Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 27, 2015, 09:36:53 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
85047 Posts in 2266 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Israel, and its neighbors
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] Print
Author Topic: Israel, and its neighbors  (Read 262184 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #2050 on: January 30, 2015, 10:34:36 AM »

Good find Obj.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4356


« Reply #2051 on: January 31, 2015, 09:31:01 AM »

I am biased in favor of Israel while this site is the opposite.   Still keeping an open mind I read with interest some of these articles:

http://irmep.org/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #2052 on: February 01, 2015, 10:23:19 PM »


http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/syrian-rebel-video-shows-devastating-use-of-attack-tunnel/?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breaking+News+Video%3A+Syrian+Rebel+Video+Shows+Devastating+Use+of+Attack+Tunnel&utm_campaign=20150201_m124226744_2%2F1+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Syrian+Rebel+Video+Shows+Devastating+Use+of+Attack+Tunnel&utm_term=Syrian+Rebel+Video+Shows+Devastating+Use+of+Attack+Tunnel

Alternate URL  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma_DI_UfaBE&x-yt-ts=1422579428&x-yt-cl=85114404

Dramatic new video footage shows the Free Syrian Army (FSA) battling Assad's forces in the critically strategic city of Idlib in North-western Syria. Idlib is the connector route between Aleppo and the Assad-dominated port of Latakia on the Mediterranean coastal area. The originally rebel-published video highlights the rebels blowing up a massive Assad regime building that they had tunneled under. A rebel “sniper” then uses an M-40 recoilless rifle to fire into the building that had just been leveled. The rebel snipes at his target for about 5 minutes before the Assad forces are able to locate his nest and return counter-fire to his position. The Syrian rebels survive the Assad forces' counter-fire, fire one more M-40 round, and appear to start to move to a new M-40 sniper nest. “Alluhu Akbar” or “G-d is great” can be heard repeatedly throughout the video, signaling success. The M-40 sports a 105mm (4.1”) diameter cartridge that can be armed with either a regular high-explosive warhead or an anti-tank HEAT warhead. The M-40 is “recoilless” in that there is virtually no recoil from the firing of the M-40 round – like there is in the firing of a mortar or a Katyusha rocket. “HEAT” stands for High Explosive Anti-Tank, where there are usually two different components, one that pre-explodes or disarms the tank’s explosive-reactive armor, and a high-speed projectile that then passes through the remaining tank armor into the core of the tank. The M-40 has an effective firing range from about 1 kilometer to a maximum range of about 6.8 kilometers (about 3 miles). It is widely available throughout the world and is very widely used by the rebels against the Assad-Iranian-Hezbollah forces in Syria. The M-40 can be mounted on a jeep, but in the Syrian theater has been mostly used on a tripod as is shown in the video.

Watch Here

Lessons for Israel - There are important lessons to be learned from the video regarding what could happen if Israel ever withdraws from Judea and Samaria. For instance, an M-40 is small enough to be easily transported into and concealed in a high-rise Palestinian residential apartment building, from where a Palestinian terrorist could destroy with pinpoint accuracy anything with 6.8 kilometers of his nest. The M-40 could then be quickly moved out of the apartment, making Israeli return fire on that specific apartment entirely ineffective. And, the IDF would be blamed for firing into a Palestinian civilian building. Route 1 from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is highly exposed and in easy TOW anti-tank or M-40 range of Palestinian villages. Jerusalem would be unreachable, since the Palestinian state would include the mountains surrounding Route 1 from the north and the south.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2015, 10:25:44 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #2053 on: February 02, 2015, 09:52:44 PM »

 By
Bret Stephens
Feb. 2, 2015 7:41 p.m. ET
103 COMMENTS

Even friends of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are second-guessing his decision to accept House Speaker John Boehner ’s invitation to address Congress next month on the subject of Iran, over loud objections from the Obama administration. The prospect of the speech, those friends say, has sparked a needless crisis between Jerusalem and Washington. And it has put Democrats to an invidious choice between their loyalty to the president and their support for the Jewish state, jeopardizing the bipartisan basis of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Sensible concerns—except for a few things. Relations between Israel and the U.S. have been in crisis nearly from the moment President Obama stepped into office. Democratic support for Israel has been eroding for decades. It was the U.S. president, not the Israeli prime minister, who picked this fight.

Oh, and if there’s going to be a blowout in U.S.-Israel relations, is now really a worse time than later this year, when the Obama administration will have further cornered Israel with its Iran diplomacy?

Because memories are short, let’s remind ourselves of the Ur-moment in the Bibi-Barack drama. It happened on May 18, 2009, when Mr. Netanyahu, in office for just a few weeks, arrived to a White House that was demanding that he endorse Palestinian statehood and freeze settlements, even as the administration was rebuffing Israeli requests to set a deadline for the nascent nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

The result: Within a month of that meeting, Mr. Netanyahu duly endorsed Palestinian statehood in a speech at Israel’s right-wing Bar-Ilan University—roughly the equivalent of Mr. Obama going to a meeting of the Sierra Club and urging its members to get over their opposition to fracking. By the end of the year, Mr. Netanyahu further infuriated his right-wing base by agreeing to a 10-month settlement freeze, which even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged was “unprecedented.”

What did Mr. Netanyahu get in return from Mr. Obama? While the president stuck to his refusal to set “an artificial deadline,” he did concede in a joint press conference that “we’re not going to have talks forever. We’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear—and deploying a nuclear weapon.”

The promise not to “have talks forever” was made six years ago. Since then, diplomatic efforts have included the 2009 “fuel swap” proposal; the 2010 Brazil-Turkey-Iran declaration; the 2011 Russian “step-by-step proposal”; the 2012 diplomatic rounds in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow; and finally the 2013 “Joint Plan of Action,” a six-month interim deal that is now in its 13th month.

Now Mr. Obama is vowing to veto the bipartisan Kirk-Menendez bill that would end the charade by imposing sanctions on Iran in the event Tehran doesn’t sign an acceptable nuclear deal by the summer—that is, after the third deadline for the interim agreement has expired. The president is also demanding that Democrats rally around him in his histrionic fit over the Netanyahu speech. This is from the same administration that, as Politico’s David Rogers reminds us, never bothered to consult Mr. Boehner on its invitation to South Korean President Lee Myung-bak to address Congress in 2011.

This history is worth recalling because it underscores the unpleasant truth about America in the age of Obama. The president collects hard favors from allies and repays them with neglect and derision. He is eager to accommodate the political needs of authoritarian leaders like Iran’s Hasan Rouhani but has no use for the political needs of elected leaders like Mr. Netanyahu. He believes that it is for other statesmen to stake their political lives and risk their national future for the sake of a moral principle—at least as Mr. Obama defines that principle. As for him, the only thing sacred is his own political convenience.

This is the mentality of a peevish and callow potentate. Not the least of the reasons Mr. Netanyahu must not give in to pressure to cancel his speech is that he could expect to get nothing out of it from the administration, while humiliating Mr. Boehner in the bargain.

Mr. Netanyahu also needs to speak because Congress deserves an unvarnished account of the choice to which Mr. Obama proposes to put Israel: either accede to continued diplomacy with Iran, and therefore its de facto nuclearization; or strike Iran militarily in defiance of the U.S. and Mr. Obama’s concordat with Tehran. A congressional vote in favor of Kirk-Menendez would at least make good on Mr. Obama’s unmet promise not to use talks as “an excuse for inaction.”

Above all, Mr. Netanyahu needs to speak because Israel cannot expect indefinite support from the U.S. if it acts like a fretful and obedient client to a cavalier American patron. The margin of Israel’s security is measured not by anyone’s love but by the respect of friends and enemies alike. By giving this speech, Mr. Netanyahu is demanding that respect. Irritating the president is a small price to pay for doing so.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #2054 on: February 08, 2015, 12:23:00 PM »

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/breaking-nyt-admits-obama-deliberately-manufactured-netanyahu-spat/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #2055 on: February 15, 2015, 04:50:54 PM »

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on Sunday morning for the "massive immigration" of European Jews to Israel following the shooting attack outside a Copenhagen synagogue that killed a Danish Jew. Netanyahu says the government on Sunday will discuss a $46 million plan to encourage Jewish immigration from France, Belgium and Ukraine. "This wave of attacks is expected to continue," Netanyahu said at the start of a Cabinet meeting. "Jews deserve security in every country, but we say to our Jewish brothers and sisters, Israel is your home." In an interview with Ynet on Sunday morning, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said European Jews should view Israel as their home. "Israel is always waiting for them. This will never change. Jews can and should have the right to live anywhere, but if there are Jews who are concerned about their future, we are certainly waiting for them," Bennett said.

Some European countries are becoming dangerous for Jews, he said, and his party, Bayit Yehudi, was "profoundly concerned" about a rise of radical Islamic terror and anti-Semitism in the continent. "I spoke today with the leader of the community in Denmark, and they are very worried about what's going on," he added. He argued that the fight aganist Islamic terror in Europe is not a lost cause, "but first and foremost, they have to wake up. They have to identify the threat. They have to realize that these aren't sporadic attacks. There's a very clear and intentional attack on the free world from radical Islam. "We've got to fight it in Iran, fight it in Iraq, fight it in Gaza, Lebanon, and in Europe and America. The world should help Israel fight radical Islam instead of twisting our arm to give in to radical Islam." Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman the two shootings at a synagogue and another at a free speech event, "prove what we have said over the years – that Israel and the Jews are affected by this terrorism before anyone else because they are on the frontline in the war terror is waging against the West and the entire free world." Lieberman called on the international community "to ask for more than declarations and demonstrations against this terrorism, but also shake off the rules of political correctness and fight a real all-out war against Islamic terror and its roots." Minister Lieberman said the Foreign Ministry is in close contact with the Israeli Embassy in Denmark and was following events as they unfolded. President of the Conference of European Rabbis, Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, condemned the attacks, dubbing it “both sickening and a sign of the worsening extremism spreading across Europe." "The Jewish community in Denmark is a microcosm of what is happening to Jewish communities across the continent. On the one hand they are under attack from extremist Muslims who see every Jew as a legitimate target, on the other hand, freedom of religion is curtailed by the government, religious slaughter has been forbidden and the parliament is in discussions about the future of religious circumcision," he said. "I truly hope that this latest attack will lead the people of Denmark to rally behind the Jewish community just as they did in 1943, securing the future of the community.”
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4356


« Reply #2056 on: February 15, 2015, 06:41:18 PM »

Unfortunately Israel is not exactly safe for Jews.  Just a few Iranian nukes could wipe out 50% of the World's Jews.  I hate to be a fatalist but.....
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #2057 on: February 16, 2015, 05:57:33 PM »



https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152377793368717
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 665


« Reply #2058 on: February 18, 2015, 11:17:06 AM »

And further - I would argue - and I think it's been amply demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt by his actions - that Obama hates Jews.

Is Israel the Problem, or is it Jews?

Ben Shapiro - February 18, 2015 - www.truthrevolt.org

In the aftermath of the killing of a man at a Copenhagen synagogue by a member of the Religion of Peace, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, "This wave of attacks is expected to continue. Jews deserve security in every country, but we say to our Jewish brothers and sisters, Israel is your home." Russian emigre Natan Sharansky echoed Netanyahu's call, stating, "There is no future for Jews in western Europe."

In response, European leaders shouted down Netanyahu. "We know there are doubts, questions across the community," said French President Francois Hollande, who was elected with in excess of 93 percent of the Muslim vote. "I will not just let what was said in Israel pass, leading people to believe that Jews no longer have a place in Europe and France, in particular." The same week, Jewish tombstones were spray-painted by the hundreds in eastern France.

But undoubtedly, European anti-Semites will now claim that Netanyahu's comments simply demonstrate why Europe must force out its Jews: because Israel is just so awful. That, at least, is what a German court in the city of Wuppertal concluded after convicting two German Palestinians of setting fire to a synagogue. The Wuppertal court stated that the men were simply attempting to bring "attention to the Gaza conflict." In other words, Jews are fair game because of Israel.

But it's precisely the reverse that is true: Israel is fair game because it is Jewish. This is the dirty little secret of anti-Israel policy: It is almost entirely anti-Semitic policy. That is why Muslims attack Jewish synagogues in Paris during the Gaza war: because Israel is a stand-in for the Jews, not the other way around. Were Israel a Muslim country, the rest of the world would see it as a beacon of light and hope for the future of an entire religion. Because it is Jewish, Muslims target it for destruction, and the rest of the world tut-tuts Israel's nasty habit of attempting to survive. The extra-American world hates Israel because it is Jewish. It does not hate Jews because of Israel. Israel is merely a convenient excuse.

Ironically, radical Muslims, in targeting Jews throughout the world, reinforce the necessity of a state of Israel. Their argument seems to be that Israel is an unnecessary Jewish nationalist cancer; to prove that argument, they suggest killing Jews all over the planet, leaving no place safe for Jews except for Israel.

And so Jews go to Israel by the droves. European governments can rip Netanyahu all they want for his supposedly brusque dismissal of European tolerance, but that supposed tolerance means less and less when Swedish Jews abandon entire cities as the authorities make way for radical Muslims. European governments can condemn the Gaza war, but Jews see that war for what it was: an exercise in Jewish self-preservation, with the Europeans once again attempting to prevent such self-preservation.

Unlike the Europeans, Americans continue to side with Israel because America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles. America embraces Judaism, and so it embraces Israel, not the other way around. The formula is simple: Love Jews; love Israel. Hate Jews; hate Israel. Opposing Israeli action may not be anti-Semitism, but it sure does have a funny habit of backing the agenda of anti-Semites.


Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #2059 on: February 18, 2015, 04:52:47 PM »

Netanyahu’s Capitol Hill Debacle
The Israeli leader and House speaker are risking a rupture in U.S.-Israel relations.
By
William A. Galston
Feb. 17, 2015 7:20 p.m. ET
WSJ

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ’s speech to Congress on March 3 will be both a nakedly partisan event and a momentous policy clash.

Speaking on “Fox News Sunday” this weekend, House Speaker John Boehner was frank about his motives for leaving the White House in the dark about the invitation. “I wanted to make sure that there was no interference,” he said, citing White House “animosity” toward the Israeli leader: “I frankly didn’t want that getting in the way, quashing what I thought was a real opportunity.” Asked whether he had turned what has been a rare bipartisan issue into a political dispute, Mr. Boehner replied, “We had every right to do what we did”—a debatable response to a different question.

If inviting the prime minister of a major American ally to address a joint session of Congress two weeks before his country’s general election without notifying the president and congressional Democratic leaders isn’t rank partisanship, I don’t know what is. Mr. Netanyahu, who is hardly inexperienced in the ways of Washington, had to know how this would be received. The inescapable inference is that he did not care, and it isn’t hard to see why.

Begin with the obvious. While accepting Mr. Boehner’s invitation in principle, the prime minister could have told the House speaker that he was unable to leave Israel until after the election. There is no part of Mr. Netanyahu’s message to Congress that would be less relevant or influential for U.S. audiences if it were delivered on April 3 rather than March 3. There is only one audience for whom the timing might make a difference—the Israeli electorate.

But this is about much more than electoral politics. For Prime Minister Netanyahu, it is an existential question, as he made clear in a statement last week that Israel has “a profound disagreement with the United States administration and the rest of the P5+1 over the offer that has been made to Iran. This offer would enable Iran to threaten Israel’s survival.”

Mr. Netanyahu is determined to prevent this offer, or anything like it, from becoming U.S. policy. To that end, he is prepared to mobilize a Republican-led Congress against the president, to force longtime Democratic supporters of Israel to choose between him and President Obama—and, if necessary, to turn U.S.-Israel relations into the partisan issue it has rarely been.

And why not? The prime minister views himself as this generation’s Winston Churchill, with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei cast as Adolf Hitler. To bring the U.S. into the looming conflict, Churchill worked with Franklin Roosevelt to overcome a reluctant Congress. Now Mr. Netanyahu must work with Congress to overcome a reluctant president. And like Churchill, Mr. Netanyahu believes that words are his best weapons—words delivered by one man standing alone on a rostrum representing an embattled ally, invoking common interests, shared principles and the bonds of friendship.

The prime minister is confident that he can do this without weakening, let alone rupturing, the relationship between Israel and the U.S. His statement last week featured a long list of past security disagreements between the two countries despite which, he insists, the relationship grew stronger over time.

But this time could be different. In a recent interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic magazine, Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. and one of Mr. Netanyahu’s closest advisers, detailed Israel’s concerns:

“Israel’s policy is not merely to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon today; it is also to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon in the future. And Israel is very concerned that a deal will be forged that will not dismantle Iran’s nuclear-weapons capability. . . . That is an outcome that is unacceptable to Israel.” Specifically, Israel lacks confidence that international inspections would prevent the diversion of materials produced by the many thousands of centrifuges that reportedly would remain under the terms of the emerging agreement. And once the sanctions are lifted, the Iranian nuclear program could accelerate.

Mr. Netanyahu must know that even with much tougher sanctions, the chances of overcoming these concerns through diplomacy are low. The most the Iranians will offer falls far short of the least that Israel will accept. The real choices reduce to two: an Iran with some negotiated level of nuclear infrastructure supervised with a rigorous inspection regime, or war.

The prime minister must also know that although Israel’s military could inflict significant damage on Iran’s nuclear program, his country could at best delay Iran’s march to the bomb.

So when Mr. Netanyahu addresses Congress, a question will be lurking in the shadows: If negotiations leave Israel facing what it regards as an existential threat, should the U.S. accept the deal? And if we do not, is there an alternative that would be more effective, at a price that the war-weary American people would accept?
Popular on WSJ
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 665


« Reply #2060 on: February 18, 2015, 05:04:12 PM »

Exactly what planet is Mr. Galston living on???  "Risking a rupture in U.S.-Israel relations?"  News flash, Mr. Galston - that happened LONG ago - and was initiated by Barack Obama and his administration.  Morality is not relative.  It's frightening to watch the abject denial of reality being exhibited by most of the media and by a small but significant minority of liberal Israelis.  Sometimes there is no alternative to war - one might think the world would have learned that after WWII.  Clearly that isn't the case for legions of ignorant and/or deluded fools.

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 665


« Reply #2061 on: February 18, 2015, 07:23:10 PM »

Obama’s Anti-Netanyahu Boycott Is Collapsing

Posted By Moshe Phillips and Benyamin Korn

The final numbers are not yet in, but it seems clear that the White House-orchestrated campaign to boycott Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress is collapsing.

Despite two weeks of intense anti-Netanyahu leaks, insults, and pressure, the White House has so far succeeded in persuading only a handful of Democratic members of Congress to stay away from the speech.

A grand total of two Senators and twelve Representatives have publicly announced that they are boycotting Israel’s prime minister. Assuming that those figures change only marginally in the days ahead, it will mean that 98% of the Senate and 95% of the House of Representatives will be in attendance.

Even the most vocal critics of Prime Minister Netanyahu, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, are not united against the Israeli leader. Emerging from a meeting with President Obama last week, Caucus chairman Rep. G.K. Butterfield told reporters, that the subject of Netanyahu’s speech “didn’t come up” during their 90-minute meeting with the president. But he then proceeded to chastise Israel’s prime minister for supposedly being “disrespectful” to the president, and Congressman Hank Johnson said it was “about President Barack Obama being a black man disrespected by a foreign leader.”

But not all the African-American congress members joined the anti-Netanyahu chorus. U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), who is the only senator in the Congressional Black Caucus, refused to toe the line. The Politico reports that when his colleagues began lambasting Prime Minister Netanyahu, reporters asked Booker where he stood, and he pointedly dissented, saying “I’ve been asked that a number of times–I’m not commenting.”

Knowing of Senator Booker’s longtime support for Israel and close relationship with many American Jewish leaders, we find it difficult that he will go along with an insulting and disrespectful boycott of Israel’s prime minister.

Another major crack in the anti-Netanyahu boycott effort appeared this weekend in the form of a message from Elie Wiesel in a full page advertisement in the New York Times and Washington Post, sponsored by “This World: The Values Network.”

The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate has always been something of a moral compass for the Jewish people–certainly far more than the two or three Jewish organizational leaders who have been quoted as opposing Netanyahu’s visit. We all remember Wiesel bravely confronting President Reagan over his visit to the Bitburg cemetery, not to mention his speaking out on so many other important issues over the years. So Wiesel’s words in the Times and Post ads carry particular weight.

Wiesel announced that he will personally attend Netanyahu’s speech. He appealed to President Obama and Vice President Biden to “put aside the politics” and hear what Israel’s prime minister has to say. He pointed out that Netanyahu will speak to Congress the day before Purim–the day when, in ancient times, “a wicked man in Persia named Haman” sought to destroy the Jews…”Now Iran, modern Persia, has produced a new enemy,” Wiesel wrote. “The Ayatollah Khomeini has been as clear as his predecessor in declaring his goal: ‘the annihilation and destruction’ of Israel. He is bent on acquiring the weapons needed to make good on the deadly promise.”

Finally, it’s worth mentioning another crack that appeared in the boycott effort this week. The pro-Palestinian lobbying group J Street, which has been the engine driving the boycott movement, has been circulating a poll claiming that 84% of American Jews support President Obama’s position on Iran.

But now the fraudulent methods used to elicit that 84% number have been exposed. It turns out that the respondents were not asked about the actual terms that Obama is negotiating with Iran. They were asked whether they would support an imaginary agreement under which Iran would completely and permanently give up its capability to produce nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, that is not at all what President Obama is insisting upon, according to numerous news reports.

A genuinely objective poll, which asked American Jews whether they want the U.S. to insist that Iran be permanently prevented from having the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons, would surely find the vast majority of Jews in favor.

When Prime Minister Netanyahu appears next month before Congress, with the overwhelming majority of Congress members from both parties in attendance, he will explain the truth about the Iranian threat and the danger of the U.S. agreeing to weak and unenforceable terms.

And that, of course, is what the Obama Administration, J Street, and the other Netanyahu-bashers most wish to prevent.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!