|
PT6A posted:I think we can criticise those particular elements of the Islamic community while still accepting Muslims in our society, welcoming refugees, and treating Muslims no different from anyone else. God only knows why Hasidic communities get a pass for the odious nonsense they do, but apparently holding lovely, rear end-backwards beliefs is not a deal-breaker...
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
About christians... The romans in the Roma Empire where scared shirtless of Christians. Tacitus posted:Nero punished a race of men who were hated for their evil practices. These men were called Christians. He got a number of people to confess. On their evidence a number of Christians were convicted and put to death with dreadful cruelty. Some were covered with the skins of wild beasts and left to be eaten by dogs. Others were nailed to the cross. Many were burned alive and set on fire to serve as torches at night. Christians where scary for many reasons. First, they where atheist. They did not believe in any of the gods. Second, they worshiped a criminal. If that where not suspicious enough, they called each other sister and brother, and THEY HAD SEX, that was very incestuous sounding. But it was not all. The biggest problem with Christians, is that they had their rites in secret (where all others religions did in public) and they claimed to eat the meat of a dead guy and drink the blood of a dead guy in these secret ceremonies. I mean, who would not be scared of Christians? Christianophobia was fully justified: - Christians are atheist (don't believe in any of the pantheon gods) - Christians arguably practice some sort of incest ( tell call each other sister and brother and despite that, they had sex ) - Christians do secret rites (in fully crazy places like catacombs ) - Christians do necro-canibalism (the eat the meat of christ ) - Christians worship criminals (like jesus, that was killed in the cross by the legal system ) - Christians will not integrate. They will not want to be part of the cult to the emperor, or any other cult. (Monotheism was intolerant to this poo poo) - If you are Christians, you basically worship Jews (well... not all jews, one in particular, Christ). If jews are that awesome, why they where conquered by Rome? It sounds to me like Rome has the more awesome gods/guys. They where blamed of a whole lot of poo poo things that happened: - The Burning of Rome (that probably was just land speculations gone wrong ) - The Burning of The Great Library in Egypt (that was episodic serie of war events ) It all backfired because the people spot these martyrs and they said "Wow, this guys is baddass, I want to be awesome like him". So everyone turned christians, then they learned that christianisity is much less interesting than advertised. Tei fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
I kind of love that you actually used the Islamophobia thread earlier for a cliche tedious minirant about THAT HIPPITY HOP MUSIC AND CULTURE and uhh "bros" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
muslamic hip hop bros shooting uncultured ray guns at chavs
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 12:44
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
That's how I plan to spend my Friday night!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:This sort of thing makes right-wing propaganda about sneering liberal academics effective. Most people who are afraid of Muslims are earnestly afraid, not just stupid bigots. Though we certainly have a shitload of those too. You can thank 30-40 years of negative news coverage on Islamic terrorism (the vast majority of which against other Muslims) and 14 years of acute screaming from the Republican party and propaganda wing. Racists are genuinely scared of black people, it's not an either-or thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
An Enormous Boner posted:
It should be noted that it's not classified as terrorism when the US uses highly visible flying death robots to monitor civilian populations and bombs the occasional wedding or hospital, nor is it terrorism when Israel decides to airstrike civilians as retribution for the actions of a different group of civilians. Yes most terrorism is committed by Muslims, because most of it happens in the Middle East and Africa, and Western actions in the region are government-backed military actions. Why is it that the governments of George "Gog and Magog" Bush and Benjamin "Promised Land" Netanyahu aren't examples of the dangers of politicized Christianity/Judaism? Sure, it's been couched in a lot of geopolitics and whatever, but both of those leaders have invoked divine imperative to kill people of the wrong religion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Racists are genuinely scared of black people, it's not an either-or thing. The quote I was responding to was stating that their reason is they want to hate anyone different, in order to feel superior to someone to make up for their lovely lives. Yes, people who do that can also be afraid of whatever minority as well, but Islamaphobia is not rooted in the above sort of racism for a lot of people that I deal with. Fear of the Other due to propaganda can be beaten with integration and empathy, but a desire for white supremecy as a sense of self-worth is the sort of thing that's only reinforced when challenged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
An Enormous Boner posted:I mean you'd have to shoot up a fuckload of abortion clinics to make it as easy to get comparably mad at Christians. No, you'd just have to claim that abortion clinic bombings in the USA, Christian atrocities in Africa, and the invasion of Iraq were all caused by a frightening unified ideology called "militant Christianity". I think you're naive if you don't believe that a few years of endlessly linking spurious and unrelated events together into a global conspiracy would be enough to demonize virtually any group. If the American media were to report on American government policy as though it were coming from a hostile foreign state, then George Bush's various invocations of "God" or his declaration that he was start a "crusade" after 9/11 would be taken as proof positive that everything America does is a byproduct of the frightening extremist religion gripping it's government. Average Bear posted:Capn Payne posted a manifesto from ISIS to support his point that Islam has actual doctrine that can be used to radicalize people and people just hand waved that as bigotry. An actual Shi'ite posted his input on conservative Islam and no one responded because they couldn't just call him racist. Nobody can actually debate and learn anything here because dissenting opinions, rather than rebuked, are just dismissed with lower case posting. I don't think it can be reasonably denied that Islamic texts and history contain all kinds of doctrines or precedents that can be used to justify violence and aggression. I think the more relevant question, in this thread, is why you think this matters. And believe it or not that isn't a rhetorical question, I'm being genuine here. Yes, Islam (just like Christianity and Judaism and just about any other religion) has a very real potential to be used as a justification for violence and oppression. Yes, it's actively being used that way right now as we speak. But what's the implication of that? What do you propose we actually do about it? Because most posters in this thread who are criticizing Islam don't actually seem to have much to say other than that Islam is bad. In some cases there seems to be an implied support for greater repression of Muslims or more military actions against Muslim organizations and governments. But no one really seems to eager to explicitly make the case that more repression and bombing is going to solve global problems. Average Bear posted:Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Religious conservatism is a minority in the west. It's a parasite I'd like to be rid of. In the shittier parts of the Middle East, it's a very strong political force, and the people living there suffer for it. Ok, first of all let me make a side point regarding your claim that religious conservatism is a minority in the west. Even if that's true demographically, you're using it to try and imply that religious extremists in the west are either too small to be politically relevant, or that they don't have a real and persistent impact on government policy. That's simply incorrect/ There are 94 million Christian evangelicals in the United States and since the 1990s (if not earlier) Christian religious forces have been dominant members of the Republican coalition. Christian political leaders and churches were instrumental in getting Bush elected and Christian political activists have been extremely successful at limiting access to abortions, contraceptive and scientific education in much of the USA. Politicized Christianity plays a more than incidental role in such major events as the election and re-election of George W. Bush, without which it's unlikely that ISIS would even exist. My point here is not to pretend that all regions of the world are equally gripped by fundamentalist religion, or that all religions are equally good or bad, or to make some other similarly juvenile argument. Instead I just want to illustrate how quick we are to ignore the irrational parts of our own culture while pointing out the irrationality of other cultures. As to your main point: I absolutely agree. Religious conservatism is doing terrible things in the Middle East. But again, my question is so what? What are you actually propose we do about it? And how do you connect this back to the question of islamophobia within the USA?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Really I don't think anything can be done about it. At least not by the West. Extremists in the Middle East are perfectly happy to kill each other over different interperatations of scripture when they don't have an imperialist enemy to concentrate on. Hopefully some day something will be done (internally mind you) about the Saudi and Iranian governments stoking the flames of such things, but until then I doubt there is a solution that would be palatable by any non-bloodthirsty people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Really I don't think anything can be done about it. I (mostly) agree with you. Which really begs the question: why are so many people here so eager to talk about the bad stuff happening on another continent, which they can't really effect, instead of discussing the actual topic of the thread: discrimination against and persecution of Muslims in North America. It's a pretty serious issue. The leading GOP candidate's success seems to be coming largely from anti-Muslim sentiment, and more than half of GOP primary voters seem to support his call for a total ban on Muslims. It really says something about how hosed political discourse has become when people would rather discuss atrocities in a foreign country rather than talk about the fact that it's now actually becoming a mainstream political opinion to support a religious test for barring people from entering the United States. quote:At least not by the West. Extremists in the Middle East are perfectly happy to kill each other over different interperatations of scripture when they don't have an imperialist enemy to concentrate on. Hopefully some day something will be done (internally mind you) about the Saudi and Iranian governments stoking the flames of such things, but until then I doubt there is a solution that would be palatable by any non-bloodthirsty people. The Saudi government is actively supported by the USA, and wouldn't be a regional power house if not for longterm American support. The Iranian government that exists today is the direct result of a rebellion to overthrow the last US government, which was ruled by an American client who had overthrown Iran's elected government with western support. While it would be spurious to claim all fundamentalism in the Middle East comes from outside intervention, it's equally spurious to pretend that the Middle East's religious problems are because of some eternal cultural backwardness. Most contemporary fundamentalist movements come directly out of poo poo that happened in the Cold War: the desire of the west to undermine secular and socialist leaning leaders plays a big role in the rise of say, Hamas, over Fatah or the rise of ISIS in place of Saddam Hussein. Our own governments spurred the rise of these groups because at one time this was seen as advantageous to western interests. In other cases we stood by and did nothing while our "allies" in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia funded networks of radical mosques and madrasses. We didn't care as long as they were just being used to recruit shock troops to be used against other countries full of foreigners. The point here is not to say "the West causes all bad things in the world to happen". But it's important to demystify the causes of fundamentalism: most of it comes from fairly recent geopolitical events, in which the west is implicated, and not some timeless cultural backwardness that must be purged with fire and sword. It's remarkable, and depressing, how many nominally progressive individuals fell for the idiotic Christopher Hitchen's idea that supporting American imperialism was a good way to deal with religious fundamentalism in the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's a pretty serious issue. The leading GOP candidate's success seems to be coming largely from anti-Muslim sentiment, and more than half of GOP primary voters seem to support his call for a total ban on Muslims. We can't really get a handle on one without talking about the other, as they're linked. People coming from a war torn region rife with extremism (where there currently is a group that claims to want to harm westerners at home, and has done so) are being eyed with susupicion as possible terrorists. Obiviously this isn't a good thing, as it leads to persecution and oppression, but it's also notable that a major attack has (9/11) in recent memory been done by Middle Eastern immigrants. That said, we need to find a way to address the valid fears of extremists coming into the country (Such as Malik, one of the shooters in San Bernandino) to do harm, while at the same time preventing Islamophobia from gaining any further foothold. So far, citing statistics of things such as car accidents and heart disease at them has only driven them further to Trump and the racist hordes he leads. They're afraid and feel like they're being ignored by the left entirely. The U.S. certainly has culpability in the situation in the Middle East, but part of that comes from the seeming necessity of keeping the Saudi's happy. People still remember the oil crisis, and the public would not accept another. Due to that, we'll unfortunately prop them up until it runs dry, as nobody would commit that kind of political suicide. It's certainly not an "eternal cultural issue" that causes all the sectarian violence, just one that again, the Saudis and Iranians propogate to keep their stranglehold on the region.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Helsing posted:proof positive that everything America does is a byproduct of the frightening extremist religion gripping its government. It's true; but the religion in question isn't Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
I feel the issue of suspicion of people who are fleeing their homes, for their lives, is largely thanks to rhetoric that emphasises that they're potential terrorists when the reality is that they are probably the people least likely to be terrorists, giving that they are refugees, which has a very, very specific political and social meaning. If they were people who wished to kill the infidel and engage in terror attacks they would probably be best served in joining up with ISIS as opposed to running for their lives away from them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's a pretty serious issue. The leading GOP candidate's success seems to be coming largely from anti-Muslim sentiment, and more than half of GOP primary voters seem to support his call for a total ban on Muslims. You want to blame one person for all this, there's only one answer: Rupert Murdoch. The fact-free bubble of prejudice and bigotry created by that man's media empire has had a real and lasting effect on US politics. Whether or not Trump wins the nomination, that bubble will still be there, and the people created by that bubble will still be just as extreme and dangerous. They're immune to rationality or evidence, and they've been whipped into a frenzy of fear. So I'll be watching that caucus with interest, and I'm just hoping it's not as bad as it could be. But you never know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
I don't see why the residents of Iowa are any more of a legitimate bellwether than any sort of poll.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Is Islamophobia a motivator even for those with empathy/non-bigoted views towards Muslims? For example, David Cameron was on the BBC recently to talk about the coalition to defeat ISIS in Syria and the incompatibility of Islamic doctrine calling for theocracy with modern western values of separation of church and state. Yet, as in the US, there is a seeming hypocrisy with leading candidates for the Presidency and Congress needing to vetted for Christian credentials to be suitable for office (moreso in the Republican party) as well as including the Ten Commandments with courthouses such as in Florida and (recently removed) Oklahoma. Is it because Muslims are sufficiently "Other-ized" that makes it easier to organize movement along Western (and Christian) and Islamic fault lines? Although the national character of the US and the UK, among others, is diverse, there is still a presumption of Western and Christian heritage as their predominant identities that seems to make prosecuting intra-Christian conflict more problematic than confronting Islamic conflict. In other words, despite some personally not being motivated out of racist/prejudiced views, there seems to be a difference and even hypocrisy in confronting Islamic conflict versus intra-Western/Christian extremists as Out vs In groups respectively. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Is it because Muslims are sufficiently "Other-ized" that makes it easier to organize movement along Western (and Christian) and Islamic fault lines? Although the national character of the US and the UK, among others, is diverse, there is still a presumption of Western and Christian heritage as their predominant identities that seems to make prosecuting intra-Christian conflict more problematic than confronting Islamic conflict. Though even as an atheist I don't have enormous problems with a presumption of Christian heritage, like Christmas being a national holiday, or Christian symbols being displayed on government grounds. Because the U.S. is a majority Christian country, the religion will necessarily take on a public role -- provided it doesn't intrude on the rights of minorities. Same can be true for a Jewish state. I don't think that's the kind of system David Cameron was referring to when he was talking about Islamism. But in theory I don't see a problem with a "light Islamism" that's limited to some relatively minor recognition in the public sphere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Is it hypocritical? Saudi Arabia has no secular law whatsoever. Iran is a state literally ruled by the clergy. The only comparison in the Western world is the Vatican. I see it as hypocritical mainly in the sense that we are supposed to live up to the ideal of "separation of church and state" and yet there are forces at play to keep Christianity intertwined with our politics and political leaders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:I see it as hypocritical mainly in the sense that we are supposed to live up to the ideal of "separation of church and state" and yet there are forces at play to keep Christianity intertwined with our politics and political leaders. Edit: And this doesn't have to be Islamophobic. For example, a statement like: In terms of restrictions on Islamic freedom of expression and on the religious rights of Muslims, Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive states in the world. Which might be an irony, but it's a reflection of the fact that religious governments tend to restrict every religion but their own. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
Oddly enough, Saudi Arabia is just now allowing women to vote and hold political office for the first time (although they still can't legally drive or give speeches directly to men). So... Progress? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Oddly enough, Saudi Arabia is just now allowing women to vote and hold political office for the first time (although they still can't legally drive or give speeches directly to men).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
As an aside, I don't really get why women are prohibited from interacting with men in Saudi Arabia. I mean, I get wearing hijab and all that, but it starts to get fuzzy when women need to be accompanied by men at all times and are then prohibited with interacting with men outside of their husband's permission. When I lived in Jeddah in the early 90s as a very young child, my mother even as a foreigner needed to wear hijab in public and if caught by the matawi (religious police) with arms uncovered, they would warn her first, give a light whack with a switch second, and then from there paint her arms black. Well, at least as second-hand information anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
Because women are property that loses value proportional to the number of men in contact with it, and because men are unable to resist temptation, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:We can't really get a handle on one without talking about the other, as they're linked. People coming from a war torn region rife with extremism (where there currently is a group that claims to want to harm westerners at home, and has done so) are being eyed with susupicion as possible terrorists. No, this is not the main thing that is happening. The islamaphobia is not solely or even mainly directed against the Syrian immigrants. It is a broad smear. Maybe this explains why you think the two are inextricably linked; you're overlooking the underlying Islamaphobia, and thinking it's just a factor of the moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, this is not the main thing that is happening. The islamaphobia is not solely or even mainly directed against the Syrian immigrants. It is a broad smear. Maybe this explains why you think the two are inextricably linked; you're overlooking the underlying Islamaphobia, and thinking it's just a factor of the moment. I'm not talking about the refugees, but Middle Eastern immigrants in general. Islamophobia waxes and wanes in America with how recent a publicized terrorist attack in the west occurred.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Most people who are afraid of Muslims are earnestly afraid, not just stupid bigots. citation needed
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:As an aside, I don't really get why women are prohibited from interacting with men in Saudi Arabia. I mean, I get wearing hijab and all that, but it starts to get fuzzy when women need to be accompanied by men at all times and are then prohibited with interacting with men outside of their husband's permission. quote:O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:citation needed citation needed for anyone who thinks people aren't earnestly afraid of others they have never met bu only ever hear scary things about
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
blowfish posted:citation needed for anyone who thinks people aren't earnestly afraid of others they have never met bu only ever hear scary things about I don't see why they can't be both.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
these things aren't mutually exclusive you know
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'm not talking about the refugees, but Middle Eastern immigrants in general. Islamophobia waxes and wanes in America with how recent a publicized terrorist attack in the west occurred. Again, no, it's not just about immigrants. It's also about born-and-bred Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I don't see why they can't be both. Good news!...well, not so good. More like terrible. For reference see; Trump, Donald.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Again, no, it's not just about immigrants. It's also about born-and-bred Muslims. By association, yes. That's why it's stupid. Muslims are painted as monolithic by the media any time the Middle East says "boo". I know exactly zero Middle Eastern Muslims, but know plenty of African American and Southeast Asian Muslims who are judged by association. I even have family get poo poo for being Arabic (Lebanese specifically) and living here for decades. It sucks rear end, but it's linked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
It has nothing to do with immigrants, except by virtue of them being considered "not real Americans". The only non-white groups that don't get this are Native Americans and African-Americans, by virtue of being here for centuries already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:By association, yes. That's why it's stupid. Muslims are painted as monolithic by the media any time the Middle East says "boo". I know exactly zero Middle Eastern Muslims, but know plenty of African American and Southeast Asian Muslims who are judged by association. I even have family get poo poo for being Arabic (Lebanese specifically) and living here for decades. It sucks rear end, but it's linked. No, it's not just by association. Islamaphobia at the root of it is not based on the terrorism stuff, it's based on racism and it being a non-Christian religion. The media plays its part, but it's just a part of the white-christian-supremacist shittiness that pervades our society. Also, your family isn't Arabic, you mean they're Arabs or Arabian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Is it possible that what we're seeing in terms of Islamophobia in our current political climate can and will eventually become as marginalized and shunned in the public square as anti-Semitism, for example, has become? Obviously, it will never be eliminated, but anti-Jewish sentiment, which still very much exists in parts of North America, is rightly condemned by politicians, media figures, and the general public. Does anyone have any stronger historical understanding of efforts made to reduce anti-Semitic sentiment, and whether they can be applied in relation to Muslims?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Is it possible that what we're seeing in terms of Islamophobia in our current political climate can and will eventually become as marginalized and shunned in the public square as anti-Semitism, for example, has become? Obviously, it will never be eliminated, but anti-Jewish sentiment, which still very much exists in parts of North America, is rightly condemned by politicians, media figures, and the general public. I think that a better analogy is anti-Japanese sentiment. From what I hear, strong negative feelings against Muslims/Middle-Easterners wasn't really a thing among the US public before the Iranian hostage crisis, and obviously it got a lot more widespread after 9/11. That seems like a pretty similar pattern to how the US reacted to Japan's increasing militarism, and then Pearl Harbor. In that case, the main driver of reducing anti-Japanese sentiment was the US decisively defeating Imperial Japan, rebuilding it into a prosperous and pacifist modern nation, and turning it into a valuable ally against the Commies. Even then, it took more than 40 years for the US government to issue an apology and reparations for the whole internment thing. So that doesn't seem to give much reason to be optimistic, but maybe we're better than that nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
INH5 posted:I think that a better analogy is anti-Japanese sentiment. From what I hear, strong negative feelings against Muslims/Middle-Easterners wasn't really a thing among the US public before the Iranian hostage crisis, and obviously it got a lot more widespread after 9/11. That seems like a pretty similar pattern to how the US reacted to Japan's increasing militarism, and then Pearl Harbor. The US had very strong anti-Japanese sentiment before WWII. The Alien Land Law, the Asiatic Exclusion League, the immigration act of 1924--these were not based on Japanese imperialism, just good ol' fashioned racism. Likewise, casual racism against Muslims/Middle Easterners was completely a thing before 9/11. Generally Arabs you saw on TV were either cackling polygamous oil barons or terrorists or goatherds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
 For those who say Donnald Trump doesn't represent the modern GOP. Members of my religion have committed more attacks in the US. You don't see people banning them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 22:09
|
|