John 47 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 David Cameron has just announced that a small contingent of trainers/advisors will be sent to Mali in West Africa to help the government there establish control of the region following the recent French/Malian action to expel the Islamic terrorists who had established a sharia state-within-a-state in the northern part of the country. What are people's views? Should we be getting involved? Is this the thin end of a potentially bigger wedge? Or is it a sensible thing to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Well............Dave's got to have his war , hasn't he?. Every other P.M has for years. Personally I think it's stupid as we can't afford it. I didn't notice the french backing us up in Iraq, in fact quite the reverse. And don't even mention The Falklands war, where they were supplying the Argies with exocet missiles. Short memories eh?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Don't know, John, because I haven't seen enough of what is actually being proposed to judge. However, I'm pretty sure it will be the next quagmire we shall get drawn into. Playing deadly hide-and-seek in the Sahara is not an appealing idea. But it is a vast, almost ungoverned, almost ungovernable, region that, if al-Qaeda successfully infiltrates it in the wake of the "Arab awakening", is awfully close to Europe. Too close, I think, to tolerate openly hostile terrorists with very extreme attitudes towards "the West" having free rein there. It seems the countries directly affected, and those surrounding, are pretty much incapable of mounting any kind of meaningful retaliation themselves and since we, collectively, seem to be on the menu, I guess we need to intervene in our own interests, to try to snuff out the threat before it materialises. Just deciding how we should do that is a difficult enough judgement. Moving to actively doing it will, I suspect, prove far more so. But, unless these groups can be persuaded to drop their hostilities, I can see this becoming a very long running, very expensive, and very dangerous, venture. I don't think pulling up the drawbridge can be a practical alternative, so direct involvement, preferably UN sanctioned, with as broad an ethnic make up - preferably predominantly local Arab - as can be arranged, seems our "least worst" strategy. However, I also suspect that whatever we do, or don't do, the repercussions in UK, and across Europe, are going to be very disagreeable indeed. To me, this has the makings of a major war (feeding from both ethnic and religious dimensions) if mishandled. I think it could be very, very, nasty indeed. I think a lot of jaw-jaw, is urgently needed, to avert a lot of war-war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Yeah,isn't "Mission creep" the term they now use...? I thought it started with us just lending the French the use of a couple of transporter planes.... ...a few weeks later,it's several hundred troops for "training purposes"... Here we go again.......... :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Jesus Christ , God help us . Another Islamic thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I think our helping the French in a conflict that is both just and justifiable is the correct thing to do. The people from Northern Mali were subjected to the worst sort of prejudice by Islamic extremists. Any religious nut case that wants to cut off the fingers of someone whose "crime" is playing the guitar deserves to get the sh!t kicked out of them - and if the French have the will and the way to do this then I for for one think it right that we support them in whatever way we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Brian Kirby - 2013-01-29 6:37 PMDon't know, John, because I haven't seen enough of what is actually being proposed to judge. However, I'm pretty sure it will be the next quagmire we shall get drawn into. Playing deadly hide-and-seek in the Sahara is not an appealing idea. But it is a vast, almost ungoverned, almost ungovernable, region that, if al-Qaeda successfully infiltrates it in the wake of the "Arab awakening", is awfully close to Europe. Too close, I think, to tolerate openly hostile terrorists with very extreme attitudes towards "the West" having free rein there.It seems the countries directly affected, and those surrounding, are pretty much incapable of mounting any kind of meaningful retaliation themselves and since we, collectively, seem to be on the menu, I guess we need to intervene in our own interests, to try to snuff out the threat before it materialises. Just deciding how we should do that is a difficult enough judgement. Moving to actively doing it will, I suspect, prove far more so. But, unless these groups can be persuaded to drop their hostilities, I can see this becoming a very long running, very expensive, and very dangerous, venture. I don't think pulling up the drawbridge can be a practical alternative, so direct involvement, preferably UN sanctioned, with as broad an ethnic make up - preferably predominantly local Arab - as can be arranged, seems our "least worst" strategy.However, I also suspect that whatever we do, or don't do, the repercussions in UK, and across Europe, are going to be very disagreeable indeed. To me, this has the makings of a major war (feeding from both ethnic and religious dimensions) if mishandled. I think it could be very, very, nasty indeed. I think a lot of jaw-jaw, is urgently needed, to avert a lot of war-war. Regarding point 1 in red above: You have got to be joking. These groups simply melt into the countryside when there is a 'credible' threat around and reemerge once it has gone. If that doesn't work they go elsewhere....Yemen, Sudan or one of many other 'lawless' places around the globe. Point 2 above: Come on Brian....the UN is a monolith of bureaucracy which in almost all instances in recent history has achieved nothing. I know from firsthand experience that the majority of UN missions (euphemistically called 'Peacekeeping') achieve nothing. Those nations that agree to provide troops/materiel etc do so because they get paid by the UN relative to the size of their 'element' and the number of troops/vehicles provided.....and the vehicles don't have to work. I know because we winched a number of non running vehicles onto my aircraft in India on the way to Congo. A classic example of the idiocy/mis-management of these missions was this deployment of Indian troops to Congo. They sent the forward party of over 300 men 'without' ammunition. On every subsequent flight the Commander was asking if we had his ammunition because his troops were being shot at and had no means of hitting back. It was simply a case of hoping for 'Blue beret protection'. The ammunition arrived over two weeks after the troops did. I know this to be fact because I was involved in the operation for four weeks. For anyone to laud the intervention of the UN using anything other than 'Western forces' they really don't understand the unbelievable mess that 'third world' armies are in. Their governments are in it for the money pure and simple. I would just say 'Remember the UN so called intervention in Rwanda'.....between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people slaughtered in 100 days! The UN mission there did nothing because despite begging for more troops and the mandate to intervene the commander Romeo A Dallaire received no support from UN headquarters. Nothing in the intervening years has changed. The UN is a toothless tiger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Anyone know where I can buy a burkka :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted January 29, 2013 Author Share Posted January 29, 2013 I asked the question because this seems to me to be one of those situations where we can't possibly get it right. I agree with Clive that the initial reaction is to go in there and get rid of these nutters who burn ancient manuscripts and cut off people's fingers for playing music. But I also agree with Roger that these kind of wars are rarely won because the enemy melts into the landscape and bides its time. And I also agree with Brian that any action could well provoke terrorist attacks on us. On the other hand, do we give into threats of reprisals or do we do what our gut feeling tells us is right? I'm none the wiser but there have been some interesting points so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 What was that Kenny Everett used to say " Bomb the Bast...s " >:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Interesting discussion on BBC Breakfast this morning – the question was asked “how did this all come about?” and the answer seemed to be that Mali got itself into deep doo doo via economic woes and corrupt government such that the military took over via a coup. The coup has been overall a benign dictatorship but they did allow the Malian population to discriminate against the Tuareg Arab population in the North of the country. Fed up with this the Tuareg’s in the North allowed the Islamic Militants in and initially supported them – but then the torture and amputations started. A light at the end of the tunnel seems to be that the Tuaregs, in general, seem as appalled as anyone at what the Islamic Militants have been doing and have welcomed the French action to get rid of the foreign extremists. To me that sounded a bit too simplistic – I am sure it more complicated than that. But it does boil down to getting unfortunate “compatriots” if you work on the principle of ‘my enemies enemy is my friend’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 CliveH - 2013-01-30 7:47 AM Interesting discussion on BBC Breakfast this morning – the question was asked “how did this all come about?” and the answer seemed to be that Mali got itself into deep doo doo via economic woes and corrupt government such that the military took over via a coup. The coup has been overall a benign dictatorship but they did allow the Malian population to discriminate against the Tuareg Arab population in the North of the country. Fed up with this the Tuareg’s in the North allowed the Islamic Militants in and initially supported them – but then the torture and amputations started. A light at the end of the tunnel seems to be that the Tuaregs, in general, seem as appalled as anyone at what the Islamic Militants have been doing and have welcomed the French action to get rid of the foreign extremists. To me that sounded a bit too simplistic – I am sure it more complicated than that. But it does boil down to getting unfortunate “compatriots” if you work on the principle of ‘my enemies enemy is my friend’. An excellent point, Clive - and it demonstrates very clearly the dangers of mistreating minorities because there is a good chance they will come back to do the same to you. A lesson for all of us in there, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 NO These are not my words below, but non the less show what the modern world is up against, even with some Muslims themselves who may want a peaceful life in their own countries, ,but I'm not sure how you identify the enemy, as many of our soldiers have discovered in Afghanistan, and we have too in Britain. Because the persecution of Christians in the Islamic world is on its way to reaching epidemic proportions, "Muslim Persecution of Christians" was developed to collate some—by no means all—of the instances of persecution that surface each month. It serves two purposes: To document that which the mainstream media does not: the habitual, if not chronic, Muslim persecution of Christians. To show that such persecution is not "random," but systematic and interrelated—that it is rooted in a worldview inspired by Sharia. Accordingly, whatever the anecdote of persecution, it typically fits under a specific theme, including hatred for churches and other Christian symbols; sexual abuse of Christian women; forced conversions to Islam; apostasy and blasphemy laws that criminalize and punish with death those who "offend" Islam; theft and plunder in lieu of jizya (financial tribute expected from non-Muslims); overall expectations for Christians to behave like dhimmis, or second-class, "tolerated" citizens; and simple violence and murder. Sometimes it is a combination. Because these accounts of persecution span different ethnicities, languages, and locales—from Morocco in the West, to India in the East, and throughout the West wherever there are Muslims—it should be clear that one thing alone binds them: Islam—whether the strict application of Islamic Sharia law, or the supremacist culture born of it. Have a read and draw your own conclusions. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3382/muslim-persecution-of-christians-august-2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 1footinthegrave - 2013-01-30 11:13 AM NO These are not my words below, but non the less show what the modern world is up against, even with some Muslims themselves who may want a peaceful life in their own countries, ,but I'm not sure how you identify the enemy, as many of our soldiers have discovered in Afghanistan, and we have too in Britain. Because the persecution of Christians in the Islamic world is on its way to reaching epidemic proportions, "Muslim Persecution of Christians" was developed to collate some—by no means all—of the instances of persecution that surface each month. It serves two purposes: To document that which the mainstream media does not: the habitual, if not chronic, Muslim persecution of Christians. To show that such persecution is not "random," but systematic and interrelated—that it is rooted in a worldview inspired by Sharia. Accordingly, whatever the anecdote of persecution, it typically fits under a specific theme, including hatred for churches and other Christian symbols; sexual abuse of Christian women; forced conversions to Islam; apostasy and blasphemy laws that criminalize and punish with death those who "offend" Islam; theft and plunder in lieu of jizya (financial tribute expected from non-Muslims); overall expectations for Christians to behave like dhimmis, or second-class, "tolerated" citizens; and simple violence and murder. Sometimes it is a combination. Because these accounts of persecution span different ethnicities, languages, and locales—from Morocco in the West, to India in the East, and throughout the West wherever there are Muslims—it should be clear that one thing alone binds them: Islam—whether the strict application of Islamic Sharia law, or the supremacist culture born of it. Have a read and draw your own conclusions. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3382/muslim-persecution-of-christians-august-2012 Unfortunately, persecution of minorities goes on throughout the world. That doesn't make it any better but I do wonder why you single out persecution by Muslims and never mention persecution by Christians, Jews, Hindus and so on? And, as I implied above, persecution is counter-productive in the end because the persecuted will always come back to get their revenge. I abhor ALL persecution - including that by the Israeli government of Arabs in the West Bank, that by White Brits against Asians, that by Black African tribes against other Black African tribes in places such as Rwanda, that by Hindhu extremists of Sikhs and that by Muslim extremists against Coptic Christians in Egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 In the modern world I have yet to find any examples of other religions systematically targeting and persecuting and murdering on a grand scale simply because of their faith, on a world wide and daily basis, and in Muslim as well as non Muslim countries, and against their own, and minorities. I have also said in past posts the Jews do themselves no favors either. In my opinion and just for the sake of argument,if there was no Islamic faith, the world would be a safer and more peaceful place,as I've said countless times, and has no place in the 21st century, that's all. As for sending our troops, why should we yet again put blokes lives at risk to win an un-winable situation, it's a Muslim country, it's their problem in my opinion. But I doubt you'll agree................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 1footinthegrave - 2013-01-30 1:06 PM In the modern world I have yet to find any examples of other religions systematically targeting and persecuting and murdering on a grand scale simply because of their faith, on a world wide and daily basis, and in Muslim as well as non Muslim countries, and against their own, and minorities. I have also said in past posts the Jews do themselves no favors either. In my opinion and just for the sake of argument,if there was no Islamic faith, the world would be a safer and more peaceful place,as I've said countless times, and has no place in the 21st century, that's all. As for sending our troops, why should we yet again put blokes lives at risk to win an un-winable situation, it's a Muslim country, it's their problem in my opinion. But I doubt you'll agree................. So you are unaware of the daily right wing Hindu persecution of Sikhs in India, or of the "troubles" in Northern Ireland, or of the killings (both ways) in Palestine, or of the Lord's Resistance Army terrorising Uganda, or of the Christian persecution of Turkish (muslim) guestworkers in Germany and so on and so on. You should try googling things other than "Islam"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 John 47 - 2013-01-30 2:14 PM1footinthegrave - 2013-01-30 1:06 PMIn the modern world I have yet to find any examples of other religions systematically targeting and persecuting and murdering on a grand scale simply because of their faith, on a world wide and daily basis, and in Muslim as well as non Muslim countries, and against their own, and minorities. I have also said in past posts the Jews do themselves no favors either. In my opinion and just for the sake of argument,if there was no Islamic faith, the world would be a safer and more peaceful place,as I've said countless times, and has no place in the 21st century, that's all.As for sending our troops, why should we yet again put blokes lives at risk to win an un-winable situation, it's a Muslim country, it's their problem in my opinion.But I doubt you'll agree.................So you are unaware of the daily right wing Hindu persecution of Sikhs in India, or of the "troubles" in Northern Ireland, or of the killings (both ways) in Palestine, or of the Lord's Resistance Army terrorising Uganda, or of the Christian persecution of Turkish (muslim) guestworkers in Germany and so on and so on. You should try googling things other than "Islam"! Trying to 'include' every extreme element in a debate such as this is just not possible. Obviously there are extreme elements based in all faiths/religions/beliefs etc but it is the extremist element of followers of Islam that are by far the most prevalent in the modern world. As far as the governments of the world are concerned the 'global terrorism threat' is based in Islam, the Muslim world. The other areas you mention are primarily 'regional' and therefore do not make the world 'shudder'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 John 47 - 2013-01-30 2:14 PM 1footinthegrave - 2013-01-30 1:06 PM In the modern world I have yet to find any examples of other religions systematically targeting and persecuting and murdering on a grand scale simply because of their faith, on a world wide and daily basis, and in Muslim as well as non Muslim countries, and against their own, and minorities. I have also said in past posts the Jews do themselves no favors either. In my opinion and just for the sake of argument,if there was no Islamic faith, the world would be a safer and more peaceful place,as I've said countless times, and has no place in the 21st century, that's all. As for sending our troops, why should we yet again put blokes lives at risk to win an un-winable situation, it's a Muslim country, it's their problem in my opinion. But I doubt you'll agree................. So you are unaware of the daily right wing Hindu persecution of Sikhs in India, or of the "troubles" in Northern Ireland, or of the killings (both ways) in Palestine, or of the Lord's Resistance Army terrorising Uganda, or of the Christian persecution of Turkish (muslim) guestworkers in Germany and so on and so on. You should try googling things other than "Islam"! Glad I'm an Atheist ;-)..............I hate everyone in equal measure :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 RogerC - 2013-01-30 3:15 PM As far as the governments of the world are concerned the 'global terrorism threat' is based in Islam, the Muslim world. The other areas you mention are primarily 'regional' and therefore do not make the world 'shudder'. Oh, that's alright then - I'm sure the victims will be very relieved!PS I was not intending to include all forms of terrorism in one debate; I was simply asking why one particular contributor seems to blame all the world's ills on not only one group of terrorists but millions of innocent people as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 John 47 - 2013-01-30 4:15 PMRogerC - 2013-01-30 3:15 PM As far as the governments of the world are concerned the 'global terrorism threat' is based in Islam, the Muslim world. The other areas you mention are primarily 'regional' and therefore do not make the world 'shudder'. Oh, that's alright then - I'm sure the victims will be very relieved!PS I was not intending to include all forms of terrorism in one debate; I was simply asking why one particular contributor seems to blame all the world's ills on not only one group of terrorists but millions of innocent people as well.God almighty man you really are something else, no you wasn't, you was asking What are people's views? Should we be getting involved? Is this the thin end of a potentially bigger wedge? Or is it a sensible thing to do?Not what does 1footinthegrave think, but I guess you were desperately hoping I'd jump in to have another conversion attempt at me , well you've succeeded But I'm now wondering if I sold you a second hand car at some point, that might explain your fixation with me to the exclusion of every one else expressing similar views !, when most of the western world is embroiled in one way or the other with Islamic based terrorism for whatever reason, you come up with feeble attempts to deflect the argument with likening the Krays to Sharia law, any way I've been persuaded your right ,they are all lovely, now that feels better doesn't it. Now you can direct your fire power to all the other posters who post similar views to my previous ones, that'll keep you busy, enjoy. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 1footinthegrave - 2013-01-30 4:57 PM God almighty man you really are something else, no you wasn't, you was asking What are people's views? Should we be getting involved? Is this the thin end of a potentially bigger wedge? Or is it a sensible thing to do? Not what does 1footinthegrave think, but I guess you were desperately hoping I'd jump in to have another conversion attempt at me , well you've succeeded Short-term memory loss? I didn't force you into this thread; you chose to come of your own accord. You then gave your usual lop-sided view of the world and I asked you (yes I did - check it!) why you were always so unbalanced in your comments. I have to say that until you intervened there was a lot of very measured and sensible comment. Unfortunately, that ended when you started your rant. I accused you before of being a very sad, bigoted and bitter man; you continue to prove my point. Calm down, look at all sides of a question before coming to a conclusion and you might find you enjoy life a lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 John 47 - 2013-01-30 5:57 PM 1footinthegrave - 2013-01-30 4:57 PM God almighty man you really are something else, no you wasn't, you was asking What are people's views? Should we be getting involved? Is this the thin end of a potentially bigger wedge? Or is it a sensible thing to do? Not what does 1footinthegrave think, but I guess you were desperately hoping I'd jump in to have another conversion attempt at me , well you've succeeded Short-term memory loss? I didn't force you into this thread; you chose to come of your own accord. You then gave your usual lop-sided view of the world and I asked you (yes I did - check it!) why you were always so unbalanced in your comments. I have to say that until you intervened there was a lot of very measured and sensible comment. Unfortunately, that ended when you started your rant. I accused you before of being a very sad, bigoted and bitter man; you continue to prove my point. Calm down, look at all sides of a question before coming to a conclusion and you might find you enjoy life a lot more. I enjoy life very much thank you for your concern though,as I guess the thousands who've died at the hands of Islam followers AND AGAIN I STRESS, both Muslim and non Muslim, would have done given the chance................................next ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Deja Vu or what ? . 1foot surely you must have sensed see no wrong Johns post was a little tease for you to reply and start the whole thing off again and you've been suckered in . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I think that pretty soon we are going to have active troops in more countries than we did in WW2. I cannot understand how we can send soldiers into a war zone who are not allowed to shoot the "enemy" even when they are spotted laying IED's on a main road. I cannot understand why we send soldiers into a warzone and then court martial and sentence them when they shoot one of the "enemy". I don't understand why we send armed troops into a warzone, then pay out compensation to the families of the terrorists we kill. All in all, I don't think this "war on terrorism" has been very well thought out, Dopy Dave is quick to send our overstretched troops into every corner of the globe to "protect" their citizens, with absolutely no thought about the comebacks and the retalitary actions WE will inevitably suffer. We cannot defend our own country from the terrorists because the ECHR intervenes at every step in our effort to rid this country of those who strive to harm us. Seriously people, can you imagine the Prime Ministers in power during the 2 great wars welcoming senior members of the Nazi party into our country, allowing them to preach their propaganda in our major cities, and then housing them in luxury. Think about this next time you put your cross on a ballot paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 antony1969 - 2013-01-30 6:48 PM Deja Vu or what ? . 1foot surely you must have sensed see no wrong Johns post was a little tease for you to reply and start the whole thing off again and you've been suckered in . Yes your correct, I've just set myself a 100 lines Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 Don’t reply to John 47 And thank God for some with more of a grip like Donna Millers post above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.