What can I tell you, from a redneck Southern Baptist perspective I see many secular blogs that are too extreme in their views of Islam. I saw a comment last night on one from a guy who said he wanted to cut all the Muslims' throats.
Sorry if people can't distinguish between the bad Islamists and the normal Muslims. A simple rule of thumb might be that if you've blogrolled a Muslim, don't wish him dead.

Heh. This whole debate is complicated. I have no problem with criticism of Islam per se; I'm just very uncomfortable with some of the sentiment it travels with (as you just described), as well as the exclusive focus on the religion, as opposed to the fact that radicalism has become more popular in the past 50 years due to political repression, for example. I can't sneer at Bryan's point-of-view - it has its bright spots - but I can't help but wonder how we can pull off this foreign policy without walking a finer line between condemnation of religious maniacs and condemnation of all Muslims. Seems fairly counterintuitive.

Bill,

You miss, imho, a key point. The vast majority of Muslims do believe in imposing their religion on the world. Compare the Muslim brotherhood with the Salafist and Komeinist Islamic puritans and you find identical goals with the only debate being method.

You're correctly acknowledging other factors such as culture but if you study the expansion of Islam historically, you can't avoid the fact that it was accomplished by force across many cultures and has resulted in dramatic changes in those cultures.

The vast majority of Muslims do believe in imposing their religion on the world.

Since when do the Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood comprise the "majority of Muslims"?

Yeah, you'd need to put a percentage on that.

"The vast majority of Muslims do believe in imposing their religion on the world."

This is an asinine asseveration that you offer without any evidence at all.

By analogy, the leadership of the Soviet Union was commited to world-wide communism, but the average Russian would probably trade world-wide communism for a bottle of cheap vodka. This is the point Bill is making and which you are determined to gloss over.

"By analogy, the leadership of the Soviet Union was commited to world-wide communism, but the average Russian would probably trade world-wide communism for a bottle of cheap vodka. This is the point Bill is making and which you are determined to gloss over."

Hmmm....what percentage of 1.5 billion is 19? I guess I need my calculator, but at any rate the percentage of fundamentalists needed to have a devastating impact on the U.S. is fairly small. Non radical muslims are only useful if they can in some way be used to moderate the fundamentalist "minority" otherwise they are little more than spectators who will watch as the west burns.

And for every Vent cautioning against Islam's threat with a background of ominous music, I can imagine quarter percentage points of requisite empathy slipping away from the American electorate's support for Iraqi democracy.

Lol! As much as I bet Michelle, Allah and Bryan would love to have an audience this large... I don't think they are quite that big yet.

I wish I could comment on this disgusting example of dhimmitude. But Bill (whom I believe is in Washington DC) asked me to 'go away' three weeks ago. Normally, I would not acquiesce, but the b@st@rd used the magic word... 'Please'.

Pleasant bannings really pee me off.

I didn't ban you, hence your ability to comment. And your contribution is off topic.

dawnsblood -

re: Vent and quarter point.

Exaggerative license. Then again, perhaps we should take a look at the site's average traffic numbers and recent features on FOX News.

Bill, the problem Bryan identified is that many secularists do not place weight on the religious motivations of say, Iran, and instead focus exclusively on poverty, education, borders and what not. That is not to say that those factors are not important but poverty is not what drives Islamists to fire rockets at farms and pizza parlors.

Poverty and education and borders might drive a nation to a conventional war but not a war filled with suicidal crazies who think blowing themselves up in a disco attains them heaven.

Perhaps moderate Muslims are being held hostage by thier radical religionists, but what that means is that the radicals are defining what Islam is to the world. Moderates must wrest control back from the radicals if they want perceptions of their faith to change.

I've never believed poverty has a damned thing to do with terrorism. It has everything to do with repressive governments, dysfunctional economic systems (not the same thing as poverty at all) and a rabid strain of Islam that's come to the fore in the last few decades. And even that rabid strain is, in my view, more of a "Ghost Dance" phenomenon than any rapidly increasing and thriving philosophy.

I'm often amused by people who say that Islam seeks for the world to become Muslim. Well yes. Like Christians and several other faiths besides, they believe they have the truth and that the world would be a better place if everyone in it shared in their religion.

But the Koran does not endorse forcibly converting people. It just doesn't. Mohammed never did that, either. There is only one loophole in that that's been used in the past--the Koran says that if you make a treaty with unbelievers, and those unbelievers betray the treaty, then you can kill them. But if they convert to Islam you can't kill them.

This has been used to rationalize much evilness by some Muslims. But that's really the only way this "conversion by sword" exists, and most Muslims reject radicalist interpretations of that loophole. And if I made a list of all the Bible verses people have used to justify slavery, murder, and oppression, it would be quite long wouldn't it?

Taleena -

I believe that he's saying a bit more than that, but assuming your evaluation is correct -

1. Of course the religion has an impact. It's the basis for the crazy ideology.

2. But why is this radicalism becoming popular? That's where the social and political factors come in. Read here for more:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002712.php

The debate is over how deterministic Islam is in creating violence.

There seems to be a contradiction between the Iraq democracy goal and the increasingly-evident fact of many…(Muslims? Radical Muslims? Islamofascists?)) …people…over there… behaving in ways that would seem incompatible with a prosperous liberal-pluralist-no-need-to-kill-us-anymore democracy. Again, forget for the moment why they behave that way, they are, and so the tension between the two can’t be traced to anybody making blanket condemnations of Islam, or any other kind of condemnation. At worst, Hot Air and Robert Spencer et al have just got the diagnosis wrong. What’s indisputable is that…people… over there (and their immigrant relatives over here) keep doing things that make the prospects of a liberal-pluralist-etc government over there—or harmonious coexistence over here—look dimmer and dimmer.

That’s also the thing with the Harris LA Times article every Righty is so excited about today. Yes, how many engineers and so forth have to do crazy religious things before the silly Left gets that it’s the religion, stupid? But then how is a prosperous pluralist-etc democracy going to change anything? How is inviting them over here, to become part of our wonderful land of material wealth and freedom, going to change anything?

Is it poverty? Illiberal government? A nasty (”false”!) form of Islam? True Islam itself? Whatever “it” is, what’s empirical is that the part of the world from which these people who want to kill us come from seems to have a problem pursuing the kid of society we’d like them to have…and when they migrate over here they, if anything, change us, rather than changing themselves.

And though I sympathize with Bill at INDC on Iraq, Hot Air and Spencer et al didn’t create the tension, it’s a fact of the Muslim world’s behavior. I tend to think the Islam diagnosis has a lot of truth to it (but I think the main problem with the Muslim world is its clannishness, caused by polygamy and inbreeding; this may intwined with Islam but there are presumably other factors as well) but that’s not the point: the symptoms are what needs to be squared with Iraqi democracy, the symptoms are what make people think our leaders–the see-no-evil left obviously but also the freedom-will-light-a-fire Right that has been taking their crack these past five years–aren’t being straight with them about what’s going on in the world today.

Islam actually reduced the prevalence of polygamy in the Arab world. It did not introduce the concept and doesn't encourage it.

Bill you say: But why is this radicalism becoming popular? That's where the social and political factors come in.

This arguement would pursuade me more but for one thing: the emergence of wealthy, educated, Westernized radicals.

Dean said: I'm often amused by people who say that Islam seeks for the world to become Muslim. Well yes. Like Christians and several other faiths besides, they believe they have the truth and that the world would be a better place if everyone in it shared in their religion.

But the Koran does not endorse forcibly converting people. It just doesn't. Mohammed never did that, either. There is only one loophole in that that's been used in the past--the Koran says that if you make a treaty with unbelievers, and those unbelievers betray the treaty, then you can kill them. But if they convert to Islam you can't kill them.

This has been used to rationalize much evilness by some Muslims. But that's really the only way this "conversion by sword" exists, and most Muslims reject radicalist interpretations of that loophole. And if I made a list of all the Bible verses people have used to justify slavery, murder, and oppression, it would be quite long wouldn't it?

Sure Dean, but here is the thing what the world sees are forcible conversions at the literal point of the sword. It may be that most Muslims reject the radical interpretation of Koran - but the radicals are in ascendancy now and mustbe dealt with be they Arabic, Persian or American.

Yes, the Bible has been used to justify all manner of evils in the past, but it is not now. The folks who used the Bible to justify slavery were answered by the Christians who used the Bible to end slavery. It could be that the future of Islam looks like Christianity today. What concerns me is how Islam is being used NOW. Like Bryan I do not see moderates wresting control of their religion back from the nuts. Those who speak up get targeted by the madmen and the moderates shrink ever farther to obscurity.

Barnacles!, I forgot to put Deans other to paragraphs in italics.

This arguement would pursuade me more but for one thing: the emergence of wealthy, educated, Westernized radicals.

It doesn't simply have to do with wealth, personal or in terms of GDP. Of course the religion plays a role, but middle class terrorists are rejecting the only other power structure present in the middle east. Check out my sample link in the above comment.

There were some wealthy educated terrorists within the US & Europe during the 1960s & '70s, such as the Red Brigade & Weather Underground. I think for them it was more that they fell in love with an ideology (Communism). There will always be those who want to spread their new ideology through violence. Of course it helps when Communism advocates the use of violence to spread itself. I don't know enough about Islam to make such a claim.

I think it is irrational to claim that it is only a small minority of "radicals" driving the violence and violent rhetoric of islam today. Where is the proof of that? Where is there any proof, whatsoever, that a majority, or even a large minority, of muslims are "moderate"?

And, to be clear, by "moderate" I mean people who condemn terroism without immediatley justifying it by saying that this or that islamic group have legitimate grievances, or by claiming that they have suffered terrorism from the U.S. or Isreal, etc. Also, above and beyond condemning terrorism, turning in terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and terrorist funders.

I do not see that whatsoever. Sure, there are such islamic individuals here or there, who get quoted and linked to, ad nauseum. However, the peoples of the middle east, in poll after poll, in demonstration after demonstration, in violent act after violent act, in election after election (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the P.A.), clearly support terrorism and the goals of terrorists. Indeed, in poll after poll of muslims in Europeen countries this has also been the case. To deny this, despite all of the evidence, is to deny reality.

So, to have a real debate, based on rationality, you must first start from the premise that there is no evidence of a sizeable minority of "moderate" muslims who share your "humanistic values."

Thus, the problem in the debate is not what you believe it is, it is that you are beginning from a false premise. If you start from the false premise that the vast majority, or even a majority, or even a large minority, of muslims share your "humanistic values", then, of course, you will end where you have in your thinking. But, your entire argument then is premised on wishful thinking - that most muslims share the same beliefs, dreams, aspirations, etc. as you and me.

Unfortunately, there simply is no evidence to support your starting premise. Meanwhile, there are mountains of evidence supporting the other view, that islam has not been "hijacked" by people who are "misinterpreting" it. That instead, islam is just exactly how they teach it, preach it and publicize it.

It is strange to me how our enemies can be so honest about their motives and goals, and yet we will not believe them.

- GB

You critique my assumption for lack of evidence, then assert that you have evidence for your assumption without providing it.

My evidence starts here: significant majorities of Muslim respondents in Muslim countries find no justification for violence against civilians, under any circumstances. This response category has been growing over the past few years. Source: Pew Global Attitudes Survey

http://dorkafork.com/blog/?cat=1

I'd call this a "shared humanistic value" that marks a basis for dialogue against terrorism.

Now put up. And no, citing news reports of protests does not quantify that a majority of Muslims do not share "humanistic values."

Yes, the Bible has been used to justify all manner of evils in the past, but it is not now. The folks who used the Bible to justify slavery were answered by the Christians who used the Bible to end slavery. It could be that the future of Islam looks like Christianity today. What concerns me is how Islam is being used NOW. Like Bryan I do not see moderates wresting control of their religion back from the nuts. Those who speak up get targeted by the madmen and the moderates shrink ever farther to obscurity.

But there is a problem with saying "Islam is evil": it will not help Islam NOW or in the future. It's one thing to point out the religious interpretations of the terrorists, it is bizarre to try and argue that the terrorists are correct in their interpretation. It cuts the rug out from under moderates and certainly does not help them wrest back control of their religion. Our support may help with that, but if both the fanatics and the West say Islam calls for terrorism, that's the proper interpretation of the Koran, that's going to make the moderates awful lonely.

The folks who used the Bible to justify slavery were answered by the Christians who used the Bible to end slavery.

That took time, too. The American abolition movement didn't really start until the 1830s, and it was a long road after that. But imagine a non-Christian abolitionist group saying something like this: "Slavery is barbaric and by the way is completely supported by Christian scripture. The slaveowners are right on the Bible, the problem is Christianity." Would that have helped or hindered the abolition movement?

That link Bill gave may change. Direct link.

And whether it's majority/minority is a tactical matter not a strategic one. A small percentage of 1.3 billion people can number in tens or hundreds of millions of people. Taleena mentioned the abolition movement, it's not like the abolitionists comprised a majority of Christians the moment they appeared.

You'll believe what you want, and hang onto your false premise with all of your might. In contrast, I look at what happens every day, as well as all of the polls showing support of Al Queda, OBL, Hamas, Hizbollah, etc.

I think you know that I am correct, but you don't want to believe it. Like many, you want to believe the wishful idea that Islam is a "religion of peace" and that it is merely a small group of "radicals" who have "hijacked" a great religion. there is no evidence to support this view.

Show me the moderation in acts and deeds. Any. Show me the Muslim politician condemning all terrorism. Show me the Islamic group (even in western countries - even america) who stands for what you claim.

My evidence is the news. Any news. It is what the Imams say. It is what the Mullahs say. It is what the people in those countries do. It is the polls of the european muslims. I don't need to cite it, pick up your newspaper. What television news. Even mainstream media, which covets multiculturism, cannot hide it.

As long as we refuse to believe what our enemies actually say and do (which you purport to do, but I think you are more intelligent then that), we cannot confront the enemy.

If, for instance, in America, the Klan ran things, and everyone ignored lynchings, beatings, rapes, etc. of black people, would not the assumption be that the majority of americans were racist and not "moderates"? If nobody stood up to condemn the Klan, and/or turned a blind eye to Klan recruitment efforts, Klan financiers, etc., and did not turn those people in, would the evidence not suggest that the vast majority of people supported the Klan? If Klan preachers taught in almost all mainstream American churches, preaching the Klan's message, would that not support the idea that the vast majority of americans were racist? If Klan written and approved textbooks were used in most American schools, and preached racism, would that not demonstrate that there were no "moderate" americans? If open Klan members were elected to a majority of the congress, would that not show a lack of "moderates" in America. If polls routinely showed that Americans around the world, whether or not living in America supported the Klan, would that not show a lack of moderates in America?

Why, when you substitute Islam for Klan and Muslim for America, do we suddenly make excuses for it and believe it is not what it is? Why do we ignore the actual facts in an effort to believe that they do not actually believe what they say they believe?

America overcame slavery over 100 years ago, and Jim Crow more recently. Islam has had the same basic message, now being preached by the "radicals" for hundreds of years without change. Why can some people not see that? We pretend, for the sake of multiculturism, that today's Islam is somehow "radicalized." It is not, it is the same message that was preached 50, or 100, or more years ago. It's just the world that has gotten smaller, not that Islam has changed in character.

So, if any "radicals" hijack Islam, it will be islam's version of MLK, or Ghandi, who will change the very way Islam is interprested. But, that would be the sea change. You start from the premise that it is only a minority of muslims who are violent and support terrorism. That is belied by the evidence and the history of islam. INstead, your interpretation of islam would be the true "radicalizing" of Islam.

I would love to see that happen. I see no evidence to support it, and don't understand how anyone can argue that such is today's reality.

I would love to believe that poll, that a majority of muslims think it is "always" wrong to target civilians. Again, even as you pointed out in your response to me, this is a change in their opinions, it was not their starting thought. Moreover, how much of that is due to P.R. - i.e., muslims knowing that answering any other way will look bad in the news? Also, before I started crowing about this poll, let's see it translated into actions by Muslim religios leaders, politicians, countries, and groups. So far, it has not. Maybe change within Islam is coming - but again - it would be a change TOO what you are claiming it already is. Which brings me back to the beginning, your starting premise is wrong.

Let's assume that Islam can change for the better, I would love to see that. But claiming, as you do, that it is basically already there (but for the "radical minority"), is false.

If you want, for supporting evidence, I'll scan the news every day for mass protests, terrorist groups winning elections, polls showing support of terrorist groups, terrorist acts, violence against non-muslims, and the lack of any real useful response by muslim moderates and forwad the same to you every single day. In response, you can forward me what you consider to be "moderate" muslim actions and responses. Query, which way do you think the information will be flowing the most me to you or you to me?

- GB

I looked at the link earlier Bill, and didn't find it terribly pursuasive. Zakaria goes on to explain how repressive societies - perfectly embodied by the regimes of the Middle East - essentially destroy the institutions that compete with the government, removing both the systemic hedges on a ruler's absolute power and the alternate vehicles for the people to exercise political power. But there is one institution with the prominence to always defy any ban and flourish despite the region's autocratic purges: religion. And the expression of Islam lacks the organizational status or coherence of historically influential institutions like the Catholic or Episcopalian churches; it's a remarkably decentralized religion, where any individual sufficiently charismatic and knowledgable can claim authority and establish a following and interpretation.

Looking at the ingredients to this political and social paradigm - failed governments that are repressive, no competing institutions or vehicles for political expression except for faith, a decentralized religion susceptible to splintered appeals utilizing charismatic populism and aggression, a massive youth bulge that correlates with the politics of protest, the natural aggression of religious fundamentalism, along with elements in Islamic scripture that can buttress this aggression, and an oil welfare state that stymies the development of a business class and civil institutions that assert self-interest and provide an alternate path for young men - goes a long way towards explaining the present dysfunction and violent threat from these societies.

Essentially, the failed repressive societies are boiling the water and closing the lid to the tea pot, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is the whistling jet of steam escaping from the spout.

Again, how is it that Western Islamists not laboring under repressive regimes are turning radical - in England for cryin' out loud! Not repressive and not as far gone to the collaspse of socialism as, say France, is. Yet they have their own home grown radicals bombing the tube.

I am not saying that there are no moderate, devout Muslims or that there is no chance to to wrest Islam from the radicals, but Islam NOW is radical. Those silent majorities of people cited in the Pew study are not driving the direction of their religion, the madmen are. As the madmen control the narrative of the religion (Gads, I sound like Goldstien!) how long will those moderates last?

If secularists say that radicalism is the result of repressive regimes instead of repressive regimes being the result of radicalism we will get no where.

Barnacles! I did it again. Must remember italics on each paragraph.

What you mean that the media, the business that thrives on attracting attention doesn’t ever have any stories about Muslims behaving peacefully and humanly?

Well color me shocked.

I have a hard time believing that the oh so liberal media does nothing but carry stories of violent Muslims with no balancing stories of Muslims playing with kittens. :0)

Taleena -

The societies created the ubiquitous radicalism, not necessarily the radicals. The radicalism was exported. It's a cult, it travels. The political conditions only address the rise of radicalism itself - a post colonial phenomenon in the modern era - not the individual radicalization of a Muslim studying in Germany. In that case, you'd still wonder why a person exposed to radical Islam chooses that over hiking trips, visits to the Hamburg mall, and, well, life. A sense of purpose and belonging to replace personal problems and alienation, probably (note the relative quiet from American Muslims). Throw in a charismatic terror imam, and voila - spoiled middle class jihad.

I'm not arguing that some elements of the Koran don't lend this ideology force, I'm merely saying that looking at the Koran doesn't address many of the key factors that have made terrorism the ME's second most famous export.

You'll believe what you want, and hang onto your false premise with all of your might.

Yeah, I think we're done with dialogue here.

Tangentially related - has it ever occured to you that your position might be a wee more convincing if you weren't quite so brusque about it? Just a thought.

It might also be more convincing if it was more coherent. I've never called it a "religion of peace", nor did I originally think that it was necessarily only a minority of Muslims that supported terrorism. I have been pleasantly surprised to find actual evidence to the contrary (which you don't seem to care about). I think your Klan analogy is poor, I made a similar analogy earlier. I would blame the Klan, but not Christianity. Your analogy is particularly poor considering we went through nearly the exact same situation earlier in this nation's history.

Maybe change within Islam is coming - but again - it would be a change TOO what you are claiming it already is. Which brings me back to the beginning, your starting premise is wrong.

The argument is whether or not Islam is a deterministic source of violence. The argument is note based on minority/majority views, though they seem to be evidence in favor of the view that Islam does not inevitably lead to violence. Had the polls shown the opposite trend, we would never hear the end of it, but when they show positive signs, it means those tricky Muslims are lying.

You've shown yourself to be indifferent to evidence and you use the logic of a conspiracy theorist. Neither of which comes across as particularly rational. I don't think further dialogue will be productive.

I think Bill is wrong, I don't think his position would be any more convincing whether he was brusque or not.

The societies created the radicalism, not necessarily the radicals
I part ways with you here, Bill. From what I understand, the modern Salafi thought stems from an 18th century writer, Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (1703 - 1792). From that here I crib from Wikipedia because it is concise:

Salafi reject not only Western ideologies such as socialism and capitalism, but also common Western concepts like economics, constitutions, political parties, revolution and social justice. Muslims should not engage in Western activities like politics, "even by giving them an Islamic slant." Instead, Muslims should stick to Islamic activities, particularly dawah and jihad. Salafi promote sharia rather than an Islamic political program or state.

It is precisely this practice gives rise to radicals who in turn crease the oppressive societies and "states" like the PA or Taliban or even Saudi Arabia. Bin Ladin's problem with SA was that it was not pure enough, not that it was too oppressive.

Good golly, I cann ot type today:

This practice which gives rise to radicals who in turn create oppressive..yada yada

Taleena -

The Wahhabis have existed, but you conflate that existence with the prevalence of radical Islam being on a stable or linearally upwards trend (which was the actual point we were discussing) since the 18th Century. This is simply not true.

Zakaria:

Searching the history books is also of limited value. From the Crusades of the 11th century to the Turkish expansion of the 15th century to the colonial era in the early 20th century, Islam and the West have often battled militarily. This tension has existed for hundreds of years, during which there have been many periods of peace and even harmony. Until the 1950s, for example, Jews and Christians lived peaceably under Muslim rule. In fact, Bernard Lewis, the pre-eminent historian of Islam, has argued that for much of history religious minorities did better under Muslim rulers than they did under Christian ones.

All that has changed in the past few decades.

So surely the relevant question we must ask is, Why are we in a particularly difficult phase right now? What has gone wrong in the world of Islam that explains not the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 or the siege of Vienna of 1683 but Sept. 11, 2001?

That was a quick google (I recommend reading the rest of that piece). There are even better cites (Bernard Lewis, for one). But take a look at the prevalence of Islamic radicalism in 1958 vs. its prevalence in 1988, and you will find a different scenario. Nationalism was the thing in the ME then, not religious radicalism and sharia. The shared aggression of Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism is more of a characteristic of Arab history than the Islamic world.

ionolsen20 May we exchange links with your site?www_4_2
www_4_3
www_4_4
www_4_5
www_4_6
www_4_7
www_4_8
www_4_9
www_4_10
www_4_11

ionolsen22 So interesting site, thanks!

ionolsen22 I just don not have anything to say right now.

ionolsen22 Your home page its great

ionolsen22 So interesting site, thanks!

ionolsen24 HI! I love this place!

ionolsen24 HI! I love this place!

ionolsen25 Very good site. Thanks for author!

ionolsen25 Your site is very cognitive. I think you will have good future.:)

ionolsen25 Very good site. Thanks for author!

ionolsen25 Your site is very cognitive. I think you will have good future.:)

ionolsen25 So interesting site, thanks!

ionolsen25 I am really impressed!

ionolsen25 Very good site. Thanks for author!

ionolsen25 I am really impressed!

ionolsen25 Very good site. Thanks for author!

ionolsen25 HI! I love this place!

ionolsen25 HI! I love this place!

ionolsen25 I am really impressed!

ionolsen26 I like your site

ionolsen26 So interesting site, thanks!

ionolsen27 May we exchange links with your site?

ionolsen28 So interesting site, thanks!

Out of sight, out of mind. Machutus.

ionolsen34 So interesting site, thanks!

ionolsen38 Very good site. Thanks for author!

ionolsen40 Very good site. Thanks for author! WFVT 55 cdfe

ionolsen41 Hello Jane, great site!

ionolsen45 Great website! Bookmarked! I am impressed at your work!

4c6f168b85a4 Can you write more about this

To draw water in a sieve... Garret

Never try to prove what nobody doubts... Hugh

Time and tide wait for no man... Samuel

dc4ffcb5f3f1 Hi

Just as the twig is bent, the tree is inclined... Reginald

If there were no clouds, we should not enjoy the sun... Timothy

f389dcfe9d4f My homepage

a0e3be5afaa4 Very good

31d7d898fc22 Very good

34d7f8d33da1 Nice site

Business before pleasure... Archibald

96af729c6306 Very good

63546f833027 Nice site

hrmoapzq vgfspwmxe mtagpiq ywpa klczw cfmhz qgjwynhkm

Thanks for you site! [url=http://tramadol-gs.blogspot.com]tramadol[/url.

81e31de21f46 Hi

Nice resource, very interesting reading. http://s1u.net/inob

The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations...

The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations...

The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations...

The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations...

Record company EMI sign a deal with the estate of crooner Dean Martin to use the singer's likeness...

Record company EMI sign a deal with the estate of crooner Dean Martin to use the singer's likeness...