can a believer of "evil" not be evil?

    But if the statement were that Islam is good but some Muslims do bad things---then I can readily agree. And in such cases, one must guide, to the right path, those who have become misguided.
    (and...If Islam (or any religion/philosophy/branch of knowledge is good) why do some people do bad things?---because human beings have free-will and they can choose to interpret their wisdom-teachings in ways that will benefit humanity or in ways that will harm. The same also applies to Science and any other field of knowledge....it can be used for harm or benefit---that choice is upto humans.

  5. #5
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,186
    Amen (Given)
    495
    Amen (Received)
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    are u as a Christian implying that the statement "God is great" is incorrect and/or evil?
    further---Strauss is implying that U.S./NATO (West) represents "Christendom" and therefore their irrational invasions, killing and destruction, crimes against humanity...etc are "Christian"? do YOU agree with this?

    "special right to getting violently offended" has been a particularly "Western" privilege--consider, the U.S. has been "violently offended" time and time again---a U.S. ship exploded and this so "violently offended" the U.S. that it started the Spanish-American war, which bled into the Philippine-American war when the Philipinos wanted independence from the U.S.---and this so "violently offended" the Americans they went to war over it...!!!...Such delicate American sensibilities were also "violently offended" in the mythical "Gulf of Tonkin" incident when a single bullet scratched the Maddox (U.S. warship) which incited the U.S. into the Vietnam war...!!!!...and we have not even gotten to Europe yet!....for example, in 1830, on the pretext that their consul had been insulted, the French got so "violently offended" they invaded Algeria...and so on...
    ...such sentiments---that the West is entitled to privileges that the rest of the world has no right to, is very prevalent in Modern Western thinkers as well---such as Sam Harris---who plainly states in his writing that it is perfectly acceptable to kill innocent people in a "clash of ideas"!!...
    ---in other words---It is perfectly good, acceptable and right for a "Westerner" to kill for "God and Country" but not for anyone else..........So,....Would YOU agree with such sentiments?

    As to the statement by Strauss---how can I possibly agree with anything that is so blatantly incorrect (and illogical) in the context of the article?---How is it possible that a "honest Muslim" can exist if Islam is evil?....obviously a Muslim is one who believes and follows Islam---and if Islam is evil then so is the Muslim---how can a believer of "evil" not be evil?

    But if the statement were that Islam is good but some Muslims do bad things---then I can readily agree. And in such cases, one must guide, to the right path, those who have become misguided.
    (and...If Islam (or any religion/philosophy/branch of knowledge is good) why do some people do bad things?---because human beings have free-will and they can choose to interpret their wisdom-teachings in ways that will benefit humanity or in ways that will harm. The same also applies to Science and any other field of knowledge....it can be used for harm or benefit---that choice is upto humans.
    1) You didn't answer the question. I asked if you believe that professing Muslim terrorists or soldiers of Allah shouting "God is great" *while spraying Aks* into a crowd of civilians has anything to with Islam? You can say it is a perversion of your interpretation of Islam, but do you deny that these individuals have no connection to Islam whatsoever -- an evil side of Islam?

    2) I do not have a problem with anyone saying God is great. Yelling "Allah is great" and killing seems to be quite popular with Islamic fundamentalists. Yelling "Jesus is Lord" while killing doesn't really happen. Yelling "Buddah is all" while killing doesn't really happen. Yelling "Krishna is king" while killing doesn't really happen. Once again, Islam is uniquely producing Islamic violence. Christian's produce violence but not in the name of Christianity. Buddhists produce violence but not in the name of Buddhism. Hindu's produce violence but not in the name of Hinduism. See the difference?

    3) Strauss is stating that there is an evil side of Islam. Your interpretation of Islam is seemingly peaceful. ISIS' interpretation of Islam is not. This is a unique phenomena in our modern world. It is the dark side of Islam. When your prophet is disrespected -- the Muslims fundamentalists react with death threats and violence -- this is all too common. Many Muslims turn the other cheek when an atrocity like the slaying of Charlie Hedbo happens because "they cannot disrespect the prophet". When the Triune God is disrespected, Christian's don't react with violence and utter death threats. When Buddha is disrespected, Buddhists don't react with violence and utter death threats. When Krishna is disrespected, Hindus don't react with violence and utter death threats. See the difference? Islam has a problem -- that is inherently Islamic.

  6. #6
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    791
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrawly View Post
    1) You didn't answer the question. I asked if you believe that professing Muslim terrorists or soldiers of Allah shouting "God is great" *while spraying Aks* into a crowd of civilians has anything to with Islam? You can say it is a perversion of your interpretation of Islam, but do you deny that these individuals have no connection to Islam whatsoever -- an evil side of Islam?

    2) I do not have a problem with anyone saying God is great. Yelling "Allah is great" and killing seems to be quite popular with Islamic fundamentalists. Yelling "Jesus is Lord" while killing doesn't really happen. Yelling "Buddah is all" while killing doesn't really happen. Yelling "Krishna is king" while killing doesn't really happen. Once again, Islam is uniquely producing Islamic violence. Christian's produce violence but not in the name of Christianity. Buddhists produce violence but not in the name of Buddhism. Hindu's produce violence but not in the name of Hinduism. See the difference?

    3) Strauss is stating that there is an evil side of Islam. Your interpretation of Islam is seemingly peaceful. ISIS' interpretation of Islam is not. This is a unique phenomena in our modern world. It is the dark side of Islam. When your prophet is disrespected -- the Muslims fundamentalists react with death threats and violence -- this is all too common. Many Muslims turn the other cheek when an atrocity like the slaying of Charlie Hedbo happens because "they cannot disrespect the prophet". When the Triune God is disrespected, Christian's don't react with violence and utter death threats. When Buddha is disrespected, Buddhists don't react with violence and utter death threats. When Krishna is disrespected, Hindus don't react with violence and utter death threats. See the difference? Islam has a problem -- that is inherently Islamic.
    1) I did answer your question---see last part of my previous reply.

    2) and 3)--- "Christianity is uniquely evil" is a well-worn myth of Modernity---Modern (Western) thinkers---such as Thomas Paine who wrote---“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter.”

    ----and others....

    "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world."
    Voltaire

    "I consider Christian theology to be one of the greatest disasters of the human race."
    Alfred North Whitehead

    "We have become so accustomed to the religious lie that surrounds us that we do not notice the atrocity, stupidity and cruelty with which the teaching of the Christian church is permeated."
    Leo Tolstoy

    "I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, and the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough - I call it the one immortal blemish on the human race."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "Christianity persecuted, tortured, and burned. Like a hound it tracked the very scent of heresy. It kindled wars, and nursed furious hatreds and ambitions... Man, far from being freed from his natural passions, was plunged into artificial ones quite as violent and much more disappointing."
    George Santayana

    "The careful student of history will discover that Christianity has been of very little value in advancing civilization, but has done a great deal toward retarding it."
    Matilda Joslyn Gage

    "You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."
    Bertrand Russell



    According to your logic---because there are bad Christians, there is an evil Christianity....?.....or to put it another way---your view is that when people do good--they are just being human but when people do bad---it is religion (Christianity) that makes them do it.

    You wrote--"Yelling "Allah is great" and killing"-----so I ask you, in your opinion---it is good for American Presidents/Politicians (who represent the American people) to speak of American exceptionalism and how great America is while killing/bombing innocent civilians abroad?.....Is this a "perversion" of the American dream or is this mainstream American belief?

    As to violence in the name of other religions---(Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism...) both past and present---it happens---try to keep up with world news.

    One example---The Christian Identity movement (CI)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

    Christian Identity is a major unifying theology for a number of diverse groups of white nationalist Christians. ...

    Christian Identity groups include "The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord", the Phineas Priesthood, the Oklahoma Constitutional Militia, also known as The Universal Church of God. Christian Identity is also adhered to by other groups such as Aryan Nations, the Aryan Republican Army (ARA) and the Patriots Council, Church of Jesus Christ Christian, Thomas Robb, LaPorte Church of Christ, Mission To Israel, Folk And Faith, Jubilee (newspaper), Yahweh's Truth (James Wickstrom), Church of Israel[17][57] and Kingdom Identity Ministries.

    South African branches of Christian Identity have been accused of involvement in terrorist activities, including the 2002 Soweto bombings.[58]

    Other Christian Identity groups include the Heritage Christian Church and the Legion for the Survival of Freedom.

    or this article:-
    http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/6_mo...nores_partner/

    or the anti-Balaka Christian terrorists
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-for...public/204753/

    or this article about how the Church protected those who committed genocide in Rawanda
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nocide-vatican

    and while the Catholic Church was abandoning its people to tragedy or encouraging the killing---some Muslim families were hiding and saving many Christians---
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Sep22.html
    "Four clergymen are facing genocide charges at the U.N.-created International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and last year in Belgium, the former colonial power, two Rwandan nuns were convicted of murder for their roles in the massacre of 7,000 Tutsis who sought protection at a Benedictine convent.

    In contrast, many Muslim leaders and families are being honored for protecting and hiding those who were fleeing.

    Some say Muslims did this because of the religion's strong dictates against murder, though Christian doctrine proscribes it as well. Others say Muslims, always considered an ostracized minority, were not swept up in the Hutus' campaign of bloodshed and were unafraid of supporting a cause they felt was honorable."

  7. #7
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    791
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    34
    here is one opinion on the subject of religion and violence-
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tb1ZHlSfJk

  8. #8
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    791
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    34
    If a Muslim person/group were to do bad things/cause harm---then that person/group must take responsibility for their actions and the consequences of their actions---to place the blame on "Islam", to say Islam made me do it---is a mechanism to escape responsibility. It is not acceptable. The Quran also says that the excuse, the devil made me do it, will not be accepted at the day of Judgement. Muslims who do harm/bad must be held accountable through the application of Justice. As a Muslim, to allow for an irresponsible escape of responsibility, would be an injustice and an insult to my brothers in Islam as well as to the Guidance provided by God.

    In the Islamic paradigm---a civilization is one where restraint prevails--thus, to be uncivilized is to be unrestrained. Therefore, a civilized society uses the law to bring justice to those who have been harmed. An uncivilized society returns harm with unrestrained violence. To fall into a cycle of violence where each side tries to kill more and destroy more --- is foolish. The only way to avoid such foolishness is to deal Justly and fairly with those who have caused harm so that human communities can begin to heal. God, most compassionate, most merciful is interested in healing both the victims as well as the criminals. To encourage repentance is the way to heal those who have gone astray and to give justice is the way to heal those who have been harmed.

    however, it is not enough to heal---it is also important to prevent. This must be done by building civilized societies and because societies are made up of human beings---it means building civilized human beings. This entails the strong foundation of ethical thinking and moral character from childhood to adulthood so that people will learn and implement restraint. Islam has many principles for ethical social interactions, ethical jurisprudence, ethical governance, ethical economics...etc....so, for Muslims, Islam is a solution.

    Since not everyone is a Muslim---I think that we human beings must bring back the ethico-moral teachings in all of our various Wisdom Traditions.---I say bring back---because Modernity has pushed them aside....and because of this we have the modern problem of unrestrained violence.

  9. #9
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    791
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    34
    ISIS as a Modern phenomenon has been observed by many but research by Robert Pape provides a real picture....
    for example---the ISIS propaganda is more Hollywood than religion. Specifically, the "Hero narratives" of blockbusters and popular video games. Scott Atran in his research also observes that Modern age has stripped modern youth of meaning and purpose and so they seek "glory". He advises that turning this youth energy from destruction/war to construction/benefit of society is a better solution.

    maybe, one might go so far as to say ISIS is a mirror of "Modernity"?

    here are some links--
    ISIS propaganda analysis
    http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/15844

    Analysis of ISIS
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v39-PqX99I4

    If human nature instinctively and inherently requires a quest for meaning and purpose in order to find satisfaction in living a worthy/valued life---then it is obvious that Sacred meta-narratives are a necessary, maybe even a key, to the development and progress of humanity.

    But these meta-narratives must take on a global identity (inclusion/Unity)---they can become toxic when they become tied to the exclusive, tribalism of the nation-state and the zealous patriotism it can generate. Modern examples of such are Hindutva, 969, Zionist settler groups, and other modern extremists groups....and I would also put ISIS in this category as they also want a "State"/Caliphate.

    Some might say that such a scheme simply globalizes the tendency to war---instead of nation-states warring against each other, global groups will be fighting each other. This is possible, but there is one point to consider---nation-states have a physical "territory" to defend or attack---a global grouping (based on Wisdom-Teachings/Paradigm) does not have territory and without a territory---what does one attack or defend?
    however, as long as resources are located on/in land and water---and ownership becomes disputed, wars will occur---so an economic system that can fairly and justly distribute all the resources would be needed to minimize wars.....?.....

  10. #10
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,186
    Amen (Given)
    495
    Amen (Received)
    336
    It just took a bit of waiting for my point to be proven -- yet again we have a soldier of Allah proclaiming "God is greatest" while attempting murder. This is uniquely an Islamic phenomena in our modern world.

    Please link me to similar wide-scale incidents involving similar individuals, carrying out similar acts, whilst yelling "God is greatest".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •