|
ToxicAcne posted:The elites supported the Communists (mind boggling I know). Mind boggling indeed! I'm quite surprised to hear that the wealthy elites were in favor of the waiving of poor people's debts, severe restrictions on lending, and the summary confiscation of land (without compensation) from anyone deemed to have "too much" land! And that's without even going into the numerous state-owned industries and the fact that even the wealthy weren't exempt from the waves of assassinations, imprisonments, exiles, and executions that accompanied the setting-up of a Leninist people's state which actively attempted to win the sympathies of the common people by attacking the "bourgeois" classes. I mean, I'm sure the new elites under the communist regime quite enjoyed it, but that's not exactly a useful metric. Jarmak posted:Holy poo poo ignorant Afghanistan chat, part of the reason the central government was as repressive as it is was because trying to violently force modernization on the rural areas because the fundamentalists in the rural areas were violently resisting modernization and secularization. The Soviets invaded because the central government was losing/lost that fight. Who cares? I'm suggesting that they fought so fiercely against the Soviets not because they're uncivilized savages who intrinsically hate modernization, but rather because a foreign country was invading their country in order to prop up a brutal, iron-fisted dictatorship that imprisoned or murdered everyone who disagreed with it, and that this foreign army was itself quite brutal and prone to actively attacking civilians. How modern or secular the country was at the time, and how modern or secular the dictator was, are both totally irrelevant. Would you also say that the British Empire was an ultimate force of good in the world because of its tendency to force modernization on peoples it tended to regard as ignorant, uncivilized savages, and that the silly colonized peoples should have just given in and let the British impose Western rule on them? Is the reason the Afghanis fought so hard in three separate wars against the British solely because they hate secular and modern life so much?
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Mind boggling indeed! I'm quite surprised to hear that the wealthy elites were in favor of the waiving of poor people's debts, severe restrictions on lending, and the summary confiscation of land (without compensation) from anyone deemed to have "too much" land! And that's without even going into the numerous state-owned industries and the fact that even the wealthy weren't exempt from the waves of assassinations, imprisonments, exiles, and executions that accompanied the setting-up of a Leninist people's state which actively attempted to win the sympathies of the common people by attacking the "bourgeois" classes. I mean, I'm sure the new elites under the communist regime quite enjoyed it, but that's not exactly a useful metric. I know what you're saying and you're completely wrong, every side in that conflict was iron fisted and brutal and rural Afghanis view the central government as foreign invaders just as much as the Soviets. That's the point, Afghanistan doesn't have a national identity, the rural areas are completely tribal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/05/3677042/man-admitted-plot-massacre-muslims-set-free-judge-not-convinced-hes-true-threat/ Robert Rankin Doggart, a former candidate for Congress, admitted in federal court to “plotting the annihilation” of a village in New York that is home to many Muslims. Doggart’s plans included “burning down a school, a mosque and a cafeteria,” according to the criminal complaint. “We’re gonna be carrying an M4 with 500 rounds of ammunition, light armor piercing. A pistol with three extra magazines, and a machete. And if it gets down to the machete, we will cut them to shreds,” Doggart allegedly said according to the transcript of a wiretap cited in the complaint. He also allegedly tried to recruit other individuals to participate in his plot through a Facebook group. As part of a plea agreement, Doggart pled guilty to “interstate communication of threats” and faces up to five years in prison. He was in jail awaiting final sentencing. But a federal judge, Curtis Collier, may not accept the guilty plea. He’s ordered the prosecution and defense to produce briefs proving that Doggart was a “true threat.” Meanwhile, a different federal judge, Magistrate Susan K. Lee, released Doggart from jail “into the custody of two family members.” Lee had previously found that Doggart was a “danger to the community.” The government appealed the decision to release Doggart to Judge Collier, who affirmed Lee’s decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
No mistake, there are lots of assholes in the US armed with guns and bombs who will happily kill people for bigoted reasons. However... most of them (not all, most) are not acting on behalf of an aspiring state actor. For example, the guy who murdered gays in a gay bar because his own last name was "Gay" was not immediately defended by an organization of people whose last names are also "Gay." Daesh is different in this regard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
bitey posted:No mistake, there are lots of assholes in the US armed with guns and bombs who will happily kill people for bigoted reasons. https://www.gop.com/
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Yeah, pretty funny, but show me a single instance within that URL where anybody orders, endorses, encourages, or takes credit for any specific act of violence. The GOP may be bad, but it ain't daesh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
bitey posted:Yeah, pretty funny, but show me a single instance within that URL where anybody orders, endorses, encourages, or takes credit for any specific act of violence. Are you seriously arguing that nobody in the GOP orders, endorses, encourages or takes credit for any specific act of violence? Have you been in a coma since 1955?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Who cares? I'm suggesting that they fought so fiercely against the Soviets not because they're uncivilized savages who intrinsically hate modernization, but rather because a foreign country was invading their country in order to prop up a brutal, iron-fisted dictatorship that imprisoned or murdered everyone who disagreed with it, and that this foreign army was itself quite brutal and prone to actively attacking civilians. How modern or secular the country was at the time, and how modern or secular the dictator was, are both totally irrelevant. You're an imbecile and you have no idea what you're talking about. Rural Afghani tribes had been intermittently engaged in civil war against secular modernising forces based in Kabul since pretty much the mid-20s. Chief among their complaints, aside from the establishment of a national military which necessarily diminished the power of local warlords, was Amanullah Khan's attempt to take a leaf out of Ataturk's book and suggest that maybe it's no longer OK to be cutting off thieves' right hands and demanding women cover up or get beaten in the street. How much of a condescending rear end do you need to be to think that the only reason anybody in a place like Afghanistan would have wanted to modernise the joint was because of European or Soviet pressure? Plenty of Afghanis wanted the place they lived in to be less of a hyperreligious shitshow, and for a while there they were even in control. But they eventually lost, in large part due to the USA backing the backwater fuckwits in an entirely cynical reaction against the USSR's support of the PDPA which would not have even existed if not for there being such recalcitrant opposition to a progressive movement that was initially perfectly willing to compromise and let reforms happen slowly where they needed more time. Nope, rich rural landowners were having none of that and they engaged the full force of religious zealotry in Afghanistan in defence of the status quo ante. Why do so many Westerners have no problem correctly identifying reactionary politics in the West as having a strong connection to religious fervour but struggle to admit that could possibly be the case anywhere else? Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:You're an imbecile and you have no idea what you're talking about. Rural Afghani tribes had been intermittently engaged in civil war against secular modernising forces based in Kabul since pretty much the mid-20s. Chief among their complaints, aside from the establishment of a national military which necessarily diminished the power of local warlords, was Amanullah Khan's attempt to take a leaf out of Ataturk's book and suggest that maybe it's no longer OK to be cutting off thieves' right hands and demanding women cover up or get beaten in the street. Yeah you are right. Sorry for not researching enough and talking out of my rear end. But my point still stands that 70s Kabul is not representative of all of Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:But my point still stands that 70s Kabul is not representative of all of Afghanistan. Who ever said it was? Furthermore, what does it matter that it's not? Are we bound to accept and support oppressive and violent theocracy if it so happens to be the will of the
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Who ever said it was? Furthermore, what does it matter that it's not? Are we bound to accept and support oppressive and violent theocracy if it so happens to be the will of the You cannot sell secular democracy when it is being brought by tyrants such as Khan and Pahlavi. It just makes people think that secularism is the root cause of all the injustices in their country. Also if we went into every country we thought were not up to our standards and installed a "more humane "government then we would be Imperialists (it's not like we aren't btw). ToxicAcne fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:You cannot sell secular democracy when it is being brought by tyrants such as Khan and Pahlavi. It just makes people think that secularism is the root cause of all the injustices in their country. You don't give oppressed people a lot of credit intellectually, do you? You're right though: liberal democracy goes down religious nuts' throats so much better when the face of it is democratically elected and a member of the oppressed classes. Like, just ask Benazir Bhutt - oh, wait, poo poo. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Consent of the governed overrules value judgements in terms of what political system is best for a given people. Enlightened despotism never works the way you want it to, and returning power the people at least creates an environment where progress can happen. So long as an elite can repress popular sentiment, broad social progress is next to impossible. Doesn't mean you have to support them, or don't invade them if they commit gross crimes against humanity, but you don't get to overrule the will of the people who live there because it happens to be inconvenient for you. If you want a progressive society, a real society, then democratic rule isn't optional, it's mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:if not for there being such recalcitrant opposition to a progressive movement that was initially perfectly willing to compromise and let reforms happen slowly where they needed more time. Nope, rich rural landowners were having none of that and they engaged the full force of religious zealotry in Afghanistan in defence of the status quo ante. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Consent of the governed overrules value judgements in terms of what political system is best for a given people. quote:Enlightened despotism never works the way you want it to, and returning power the people at least creates an environment where progress can happen. So long as an elite can repress popular sentiment, broad social progress is next to impossible. I disagree with none of this, but you're overlooking completely the demonstrated fact that the governed are perfectly capable of choosing anti-democracy. How do you deal with that is what I want to know, because I'll be hosed if I've got a good answer. I also have issues with the idea of the 'consent of the governed' being something that should be taken seriously when half the adult population isn't allowed to leave the house on election day with supervision. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
You know, that's not a good analogy, but it's not 100% inappropriate either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:You cannot sell secular democracy when it is being brought by tyrants such as Khan and Pahlavi- In what way was anything Pahlavi did democratic. I'm not even sure secular is really the word I'd use for Pahlavi's weirdness. Dude just had a euro fetish, by way of the chick who cosplayed as Daisy across the street.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Are you seriously arguing that nobody in the GOP orders, endorses, encourages or takes credit for any specific act of violence? Have you been in a coma since 1955? Ah yes, the summer of '55. I remember it well. My claim is more specific than that, confined to the current content of the GOP web site. Admittedly, we are in an election cycle. Maybe they've toned down the... uh... beheading?... rhetoric for a while. bitey fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:You don't give oppressed people a lot of credit intellectually, do you? Well Benazir was corrupt as poo poo and she was not oppressed at all.... Her family is a bunch of nobles pretending to be socialists. Her father Zulfiqar was the one who declared Ahmadis to be non-Muslims. Edit: Also if every secular government thrown my way was corrupt, authoritarian, and pushovers for foreign powers I would probably hate secularism as well. Most people I know want Sharia law because they believe that at least religious law will restore some semblance to my parent's country (Pakistan) ToxicAcne fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
You know, I bet a lot of the appeal of Sharia law is that it's like, OK, this is in the book, and maybe there's some elaborations, but this poo poo is relatively fixed -- as opposed to "whatever, lol, I've got the army and so you can get hosed." In a sense it's kind of a constitutionalism, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Nessus posted:You know, I bet a lot of the appeal of Sharia law is that it's like, OK, this is in the book, and maybe there's some elaborations, but this poo poo is relatively fixed -- as opposed to "whatever, lol, I've got the army and so you can get hosed." In a sense it's kind of a constitutionalism, maybe. Yeah it's fixed and you can't bullshit because then you would be defying god. Sharia is not the solution that the Muslim world needs but supporting it is a very understandable and dare I say rational line of thought.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
I wouldn't call supporting sharia 'rational' (that implies too much), but understandable given context makes sense. Though that 'defying god' bit is interesting, because it would demonstrate a lack of secularization as the main stumbling block here. If you're a politician in the west, you cannot appeal to any particular religious law, you have to justify your policy on the basis of some kind of secular morality (utilitarianism, liberal-rights-talk, etc). The fact that an appeal-to-god works in these countries is the problem, because it grants religious authorities political power.asdf32 posted:One comment I have is that when these debates come up a lot of people are inclined to turn to foundation document as if it's an ultimate source. It's not. Human institutions may be informed by a text but living, changing institutions can't be entirely defined by one. And while texts don't change, the character of major religions certainly does. If we're evaluating Islam today, we need to consider it as it is today. I'm personally not sure at all what that means. Smudgie Buggler posted:"Overrules" according to who or what? Morality Court? rudatron fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Yeah it's fixed and you can't bullshit because then you would be defying god. Well its not unchanging fixed, in a way: Sharia, or to be more accurate Islamic law consists of Sharia and Fiqh, Islamic Jurisprudence. The latter, being 'man made' can change. But its obvious one would be more receptive to ideas originating from their prescribed holy text.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I wouldn't call supporting sharia 'rational' (that implies too much), but understandable given context makes sense. Though that 'defying god' bit is interesting, because it would demonstrate a lack of secularization as the main stumbling block here. If you're a politician in the west, you cannot appeal to any particular religious law, you have to justify your policy on the basis of some kind of secular morality (utilitarianism, liberal-rights-talk, etc). The fact that an appeal-to-god works in these countries is the problem, because it grants religious authorities political power. Clearly this means we must drone strike the West into rationality.  More seriously the impression I get here is that it's more, "You can't just say left is right now; the holy book keeps you honest, and if you breach it you're obviously immoral, thus illegitimate." There may be some preference for the local imam because local political figures have shown such a cataclysmic level of immorality, corruption, and so forth - at least the holy guy mostly walks his talk. I don't think the solution in this situation is to undermine religion. Rigged Death Trap posted:Well its not unchanging fixed, in a way: Sharia, or to be more accurate Islamic law consists of Sharia and Fiqh, Islamic Jurisprudence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Well Benazir was corrupt as poo poo and she was not oppressed at all.... Her family is a bunch of nobles pretending to be socialists. Her father Zulfiqar was the one who declared Ahmadis to be non-Muslims. My understanding was that Pakistan's law code already took on large elements of Sharia Law since Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's Presidency back in the late 70s and that that contributed to a widening role of politicized Islam in the country which secularists, religious minorities and certain aspects of Human Rights have not done well out of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:My understanding was that Pakistan's law code already took on large elements of Sharia Law since Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's Presidency back in the late 70s and that that contributed to a widening role of politicized Islam in the country which secularists, religious minorities and certain aspects of Human Rights have not done well out of. While Zia was the main force behind the Islamization of Pakistani society, a lot of the work had already been done by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who implemented laws like banning alcohol and declaring Ahmad's non-Muslim. It ended up backfiring as the Islamists rejected him and had him executed. Zia- ul-Haq was just the end result of what had happened prior.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Well Benazir was corrupt as poo poo and she was not oppressed at all. She was a Pakistani woman murdered by Al-Qaeda. Not oppressed at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:She was a Pakistani woman murdered by Al-Qaeda. Edit: nvm was being idiot ToxicAcne fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:She was a Pakistani woman murdered by Al-Qaeda. She was killed by the Taliban, also isn't it arguable that Pakistan's problem isn't so much Isalm but that you can't just use a religion to unite a country? The Taliban are almost entirely dominated by Pashtun's and while a creation originally of the Pakistani government have emerged in the Pashtun regions of Pakistan, and exist as a continual thorn in Pakistan's side in many ways. Likewise the non Punjab's of Pakistan are not satisfied with just sharing Islam as a religion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
I honestly want to know what Smudgie thinks the solution to the problems in the Islamic world is. He seems to be the kind of guy who wants to drop sweet hot b̶o̶m̶b̶s̶ freedom onto those countries and i̶n̶v̶a̶d̶e̶ free them. I mean we'll be greeted as liberators right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:I honestly want to know what Smudgie thinks the solution to the problems in the Islamic world is. He seems to be the kind of guy who wants to drop sweet hot b̶o̶m̶b̶s̶ freedom onto those countries and i̶n̶v̶a̶d̶e̶ free them. I mean we'll be greeted as liberators right? What's your Final Solution to the Islamic Question?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:What's your Final Solution to the Islamic Question? Why the complete and utter annihilation of all those who have ever eaten a kebab in their lives!
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
I can't tell AQ from daesh, but at least I can recognize the Taliban from their Pashtuness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:I honestly want to know what Smudgie thinks the solution to the problems in the Islamic world is. He seems to be the kind of guy who wants to drop sweet hot b̶o̶m̶b̶s̶ freedom onto those countries and i̶n̶v̶a̶d̶e̶ free them. I mean we'll be greeted as liberators right? I have no idea, but I do know that killing people isn't how you help them. Also, BB was very much killed by Al Qaeda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
Nessus posted:You know, I bet a lot of the appeal of Sharia law is that it's like, OK, this is in the book, and maybe there's some elaborations, but this poo poo is relatively fixed -- as opposed to "whatever, lol, I've got the army and so you can get hosed." In a sense it's kind of a constitutionalism, maybe. ToxicAcne posted:Yeah it's fixed and you can't bullshit because then you would be defying god. Sharia jurisprudence is literally built with the understanding it's legitimate to have contradictory interpretations and injunctions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I know what you're saying and you're completely wrong, every side in that conflict was iron fisted and brutal and rural Afghanis view the central government as foreign invaders just as much as the Soviets. That's the point, Afghanistan doesn't have a national identity, the rural areas are completely tribal. Who cares? That's totally irrelevant to my point, which is that Afghani fighters fought so hard against the Soviets because they were foreign invaders trying to impose a brutal dictatorship that most of the country had risen up against, not because they're primitive savages who hate civilization. Smudgie Buggler posted:You're an imbecile and you have no idea what you're talking about. Rural Afghani tribes had been intermittently engaged in civil war against secular modernising forces based in Kabul since pretty much the mid-20s. Chief among their complaints, aside from the establishment of a national military which necessarily diminished the power of local warlords, was Amanullah Khan's attempt to take a leaf out of Ataturk's book and suggest that maybe it's no longer OK to be cutting off thieves' right hands and demanding women cover up or get beaten in the street. If Afghani forces are only capable of fighting effectively when it's against a secular Westernized group that is attempting to generously civilize the tribal savages out of the goodness of their white man's burden, then how come Amanullah Khan was able to win Afghanistan's freedom from British influence in the Third Anglo-Afghan War, just as the Afghanis had driven off the British nearly a century before in the First Anglo-Afghan War? Yes, there was plenty of resistance to him, and he was eventually overthrown, but it's not like the Khan dynasty was all flowers and sunshine! For example, Amanullah's father Abdur Rahman Khan, who created the the national Afghani military and suppressed the tribes' power, was a military despot who engaged in tactics such as forced relocation of tribes and ethnicities perceived to be troublesome, and references to his tactics in dealing with rebellions make mention of "towers of human heads" and "thousands sold into slavery". Truly it is a mark of the Afghani tribes' hatred for civilization that they hated such a secular and enlightened ruler, who only maintained power through brutal military suppression of repeated rebellions sparked by the harshness of his rule. The cause of Amanullah's overthrow was not that he and his reforms were less popular than other Afghani rulers of the time, it's that he pissed off the military with a number of measures like cutting their pay, firing most of the top officers, and so on. He was hardly the only Afghani ruler to try to modernize Afghanistan, either; most Afghani rulers of that period worked toward modernization, except for his deeply religious uncle, who he threw out of office in a military coup after a week on the throne. The difference is that when the inevitable uprising occurred against his attempts to centralize power in the government and force the entire population of the country to change their lifestyles at gunpoint, the military didn't like him enough to back him against the rebellions. Turmoil in Afghani government was by no means uncommon at the time, anyway. Amanullah Khan rose to power in a military coup against his predecessor, whose predecessor was assassinated in mysterious circumstances, whose predecessor was the brutal "Iron Emir" I mentioned previously. Amanullah's successor lasted nine months before being overthrown and hung by someone else who was assassinated four years later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This can presumably be checked by other religious scholars who can go "that's bullshit," and is perhaps preferable to the law of "I have the army, so gently caress you." It is obviously not a perfect system but it seems like secular authorities are perhaps seen as materially worse? Well historically Islamic jurisprudence was as much an area of scholarly debate as constitutional law is now in America. A lot of that scholarly tradition is ignored in fundamentalist Islam: Wahhabis would love fiqh that cannot be questioned or changed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Why the complete and utter annihilation of all those who have ever eaten a kebab in their lives! gently caress yeah, nuke the British.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:
Question of the Year for D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Who cares? That's totally irrelevant to my point, which is that Afghani fighters fought so hard against the Soviets because they were foreign invaders trying to impose a brutal dictatorship that most of the country had risen up against, not because they're primitive savages who hate civilization. Calm down. Nobody's saying Afghanis are savages. All you've done is knock down the false dichotomy I've bolded above. You're tilting at windmills, and nobody's taking the position you're getting flustered about. All anybody's saying is that your view of civil strife in Afghanistan throughout the 20th Century being solely (or even chiefly in all cases, because we're not talking about one big monolithic conflict here) because of a desire of the popular classes to extricate themselves from foreign rule (or rule perceived to be foreign-influenced) is simplistic and not at all the whole truth. You are ignoring the massive and well documented reaction religious institutions had to the threat to their psychological and political hegemony over the uneducated masses posed by efforts - indigenous and foreign - to modernise a pre-industrial society. "Islamofascism" is a bullshit neologism often used to mask bigotry, but it's not a ridiculous thing to note that what Afghanistan went through in the 20s and 30s was not that different to what was going on in parts of Europe at exactly the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:25
|
|