Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Accomodating an immoral enemy

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Accomodating an immoral enemy
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rather than getting involved in the thread about whether children are safe in a war zone (hopelessly hijacked now), I wanted to start a thread about the mentality of an enemy who is willing to use innocents to hold you hostage (ie. children as human shields).

The real issue at hand is not whether children or other innocents are precious or valuable (of course they are). Rather it is whether individuals care so deeply about something (or someone) that they are willing to accomodate an enemy. There is a break point for all cultures and societies where they decide they can take no more sacrificing of whatever it is (usually human life, ie. nuking Japan in WWII), and at that point their enemy has power over them.

If an enemy has few to no morals and they can compel you into granting them concessions (I won't attack you because you use your own children as shields), your enemy can continue to exploit your accomodations and your enemy will ultimately take power and enslave you, or at least hold you hostage indefinitely. Becoming enslaved by immoral enemy is something you are saying you are willing to live with, because you hold a life (or something else) at a higher value than freedom. Once enslaved, your oppressors will continue to be able to hold your compliance by holding out the threat of hurting the ones you love. In order to maintain compliance, they will in fact hurt the ones you love so as to demonstrate their willingness and ability to do so. Look at how the USSR operated, or how China gained compliance from its people; they slaughtered millions to maintain power and keep their people cowering. This is the tactic of a terrorist (as the Communists were in so many countries), killing innocents to gain your compliance.

If you decide that the price is too high and you start to accomodate an enemy, once an immoral enemy has power over you he will thereafter have greater ability to abuse the ones you love. Do you end up serving the ones you love better as a result of making a decision to place the life of the few at a higher value than life and freedom of the many? At what point to you say you are willing to be held hostage and let your enemy have greater power over you (on the macro scale)?

[ August 11, 2006, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Kent ]

Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At no point.

Excellent post, Kent.

KE

[ August 11, 2006, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gruevy
Member
Member # 2985

 - posted      Profile for gruevy   Email gruevy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are absolutely right, Kent. Too bad the West can't seem to agree which side of the war is being evil. Let's lay the blame for the Lebanese dead squarely on the guilty: Hizbollah.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now we're gettting somewhere... Damn the hijackers!

You open the door to the question of "what life is worth living"?

Is life in miserable slavery still better than fighting and dying?

Of course, that's one each person... and state, for that matter, has to answer, and I believe takes us back to the moral break point.

Today I find myself going back over the move "Usual Suspects" in my mind... Anyone else remember the tale of Keyser Soze?
quote:
Supposedly of Turkish nationality but the son of a German father, Söze allegedly began his criminal career in Turkey as a low-level drug smuggler. The entity that is Keyser Söze was truly born, however, when rival smugglers working for the Hungarian Mafia invaded his house while he wasn't at home, raping his wife, and holding his children hostage, killing one of them when Söze arrived to show him they were serious. They then threatened to kill his wife and remaining children if he did not surrender his business to them. Söze's response to this was perhaps the most astonishing of his legendary acts. Rather than give in to their demands, he shot and killed his family and all but one of the Hungarians, whom he spared to spread word of his ruthless nature.

After burying his family, Söze went after the Mob, killing dozens of people, including the mobsters' families, friends, and even people who owed them money. He then "went underground", never again doing business in person and remaining invisible even to his henchmen, who almost never knew who they were working for (To quote one of the most famous lines from the movie: "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist."

I always remember the line that precedes the part where he kills his own family "Soze looks over the faces of his family. Then he showed these men of will what will really was."

I think I keep coming back to that because, while the thing on killing kids isn't about killing your own kids, it is about taking it to the next level and pushing beyond the moral limits of reasonable people.

A year or two ago I read an article by a marine officer on how to psychologically win a battle where you’re out manned and out gunned. He related the point to being cornered while alone by three guys with knives or guns – whatever.
You yourself have a knife and the enemy moves in close to get you… What do you do? In order to survive, he said you need to commit an extreme act of violence on one to shock the other two into paralysis as you then do the same to them. “Stab him in the throat and rip out his larynx to spray blood all over, gouge his eyes out, cut his f-ing heart out…” or something like that.

[ August 11, 2006, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: jm0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In order to survive, he said you need to commit an extreme act of violence on one to shock the other two into paralysis as you then do the same to them."

This is a tempting old idea, that you can turn yourself into such a monster that a more numerous enemy will be paralyzed with fear. The trouble is that soon the enemy starts training the exact same way, so you have abandoned all rules of warfare, and still find yourself outnumbered three to one.

And that is not the way the United States has won wars. The Japanese fought this way in World War II, even using kamikaze suicide fliers to inspire fear; and U.S. forces just used superior tactics and weapons to inflict casualties often approaching 100 to 1. And the Nazis made themselves into monsters quite uselessly, as originally the United States planned to raise an army of twenty million men. When Hitler was conducting a last ditch defense of Berlin, using everyone from fifteen to seventy in his army, how well would he have done if another nineteen million U.S. soldiers had been thrown into the battle? Not to mention when the U.S. started dropping atomic bombs on him?

U.S. Grant set the pattern for military victories, our style. Faced with a better general in Robert E. Lee, he went into places like the Wilderness where nobody could maneuver and sacrificed three men for one killed until the Confederacy ran out of soldiers. Once an enemy is dead it does not matter what tactics he tries to use. And this gave the Confederacy absolutely no chance, as at the end of the war continuing immigration meant the North had more men of military age available for the draft than at the beginning. This is not to say U.S. soldiers were necessarily inferior either, as lots of them have been deadly and quick and utterly ruthless; they would use a flamethrower on an orphanage if it gave them even a slightly better chance to survive.

As an old lady I knew once said, "After we harden our soldiers so they will prevail in battle, how do we soften them up again so they will be safe to live with for the rest of us?" Every war we have fought has left a legacy of alcoholics and wife beaters to suggest the relevance of that question. Wife murderers too, as methods learned in combat work just fine in peacetime also.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Morality refers to the concept of human ethics which pertain to matters of good and evil —also referred to as "right or wrong", used within three contexts: individual conscience, systems of principles and judgments — sometimes called moral values —shared within a cultural, religious, secular, Humanist, or philosophical community; and codes of behaviour or conduct derived from these systems.

Immorality: Contrary to established moral principles.

quote:
At what point do you say you are willing to be held hostage and let your enemy have greater power over you.
How do we define enemy and when do they become immoral?

At what point do ‘they’ gain power and hold us hostage? Our response precipitated via outside influence... If it a difference of opinion and or needs that creates the enemy, are we held hostage by the enemy or by our own beliefs, attitudes and or needs?

The war on Terror is a war on not living in fear which is exactly what we lose. The power to live with or without fear was always ours.

When is it time to say this far but not further, for what “moral principles” do we stand – “life and happiness” and we’ll kill anyone who threatens that? Life and happiness for just ME (or my group), but is that moral?

I have no idea.

Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society
Just don't make the same mistake I once did and leave this one laying on the coffee table when a young lady comes over for the first time. Some people just don't understand why a guy has a book called "On killing" sitting out...

Very interesting stuff, and I disagree with the contention. It's kind of logical assumption to think veterans are more disposed to be killers, but not at all true in my experience... being a veteran and knowing more than I can count who've been in combat.

And you are correct - every time we step it up, so does the enemy... and vice-versa, it seems.

That's why we need Choice C.

Anyone else here every study/train in Aikido? I think there's something there to learn from, even on the national level.
quote:
The Way of the Warrior has been misunderstood as a means to kill and destroy others. Those who seek competition are making a grave mistake. To smash, injure, or destroy is the worst sin a human being can commit. The real Way of a Warrior is to prevent slaughter - it is the Art of Peace, the power of love.


[ August 11, 2006, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: jm0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When the lives of people are concerned, it's best not to make up a "principled stance" and stick to it, every situation should be evuluated differently.
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please elaborate Liberal. What you just wrote left me with no cognition.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On Killing is an awesome book.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure about best not to stand by your principles, but in war, if you have principles that you won't compromise, you'd better keep them very quiet, lest your enemy discover and exploit them. If you can't be ruthless in war, you should at least allow your enemy to think that you can be ruthless.

OTOH, a war with terrorists is a different sort of animal, particularly when the terrorists have no fear of death, and particularly when one of the terrorists' primary goals is to persuade their audience that you are immoral. Seems to me that your best tactics are at odds with each other: kill the terrorists so they can do no harm, while keeping your hands as clean as possible, or at least keeping a visible moral line between yourself and the terrorist.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Both sides in a conflict convince themselves that they are more ‘moral’ then the ‘other’, if not why fight. (If we do not believe we are in the right, or our way is better what are we fighting for?)
I’m sure the ‘terrorist’ sees him or herself fighting the good fight, for his family for what he believes in, is that not moral? Is it not his or her obligation to fight; is it not our moral obligation to fight back? Is this good or is this bad?

To maintain the moral superiority moral standards are compromised for the “grater good”. Once compromised can you go back? Is their a higher ‘good’ then moral good?

In war one is forced to recognise the ‘other’ in you, wither we allow ourselves to see it is another matter. Not to see it insures we will have to repeat the grade.

quote:
“kill the terrorists so they can do no harm, while keeping your hands as clean as possible, or at least keeping a visible moral line between yourself and the terrorist.
As clean as possible but not as clean as they were, we are changed, something darker, darkness making or breaking character.

[ August 11, 2006, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: rightleft22 ]

Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's to elaborate? In any situation where lives are on the line, it's foolish to "stick to principle." Situations should be evaluated seperately and acted on based on their different circumstances. Lives are the most important things and shouldn't be sacraficed for "principle."

[ August 11, 2006, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Very interesting stuff, and I disagree with the contention. It's kind of logical assumption to think veterans are more disposed to be killers, but not at all true in my experience... being a veteran and knowing more than I can count who've been in combat."

Jm0397, that is a fair criticism. My friend Mark saw heavy combat for a long time in Vietnam, and so far as I can tell emerged absolutely unscathed. He has been a fine employee, an excellent father and a successful businessman.

Just the same Stephen King remarks that the Vietnam combat vets left a trail of alcoholism and divorce and fatherless children behind them. Not to mention those left physically crippled or permanently in pain by their injuries suffered in combat. They bear no blame for that, but the full cost of that war exceeds the 50,000 names inscribed on that black wall in Washington.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suspect the division in the country during the Vietnam War would have made it all the more difficult to come to terms which what the vets saw and had to do. Instead of support and understanding they were left on their own while hearing, sensing that what they did was "wrong" somehow.

Today a soldier can be come within 24 hours of combat; they can be in touch with their love ones daily, even in real time. I can’t imagine the impact this might have, personally when I was in the military I preferred having the two worlds separated by a little time. Constant fresh remainder of missing those you cared about onto of the daily home business/issues that I couldn’t be dealt with anyway… then having to remain focused on the task at hand.

Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, I read the end of chapter 2 through chapter five and the book did get better (not to get back on subject or anything)
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Liberal, saying lives are the most important things and shouldn't be sacrificed for "principle" - IS A PRINCIPLE. Feel free to try again using examples.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd say that it depends. Veterans of what?

I suspect that terror veterans, people who have raped and murdered innocents, in the name of getting attention for a cause, are going to continue being dangerous, regardless of where they go. Some folks would have us believe that there's no difference between a terrorist who tortures and kills to make a point, and any soldier who kills on the battlefield. That's what the terrorists would have us believe, too.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Terrorists, criminals, baddies in general, tend to create a 'culture of the damned' in which they reinforcfe their atrocious natures amongst each other, the principle being that of misery loving company.

Lepers stick with lepers.

They tend to force newbies into committing atrocities so they will be 'one of them' and no longer fit to return to society.

This is why it is SO important we send our soldiers into situations they can fully believe in, for the nature of their work is to commit atrocity in solidarity. (That is if you accept that war is, by definition, atrocious.)

Paul of Damascus is, I believe, a terrorist who broke this vicious cycle.

Robert de Niro was in a movie many years back wherein he played a 16th or 17th slaver in the New World who sought redemption from his self-loathing by serving the tribe from which he'd stolen so many souls.

[ August 11, 2006, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, but did you see the self-loathing on de Niro's face after he *returned* to killing? Do you share that character's belief that he'd damned himself, by killing to defend that same tribe from the Spanish slavers?

[ August 11, 2006, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I respect the other priest (Jeremy Irons) and his decision to martyr himself rather than shed blood, but I think that De Niro's decision to fight and kill to protect those people was also honorable.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think he (de Niro's character) realized that, for him at least, there was no escape from the likes of himself. Just as there was no escape from himself.

Interestingly, this is as compelling a display of that theological canard, Original Sin, as anything I've encountered, and a stirring of that essence of self-awareness to which the Redemption of Christ so powerfully appeals.

It's a tricky balance, that stuff. Medeival Catholicism tended to make of it a fatalist nigh-nihilism where only one belief mattered.

But, viewed from a less absolute perspective, one sees the hopelessness of trying to be good by oneself.

(Note: I have recently embraced God. Not as something I believe or disbelieve in, for what good is my belief or lack thereof regarding the ineffable? I have embraced God from sheer desperate honest recognitin that I cannot stomach existence without a Higher Being to give me a lap to snuggle up into when I need to cry and suck my thumb.

As for hereafters and related metaphysics, my position is that of Vladimir Nabokov, who said:

Life is a great surprise. I don't see why death should not be an even greater one. Vladimir Nabokov

This is the same man who said:

The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.

The expression, 'common sense', is a necessary qualifier in that statement. Uncommon -- or if not uncommon but, rather, unverifiable, sense tells us otherwise.

As for faith:

The pages are still blank, but there is a miraculous feeling of the words being there, written in invisible ink and clamoring to become visible.

Anyway, I've rediscovered how much I enjoy prayer. Now that I don't trouble myself over its ultimate validity, it serves me well indeed.

Which reminds me of the other thread on the inherent evil of religion (and by shadowed implication, the inherent benmefits of religion). One of the spources of religious evil, I believe, is when one takes one's Invisible Friend so serious as to dispute thw validity of another's Invisible Friend. That way, I believe, madness lies.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
I think he (de Niro's character) realized that, for him at least, there was no escape from the likes of himself. Just as there was no escape from himself.

I don't understand. He hadn't relapsed. He was acting out of love for the people who he had wronged, and who had forgiven him.

quote:
Interestingly, this is as compelling a display of that theological canard, Original Sin, as anything I've encountered, and a stirring of that essence of self-awareness to which the Redemption of Christ so powerfully appeals.
I utterly reject that non-biblical doctrine. But I'm not sure how you tie it in.

quote:
It's a tricky balance, that stuff. Medeival Catholicism tended to make of it a fatalist nigh-nihilism where only one belief mattered.
nigh-nihilism is a marvelous nigh-word, and I wish I followed your meaning since it sounds very interesting.

quote:
But, viewed from a less absolute perspective, one sees the hopelessness of trying to be good by oneself.
AH. Now I start to follow.

Hmm. You put Jeremy Irons' argument in far more compelling terms than he did.

quote:
(Note: I have recently embraced God. Not as something I believe or disbelieve in, for what good is my belief or lack thereof regarding the ineffable? I have embraced God from sheer desperate honest recognitin that I cannot stomach existence without a Higher Being to give me a lap to snuggle up into when I need to cry and suck my thumb.
Nod. I do believe in God, inescapably, but the belief itself on its own, as a fact, is little comfort to me. As I've said here before, I suspect that salvation comes from knowing God, not from believing *in* him.

Stimulating thoughts and quotes, but I have nothing to say or comment.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't understand. He hadn't relapsed. He was acting out of love for the people who he had wronged, and who had forgiven him.


He was still dealing death and the people he'd oppressed before were going down again. He could hurt them but not save them.

I utterly reject that non-biblical doctrine. But I'm not sure how you tie it in.


The idea that we're essentially ****ed. Life i, as Woody Allen said, a big restaurant, with everyone on the menu. The great cirlce of life is an extended digestive track. Life is a gorgeous miracle; life is vicious to the extreme.

nigh-nihilism is a marvelous nigh-word, and I wish I followed your meaning since it sounds very interesting.


'almost nihilism': belief in one thing only. God is The All. He made IT, the Great Big Unavoidable Everything. Behold nedeival cosmology.

I've no odea whether I believe in God or not, nor do I care. It's beyond me. But I submit to my need for the universe to love and cherish me.

I stand at the cliff's edge and don't shout into the wind but hear it whisper my name with love, because I want to. It feels... wonderful. If it's only myself loving myself, that's fine by me. I need all the love I can get. I can think of no other reason to hang around here but to love and be loved.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is what I get for hijacking other people's threads on Friday. [Frown]
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ingrate. You should thank us.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
True, my thread could have been forgotten and swept aside, but you have given it a new life (a la Frankenstein).
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As for accomodating an immoral enemy: life's full of tricky decsions. No escaping it. As I see it, the biggest problem is when a tricky decision becomes a dogmatic demonization of the enemy.

Which is what almost always happens, and too often creates problems worse than the presence/actions of the immoral enemy.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1