Chat Clubs

   

The Reading Group-Invites ONLY- 4 |p146| (Page 6)

Post Reply New Post

Page 6 of 151

immunoblot

IF-Rockerz

immunoblot

Joined: 25 September 2008

Posts: 5836

Posted: 04 April 2010 at 6:08am | IP Logged
Originally posted by RainbowWarrior

Originally posted by Veritas

But their controllers and the people who planned this whole event did know better .

I think it is is pride..This belief ..that their way is the right way..their belief system is the best and their ideas have the most merit ..may be a sense of victim hood and a hope of bringing back past glory



@bold,
Isn't that more applicable to the so-called free democratic western first-world countries?

Take for example the couple caught having sex on a beach in Dubai. They were fined a paltry sum and sent home free (the govt. here paid). But when the story of their arrest had come out, the British media had gone bonkers over it, saying the jail term of 6 months was too harsh etc etc. Well the public decency laws are strict here but the couple on the beach were aware of it right? (btw, they were also drunk and threatened a police officer when he asked them to stop).
Even though, sex in public is not okay pretty much everywhere in the world, the media portrayed the law here as a medieval subjugating system promoting anarchy, discord and what not.

I might sound racist, but many white folk who come here, except to run naked on the beaches just because the sun is out and there is a beach and according to them this is perfectly normal behaviour.

In my office, I've caught several conversations referring to 'those covered up women' where the speakers are shocked to learn that women who veil themselves in public, not only follow fashion, get higher education degrees but are "like, oh my god! she was actually smart and she could speak in English too".

These modern ladies feel uncomfortable in the presence of veiled women. I get that, no problem. BUT, they find it weird that veiled women feel uncomfortable to see them parade in two-piece bathing suits. It's double standards. I don't get this. The rules should be the same right?

Why exactly is it that their belief system is better than the rest of us? Democracy the best way to run a country? Women in conservative/traditional clothes are oppressed? Eating with our hands uncivilised?

"Terrorists" are targeted for trying to impose their own belief on the population of a particular area/country. Enlightened first-world countries have been imposing their ideologies on the entire world for centuries, but no one can call them a terrorist? What a shame.

(Apologies for going so... uhh.. writing so much).

I tend to agree with what you say, RW ji... but I cannot bring myself to agree with the part in blue. So long as the  belief system isn't founded on tyranny or hate, we wouldn't call it terrorism. Would we??

The Second World War was waged solely for political gains. And yet, the victors proclaimed their victory over the Fascists and Nazis... You see, it is all a matter of portrayal. Come to think of it, had the war not weakened the British empire, Bapu Gandhi would've carried on with his non-violent protests until the day he died, and imperialism and its exploitative hold over the world would not have ceased anywhere near the date it did. And yet we all hail Gandhi and hate Hitler (even though, the latter does deserve a small iota of praise for hurting the Empire and being slightly responsible for making the world go colony-free, as unintentioned as it may be...)
 
I think, if the "terrorists" adopt an approach where they can present their cause without causing grief to the innocent, they wouldn't be called "terrorists"... and in this regard one must separate a terrorist from a fundamentalist (Eastern, or Western)...



Edited by immunoblot - 04 April 2010 at 6:13am

The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

amyriaIncognit0RainbowWarriorVeritaspinkisluv91

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "The Reading Group-Invites ONLY- 4 |p146| (Page 6)" in Chat Clubs forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

axeion

IF-Sizzlerz

axeion

Joined: 19 September 2009

Posts: 20761

Posted: 04 April 2010 at 7:07am | IP Logged
Originally posted by amyria


Hi allSmile
I am late againConfused
@Nitz i am not going to see varudu after your descriptionTongue Oh, u shld see it. Everyone needs to exp it 1st handWink
 
@Xserialji i like siddharth too.I saw all his movies multiple timesWink except stricker.
Also I like comedy and fantasy movies.I prefer a comedy low budget movie over super star one.
I agree, I love the small budget movies more than multi-starer. Have u seen Vinayakudu and Avakai Biryani?
 
hi Axeion ji ,pinki am happy now after all the confusionLOLLOLLOL
We were waiting for u n Nitz to come online, but u guys ditched usAngry and we had to surrenderOuch
 


Edited by axeion - 04 April 2010 at 7:07am

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

amyriaIncognit0-Aladin-pinkisluv91

RainbowWarrior

IF-Dazzler

RainbowWarrior

IJSMB Banner Contest Winner.

Joined: 13 October 2005

Posts: 3781

Posted: 05 April 2010 at 12:10am | IP Logged
Originally posted by immunoblot

Originally posted by RainbowWarrior

... and why is a forward country like India still a thrid world country / developing nation? How exactly does a nation become first world? Why are there no second world countries? How do three worlds fit on to one world?...

Uh, RW ji the different worlds were created to highlight which part of the divide different nations were during the cold war. US and the NATO allies were the First World, the Soviets made up the Second World, and the rest were grouped as Third World. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Sceond World ceased to exist. The First World almost exclusively comprised the developed countries; while the Third World nations were largely impoverished. The terms thus ended up signifying the economic prosperity of the "Worlds"...
India is barely forward. 40% of our population subsists on less than 1 dollar (purchasing power parity) per person per day. The malnourishment in children of backward states is more severe than in Rwanda/Sudan. We definitely belong to the third world category. (China, with a more prolific and stronger economy insists on calling itself a Third World country. So, you can imagine how aptly placed India is.)


Thanks for explaining.
It still sounds like a derogatory term. The sole purpose does not seem to be mere categorisation here... Why not just go for Third World economy then...?

Originally posted by immunoblot

Originally posted by RainbowWarrior

"Terrorists" are targeted for trying to impose their own belief on the population of a particular area/country. Enlightened first-world countries have been imposing their ideologies on the entire world for centuries, but no one can call them a terrorist? What a shame. [/B]



I tend to agree with what you say, RW ji... but I cannot bring myself to agree with the part in blue. So long as the belief system isn't founded on tyranny or hate, we wouldn't call it terrorism. Would we??


Colonies were built on tyranny, were they not? And hate was a major part of it too. To a great degree the same line of thought still persists, even though it is less obvious and not out in the open as before.

Some businesses for instance, hire people of a certain race/religion for higher posts, so that they can keep their ideologies first. I'm not saying this is against the law but it is a hidden means of control that goes all the way up to governments where certain folk are kept out of decision making roles.

Years of failure to 'get in' would ultimately lead to resentment and the further alienation of the groups not allowed, leading to sectarianism and possible violence. The more violent, aggressive and politically motivated people among these groups would naturally levitate towards more extreme methods and finally terrorism.

This system of selective acceptance and control on the part of the people in power (group 1) does push people to extremes. Not everyone reacts the same way and the majority of the world population just resigns themselves to the way things are and tries harder to fit in (group 2) to whatever mould group 1 has decided upon. Another section retorts back peacefully but seldom gets very far (group 3) and the smallest group resorts to violence and mostly just get's people killed (group 4), and scares group 2 so much that group 1 is given further power to do whatever they want to annihilate group 4 and if some innocent people of group 3 get hurt in the mix, who cares? They shouldn't be so out spoken in the first place, they should try harder to fit in (even in their own countries).

9/11 was a horrible event but does it justify the action of the US in Afghanistan? Exactly a month after the tragedy, the US killed twice the number of people who had died in a single strike. If some one dropped a bomb over my home right now, I'd definitely call them terrorists, regardless of, if the rest of the world agreed with me or not, and I'd be very very very terrified.
The Taliban is still not gone, do the 'first world countries' really think killing everyone will solve anything? And if they do, then they are no different from the terrorists they are targeting.

I'm not sure I should read this book, I haven't even started yet and I'm so worked up.... Confused

The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

amyriaIncognit0immunoblotaxeionpinkisluv91

immunoblot

IF-Rockerz

immunoblot

Joined: 25 September 2008

Posts: 5836

Posted: 05 April 2010 at 2:01am | IP Logged
Originally posted by RainbowWarrior

Originally posted by immunoblot

Originally posted by RainbowWarrior

... and why is a forward country like India still a thrid world country / developing nation? How exactly does a nation become first world? Why are there no second world countries? How do three worlds fit on to one world?...

Uh, RW ji the different worlds were created to highlight which part of the divide different nations were during the cold war. US and the NATO allies were the First World, the Soviets made up the Second World, and the rest were grouped as Third World. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Sceond World ceased to exist. The First World almost exclusively comprised the developed countries; while the Third World nations were largely impoverished. The terms thus ended up signifying the economic prosperity of the "Worlds"...
India is barely forward. 40% of our population subsists on less than 1 dollar (purchasing power parity) per person per day. The malnourishment in children of backward states is more severe than in Rwanda/Sudan. We definitely belong to the third world category. (China, with a more prolific and stronger economy insists on calling itself a Third World country. So, you can imagine how aptly placed India is.)



Thanks for explaining.
It still sounds like a derogatory term. The sole purpose does not seem to be mere categorisation here... Why not just go for Third World economy then...?

I think, in most academic texts countries are no longer referred to as "First World" or "Third World"... Besides, the way the term is applied to us, is our own choice. If Indians work with the spirit of serving the Nation and countrymen, we'll become a First World country, and nobody will object to the title then...

Originally posted by RainbowWarrior

Originally posted by immunoblot

Originally posted by RainbowWarrior

"Terrorists" are targeted for trying to impose their own belief on the population of a particular area/country. Enlightened first-world countries have been imposing their ideologies on the entire world for centuries, but no one can call them a terrorist? What a shame. [/B]


I tend to agree with what you say, RW ji... but I cannot bring myself to agree with the part in blue. So long as the belief system isn't founded on tyranny or hate, we wouldn't call it terrorism. Would we??


Colonies were built on tyranny, were they not? And hate was a major part of it too. To a great degree the same line of thought still persists, even though it is less obvious and not out in the open as before.

Some businesses for instance, hire people of a certain race/religion for higher posts, so that they can keep their ideologies first. I'm not saying this is against the law but it is a hidden means of control that goes all the way up to governments where certain folk are kept out of decision making roles.

Years of failure to 'get in' would ultimately lead to resentment and the further alienation of the groups not allowed, leading to sectarianism and possible violence. The more violent, aggressive and politically motivated people among these groups would naturally levitate towards more extreme methods and finally terrorism.

This system of selective acceptance and control on the part of the people in power (group 1) does push people to extremes. Not everyone reacts the same way and the majority of the world population just resigns themselves to the way things are and tries harder to fit in (group 2) to whatever mould group 1 has decided upon. Another section retorts back peacefully but seldom gets very far (group 3) and the smallest group resorts to violence and mostly just get's people killed (group 4), and scares group 2 so much that group 1 is given further power to do whatever they want to annihilate group 4 and if some innocent people of group 3 get hurt in the mix, who cares? They shouldn't be so out spoken in the first place, they should try harder to fit in (even in their own countries).

9/11 was a horrible event but does it justify the action of the US in Afghanistan? Exactly a month after the tragedy, the US killed twice the number of people who had died in a single strike. If some one dropped a bomb over my home right now, I'd definitely call them terrorists, regardless of, if the rest of the world agreed with me or not, and I'd be very very very terrified.
The Taliban is still not gone, do the 'first world countries' really think killing everyone will solve anything? And if they do, then they are no different from the terrorists they are targeting.

I'm not sure I should read this book, I haven't even started yet and I'm so worked up.... Confused

Much of the World is decolonized today. There are still struggles in parts of the world to overthrow the rulers and to establish self-rule; but most of these struggles will be considered baseless/groundless. In our great Indian Nation itself, there are separatist movements... the northeastern states, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and Kashmir (with all the world attention) are examples of Indian territories which want to/wanted to split from the Indian Union. And, you can imagine... if we start discussing whether these territories are victims of tyranny then we will be able to view every political act as tyrannical...

Imperialism hasn't ended.... it has just changed its shape... and this will be the colour of our world for as long as we live. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are principal reasons why practically the whole world hates the Americans and their foreign policy. I don't know how the red-necks in the US view their government's actions, most people elsewhere in ("First World") Europe were/are against the war. They think just like you... but would still refrain from calling the US a terrorist state because the US managed to sufficiently present themselves as victims and avengers. You see, it all depends on how well you present yourself.

This thing about presentation... While they were the colonialists, the British carried the "white man's burden" and tried to civilize us, even as they underhandedly robbed our nation. Today, Britain is proudly multi-cultural, and absorbing the "richness" of all people who live there. (IDK, maybe the US is more multicultural, but there is no other nation in Eurpoe, where there are so many foreigners.)
In any case, either ways, they do better than the "terrorists"... they just moulded their policies to suit the climate and the temperament of the world. (And this is what the "terrorists" of today are not doing. Which includes the US too, but not completely.)


RW ji, you should read the book. It supports your views, I think. I haven't started reading it either, but I assume that the story is very inspiring... You'll surely enjoy it...
We've taken the discussion where it doesn't belong... I think the message of the book is that education can help to overcome poverty. Overcoming terrorism is kinda far-fetched...

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

amyriaIncognit0RainbowWarriorpinkisluv91

axeion

IF-Sizzlerz

axeion

Joined: 19 September 2009

Posts: 20761

Posted: 05 April 2010 at 5:13am | IP Logged

Originally posted by Veritas

Ok I am going to post the First question relevant to our Book.

From what I have heard..Three Cups of Teas is required reading for anyone visiting the AF-PAK region.

Doesn't that give in to the assumption that terrorism is a socio-economic problem rather than a political one and can be solved by better education and amenities.

Doesn't Bin laden and his ideology blow a hole through that theory...

 

I love this, now u guys can't stop me from pulling politics into everything...

 

Coming back to ur question, the quote you proposed "Three Cups of Tea is required reading for anyone visiting the AF-PAK region." Ok, now where does it even talk about terrorism!

 

It doesn't give into any assumptions about terrorism; it's just a piece of information about the area u might be visiting. If someone is visiting India, maybe I would recommend them to read "May you be the mother of hundred sons", "The Splendor of Silence", "Discovery of India" or maybe something else.  Would that mean I am asking them to make some assumptions about a certain condition prevalent in India? Hell, No!

 

Moving to the terrorism part of the question, since we don't have a clear-cut definition of what terrorism is, I feel it is just one more form of governance like capitalism, socialism, communism and/or democracy! Thus, it includes a little of Political, socio-economic and geographical conditions each. Osama is a leader just like Gandhi, Bose, Hitler, Napoleon, Churchill, You-know-who and our very own Kronos!!! I had a lot to say, but enough has been said already. I'll try to counter-argue a bunch of viewpoints here though! Just a quick question before I move-on,What will u call ppl like Chandrasekhar Azad? I feel it's all about fight for acceptance/freedom and the power that comes with it!!!  And, do we have a definition of Terrorism???

 

On a side-note,"Reading Lolita in Tehran" is a good book too!!!

 

Originally posted by Veritas


I am just at the  5th chapter and till now there has been no mention of terrorism. Its just that people mention poverty and lack of education as a cause for terrorism.
So I thought the question was valid.

But agree Whole heartedly   with you Blot ji...Just look at the student who committed Suicide for the Telangana issue or the kids who had burned themselves during the mandal era..weren't they educated. They knew how to read /Write and do arithemetic..something that makes them literate according to the state. But they still decided to do waht they did.
At that particular age you are fairly  impressionable and  arrogant about your infallibility to  fall for ideas like that.

I don't think there is a solution to terrorism either...but violence  cannot be completely ruled out.We need to have a multi pronged approach for a solution.


There is no age to influence the human mind, IMO! There is no solution to terrorism; it's not a condition, it's a choice people make! Just like the government we choose.

Originally posted by Veritas


Originally posted by Xserial_queenX


I have heard this debate many times before. My two history teachers always discuss whether or not terrorism is a political problem rather than a education one. One teacher believes that ignorance leads to these ideas about how violence will solve everything while my other teacher believes that the people who choose to be terrorists get an education so they can accomplish their goals better.

I personally feel that it's a problem of ignorance. I think people who are uneducated get brainwashed by others, thus end up feeling a strong emotion towards the subject and want to do what's "right" as their leader says.

Hmm sorry if my answer is confusing


Your answer does make sense...but that is one aspect of it.

The foot soldiers..The guys who blow themselves up or ram a plane into a building can be labeled as ignorant or misguided fools.

Example one of the terrorists in 26/11  didn't know how to use a tap(according one of the survivors)..When I heard that ..I didn't know whether to feel sorry for him or mad at him.

But their controllers   and the people who planned this whole event  did know better .

I think it  is is pride..This belief ..that their way is the right way..their belief system is the best  and their ideas have the most merit  ..may be a sense of victim  hood  and  a hope of bringing back past glory

The planner was Kronos, and the followers: Luke and Ares!!!

Originally posted by Veritas

Originally posted by pinkisluv91


Terrorism can be partially solved through a better education and amenities. I agree, but it can't be fully solved. It's a problem that can't be solved. 

Most terrorists are depressed people who want to kill themselves and everyone else and so they do these violent acts and sometimes end up dying themselves. They don't care about their life. If they were educated they would probably understand that it would be pointless to kill others and themselves for no reason and that life is valuable. If they had better lives and better amenities they wouldn't think of doing all these acts:)

Like I said I can't understand terrorism at all. It's illogical to me.


Pinks...tht almost sounds like my friends "great depression" answer .

It would be quiet easy to dismiss it like that,but if things were that simple..we would never have had a murder or  a war. Sometimes violence is necessary.

 

Violence is necessary always, it's a simple theory of "Survival of the Fittest"'a reason we - the HomoSapiens exist today!!! We had to turn violent towards the wild before they could kill us, and survive! When violence is used in today's world, it is still based on the same principle. Two countries resort to violence to prove their superiority over the other. When US nuked Japan in WWII, it was just to establish their superiority over the other nations and survive the war!

 

Originally posted by nitz17

I think terrorism is affected by social, economic, political and Environmental issues. Terrorists need manpower to spread their terror and the people under poverty line are likely the easy targets to influence and manipulate. In countries Afghanistan the governments are very unstable and weak, so the situation is favorable for the rise of terrorism.  Mountain ranges provide a perfect cover along with the weather conditions and also being elusive and land-locked. So even the geographic factors also provide a platform for the terrorism activities, like camping and weapon handling classes.

We have white collared people as much involved as blue collared people in spreading terror. So I feel that terrorism is not caused just by poverty, but also having superiority/inferiority complex, hatred and the feeling of being ignored.  When they take arms in their hands, they sense the power it gives them and think they have no other option to fight the inequality other than terrorizing the nation. They think that their voice has to reach us, unaware of the fact that the forces that gave them arms are manipulating them and driving them with other ulterior motives.

Education alone cannot solve the problem, teaching us how to empathize with other human beings and also educating us how to respect other cultures. This does not apply only to people terror prone areas but everyone.  So I feel, working on erasing ignorance from minds is the first step to attack terrorism.



Will Rockies be a good spot for Arms Training due to its location and huge Indian reservations?

I agree education cannot solve this issue, infact it gives u more options to exploit it better! All throughout my Networks Security classes, we had to come up with better ideas to break the algos! When u have ample knowledge of something, its easy to tamper with it. Same goes for terrorism and education, when ppl know a lot abt the disparities of the world, they come up with better ways to either end it or increase it.


Originally posted by amyria

Terrorism is not related to lack of education alone.Even educated tends to terrorism.

when a group is deprived they rebel.That may be in any way.

Terrorism is caused by multiple reasons.Each part of the world has their own independent cause for building terrorism.Its never a universal cause.

Poverty,globalisation,non-democracy,lack of economic sources,religion are some of the relative   causes for terrorism.Most of the terrorist were those who has no mental stability.They could be educated or uneducated.

I personally feel as the terrorism followers are always the victims(may be not everyone)

They were only into it for personal reasons like poverty,for their family welfare(sucide bombers) or 'coz of anti-humanity nature.

Violence is necessary to achive some rights but today violence is out of imagination

 

We feel terrorism is caused by various reasons bcoz there are various forms of terrorism. The Hindutva movement started by some Indian Politicians in summer 2008 was also a form of Terrorism, and so was the fight for freedom waged by the likes of Chandrashekhar Azad, Subhash Chadra Bose and Bhagat Singh.

 

Originally posted by RainbowWarrior


And by that method, if we didn't have weapons of any kind on this planet, suicidal terrorists would only be able to kill themselves and no one else. Problem solved AND the US would probably become the poorest nation with no weapons to sell
Any one know a good weapon vanishing spell?

 

LoL, that would only help you stop the physical war, how will u put an end to the electronic/information warfare and all other kinds of wars? How will u stop the Iranian anti-social elements from manipulating the feeds from US Drones' flying over Iran? How will stop the members of HAI from hacking the Australian supermarket networks just bcoz some Indian students were attacked by a bunch of Australian goons???

 

In the end,  @whole debate abt the 1st, 2nd and 3rd world countries; US is fastly heading towards being a Socialist country, so don't worry, the 2nd world would resurface soon!

 

And, the current definitions available for terrorism are defined by FBI and the US govt. According to US ideology, communism is also a form of terrorism, but they don't say it; just to please the Maoist govt, or else they will lose all their cheap labor and the US engineering industry will be hurt badly!


And finally, why do u think the US troops are not moving out of Iran? Why were the Oil-well owners allowed to sell oil only in exchange of USD until half a decade ago when they started selling it for Euros? 


 



Edited by axeion - 05 April 2010 at 5:16am

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

amyriaRainbowWarriorimmunoblotpinkisluv91

axeion

IF-Sizzlerz

axeion

Joined: 19 September 2009

Posts: 20761

Posted: 05 April 2010 at 5:25am | IP Logged
Originally posted by RainbowWarrior

I'm not sure I should read this book, I haven't even started yet and I'm so worked up.... Confused
RW ji, I am not reading it. I started with great spirit but I lost interest after the first 20 pages, the only saving grace is those bunch of pictures in it Wink Don't bother about reading it if u r busy with work, I can give u company for that Wink

The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

amyriaIncognit0RainbowWarrior-Aladin-pinkisluv91

Incognit0

IF-Dazzler

Incognit0

Joined: 15 February 2010

Posts: 2897

Posted: 05 April 2010 at 5:31am | IP Logged
Originally posted by axeion

Originally posted by RainbowWarrior

I'm not sure I should read this book, I haven't even started yet and I'm so worked up.... Confused
RW ji, I am not reading it. I started with great spirit but I lost interest after the first 20 pages, the only saving grace is those bunch of pictures in it Wink Don't bother about reading it if u r busy with work, I can give u company for that Wink


Looks like I am not the only one here.... Confused.... I need to start from today at least

The following 6 member(s) liked the above post:

amyria-Aladin-RainbowWarriorimmunoblotaxeionpinkisluv91

axeion

IF-Sizzlerz

axeion

Joined: 19 September 2009

Posts: 20761

Posted: 05 April 2010 at 6:10am | IP Logged
Originally posted by nitz17

Originally posted by axeion

Originally posted by RainbowWarrior

I'm not sure I should read this book, I haven't even started yet and I'm so worked up.... Confused
RW ji, I am not reading it. I started with great spirit but I lost interest after the first 20 pages, the only saving grace is those bunch of pictures in it Wink Don't bother about reading it if u r busy with work, I can give u company for that Wink


Looks like I am not the only one here.... Confused.... I need to start from today at least

Nitz..yeh dosti hum nahi todenge Wink

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

amyriaRainbowWarrior-Aladin-

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Asian Fanatic Group 2 - They Kiss Again DONT POST ilive2laugh 3 4474 04 June 2010 at 7:16pm
By ilive2laugh
The Reading Group- Invites ONLY 5 lPG 116l

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 149 150

pinkisluv91 1199 21698 15 May 2010 at 1:07pm
By axeion
The Reading Group- Invites ONLY 3 l Pg 5,145l

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 150 151

pinkisluv91 1204 24347 26 April 2010 at 10:57am
By -Aladin-
The Reading Group-Invites ONLY- 2 |p.75, 144|

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 149 150

immunoblot 1194 23818 25 March 2010 at 10:44am
By immunoblot
The Reading Group-Invites ONLY- 1 |p146|

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 149 150

immunoblot 1194 23717 22 March 2010 at 12:49pm
By pinkisluv91

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Chat Clubs Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.