Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Donald_M

Islam And The Future Of Tolerance

Recommended Posts

Hi Eclipse

 

I see you’ve failed, yet again, to define murder.  Yes you gave a couple of simple obvious examples of murder vs. killing but they are the most clear cut of examples and totally miss the subtlety that is often involved they certainly don’t define ‘murder’.

 

I agree that if you kill someone in self-defense that is not murder, I agree that if you set out to take someone’s property and kill them in the process that is murder but what about all of the grey areas in between.  What about the man who occupies his rental property with a gun waiting for a breakin then scares the burgler but shoots him as he runs away, is that murder?  He was defending his property.  What about the soldier who kills his enemy in trying to take a piece of land back from them.  He didn’t have to attack, he didn’t have to kill, his life was not in danger if he did nothing, is he a murderer?  What about the man who deeply believes that someone’s eternal soul is at stake unless he kills.  In his mind he’s saving something far greater than a finite life here on earth, he’s saving an infinite afterlife.  Is he a murderer even though he totally believes that he’s doing is the best of all possible actions?

 

Some extreme pacifist religion’s define killing anyone for any reason as murder, even if it is to defend you own life.  Some more radical and violent religion’s say you should kill those who believe differently even if they pose no threat to you.  You see murder is a far more complex issue than you paint and you, apparently, can’t resolve these ambiguities because you can’t, or won’t, define murder.  Yes I understand the duck and run tactic often used in these sorts of debates, don’t define your side just pick on the other side.  It’s a troll tactic and I’m hoping you are not a troll but time will tell.

 

As you should be able to see you’ve glossed over the real issues here and I think completely missed the subtlety of the point of what murder is.

 

So give it a go, define murder.  Put your stake in the ground so we’ll actually have something to talk about here.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still confused eh  Donald  ?  Sorry pal , but I can't help you out with your problem . Murder is not good at any time , that is why it's called murder . If you kill a man who's trying to kill  you , that is not murder . If you kill a man in order to rob him or any other motive other than defending your life or that of another , that is murder .  Now to you that might be a matter of opinion [or perspective ?] , but to most people who have a sense of morality and ethics , it's pretty clear , and it doesn't depend on any religious book or doctrine .

 I know you will not admit this ,but you are indeed engaging in an exercise of semantics . Do you read your statements before you commit them to a post ? 

 

You opened with " if killing things is sometimes good " ??????   Things Donald ?  Do you mean things like chickens or cattle ? Good Grief man ! Do you even  know what you're talking about ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this have to be so childish?

 

Please think about it a little longer - You are mistaken.

 

CLUE:

Think about what it would take to reclassify a murder as a killing, and vice versa.

Who holds the power to decide what each of these words ultimately means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still don't get it eh Donald_M ? There is nothing to reclassify killing as Murder .  Infact there are countless volumes of Law from around the world that clearly distinguish killing from murder .

 Obviously the status quo of a society ultimately determines by their own sense of jurisprudence what constitutes murder . And that depends on how far that society has evolved away from superstition .

 If the argument seems childish , it is because you have made it childish , in fact by some of your statements I feel I am arguing with a child . Men who possess a sense of ethics would find your remarks quite puzzling .

 

In a hypothetical situation - if I shoot you to rob you of your possessions and to ensure you will not expose me , that is murder. If I inturn get shot and killed while attempting to rob and kill you , that is not murder . You have killed you have not murdered .

 Stalin "held the power " to decide ,as did Hitler ,as does ISIS to justify or rationalize Murder .Simply because they held the power does not change what the act of taking a life for any other reason than trying to preserve one's own life or that of others is , and that is murder  There is no gray line . Perhaps with you there is , but men aware of any moral/ethics would disagree with you .  

 

 I'm sure you are attempting to force an argument , but  what I don't know . Perhaps you should just say it , no ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He Eclipse

 

You seem confused on this question but you have made some points on which we are agreed.  You said in your last that Obviously the status quo of a society ultimately determines by their own sense of jurisprudence what constitutes murder . And that depends on how far that society has evolved away from superstition”.  I can’t fault that line of reasoning but that shows that the line between murder and killing is based in the morals of the society.  There are countries in which killing someone as punishment for crimes is sanctioned under law and so is not considered murder but there was no sense in which these killings could be considered self-defence.

 

Again you present the black and white cases of killing in self defense as opposed to killing to obtain property but such black and white cases don’t define murder, they are they extremes but it is the many shades of grey in between where this argument lies.  So back to my challenge above.  Please define murder in absolute terms.  If you base it on society’s morals then murder is arbitrary because the morals of society are arbitrary.  Look at the morals Hitler employed compared to those of modern day Australia for example.  The line between murder and killing is in a very different place yet how do you decide which is the ‘correct’ position for this line?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me clarify Russell , murder as defined by the status quo of a society will adjust it's jurisprudence accordingly , which does not necessarily mean it will be moral or ethical . To Saudis it is the status quo to behead adulteresses , in Hitler's Germany it was status quo to kill mentally impaired , gypsies and Jews . In Stalin's Soviet Union , any one who was to be considered an enemy of the state. As far as jurisprudence in societies goes , they are a reflection of the status quo , and the status quo is not to be considered moral unless of course it is moral . Many religionists define jurisprudence as it applies to their dogma  , others tradition . As far as any civilized society , murder is the taking of a life for reasons not being self defense of one's self ,or that of another . Killing is is taking a life in self defense , on a battlefield of war , or to preserve the life of another .

 There isa clear line between killing and murder although that line is obviously blurred from your point of view . If you are living in a Western Country , your judicial system makes that distinction , as there are cases of  self defense, manslaughter , reckless homicide and Murder .The laws are clear and concise . Penalties may vary , but in the act that has been committed , distinction is made between the two . Status quo does not equal morality , just what is generally accepted as morality . And that can and is prejudiced by any number of reasons . Before any Bible or Q'uran , the Summarians had a pretty good idea of the difference as is evidenced in the Codex of Hammurabi . Don't know about you , but I have no trouble distinguishing Murder from  killing .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your examples are tailored to your opinion.

Almost as if you had established your position beforehand

and then built your comments to reflect this.

 

Problems that have 'grey' areas!?

I haven't heard that expression for years.

 

Grey is the product of many instances of black and white.

And just like that of a computer screen, the illusion is understood if you look closely enough.

 

If you see grey,  you are too far away from the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here, the line between murder and killing is drawn by the status quo.  You’re concrete examples would be accepted by virtually every human population alive today, not so in history maybe but certainly today but you paint it as if there were an absolute line while explaining that different cultures have that line in different places.  You make one claim while explaining that it is false.  It’s an interesting disconnect between your own ideas.

 

Get into the grey areas here Eclipse and tell me exactly where do you think the line between murder and killing should be drawn?  Would you consider killing someone in revenge for mass murder they committed reasonable for example? Would you consider killing someone who had just killed a member of your family and was now trying to escape reasonable? Would you consider killing someone who was leaving your premises after robbing you reasonable?  Would you consider killing man who was apparently attempting to kill a stranger in front of you reasonable?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell , I made it clear , but  you continue to bring in hypotheticals .  What I said was , to take a life other than in self defense or defense of another , or to prevent the death of another , it is murder .

  Your new hypotheticals get into the issues of punishment , which again depends on status quo , jurisprudence and punishment , then  you jump to revenge . Now if you stop to think for a moment, how are these various hypotheticals termed in a court of law ? Wherever you are living , it would behoove you to find out, since you are not clear on such matters . Moral responsibility and legal culpability are two different things .

  Perhaps a read through Webster's  or New World American Dictionaries may help - unlawful taking of a life - malicious taking of life in the commission of a crime , rape ,robbery , etc . Any malicious taking of a life with evil intent or premeditation .

 

LOL.... now if you were a Thuggee  in pre-20th Century India , and a rabbit crossed the road left to right , you would have religious license to strangle the next group of travelers you came across . It would not be murder, it would be a form of honoring and satisfying the goddess Kali .

 

 

 But for civilized, normal people,  Russell , I would refer you to the first sentence of this post , and then draw your own conclusion .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

There were no hypotheticals in my post, all of those situations have occurred and people had to work out what to do about them.  Do they kill or do they not.  To be hypothetical these situations would have to be inventions I dreamed up but that was not the case.  Rather they were telling situations to test your ideas of murder against.  I noticed that you didn’t even try.

 

In a way punishment is involved but that was not the critical thing I was driving at.  I think we can all agree that murderer’s, especially mass murderer’s should be punished but the question is is it murder to kill them when they are no longer capable of committing a murder because they are in custody?  You are not killing them to prevent a murder so by your definition this is murder but it is sanctioned under the laws of a number of countries.  I agree by the way that this is murder.

 

Your view, boiled down, is that the only killing that is not murder is killing to prevent a murder (yours or someone else’s).  Is that about it?  So now we come to the next challenge, what about euthanasia.  Is helping someone to die or actively killing them at their own request murder, it’s not preventing a death so by your definition it is murder.  How does your ethical system handle that?  You see this is not, as we’ve been pointing out for some time, as black and white as you might think.

 

As I said all of the ‘hypotheticals’ I asked you to answer were actual events that have occurred in my country or another so I’m well aware of how they are treated under law the question for you is how would your system classify these actions and would your classification depend on where the actions were taken as the law in different countries treats these actions very differently.

 

So you are suggesting that Thuggee was not a normal civilized person is that your claim?  To me it sounds like he was acting on all of the most profoundly held teachings of his life.  Yes I find those teachings to be foolish but I wasn’t brought up in that culture.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh Russell , Thuggees were a cult in India that operated in India for as many as 400 years. They were also called Stranglers . They murdered literally millions in India . The motus operandi was to meet fellow travelers on the roads of india , make camp with them and while they slept the victims were strangled , robbed and buried  . The Maharaja's knew of them and as long as they stayed out of their kingdoms , did nothing about them .So too the British East India Company , as long as their business was not disrupted , until one Colonel Sleeman working for the British East India Company happened upon numerous burials of murdered entire families and groups of victims along the roadsides and discovered what was going on across almost all of India, and then virtually, single handedly, brought them down , documenting each step and recorded in written records his interrogations , how and why and where they operated . They [Thuggees ] were comprised of Brahmans and Muslims who were given to worshipping the Hindu godess Kali , The Destroyer and Giver of Life, she is represented in Indian Statues ,which you likely are familiar with , a woman with 8 arms held out in a circle . If you remember the old movie Gunga Din , it was based on these worshippers of Kali . Dramatized of course , as they had no formal army or single leader , they were made up of generation upon generation of entire families .The word "THUG " is derived from the name this very cult .

 Russel , no matter what they believed , they were murderers , pure and simple .

  Good Grief man , you're an adult living in a civilized society and you can not differentiate murder from killing ? And again you bring another hypothetical -euthanasia .

 Well there may be only one other straw man you can utilize , so let me save you the trouble - men at war in battle .That is killing , however if you disarm your enemy and then shoot him in the head that is murder , that is considered a war crime . Killing unarmed prisoners is murder .

  That do it for you Russell ?  Look it up in your dictionary Russell . LOL:...don't take my word for it .

 

 

 Just curious Russell and you need not answer , but where do you live ??

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Never heard of the Thuggees so I’ve learened something.  The question is, if their society ruled the world would we consider what they did murder?

 

Actually I can differentiate murder from killing, for me that’s mostly a simple question though not always.  The problem I’m trying to get you to face up to, is that the grey area between the clearly murder and the clearly justified killing isn’t nearly as simple as you seem to want it to be. 

 

No the euthanasia question was not just a hypothetical, again this is a real world situation that any moral system must be able to deal with, I’m asking you as an advocate for your specific moral code how that code deals with it.  How is it classified, murder or justified killing because the wording you’ve used to distinguish murder from killing would condemn it as murder yet in my moral system it is not.

 

You ducked all the earlier challenges to your view of morality but please have a go at fitting this situation into your “murder is any killing that is not done to save a life” view of murder and tell me how this works.

 

The definition of a straw man is that I denounce you for a foolish argument that you never used.  You did actually say that murder was simply any killing that was not defending a life so that’s not a straw man.  I then asked you how that view stacks up against some real world situations.  You’ll have to show me how any of that is in any way a straw man.  Maybe you should look up the definition of that particular logical fallacy.

 

Let’s look at the specific situation you raised however the killing of men in war.  Unarmed prisoners is clearly murder though it gets murky when you factor in a small isolated group of soldiers who don’t have the capacity to hold prisoners but knowing that if they release their prisoners they will go on to fight and kill again.  But the question I raised earlier that you ignored was what about a group of soldiers who attack an enemy position to dislodge them from a town or other desired position.  They didn’t have to attack, the enemy wasn’t going to kill them, they were no threat to them if they just kept their distance but they attacked and killed to capture the position.  Is that murder?  Is all forgiven if it’s in war?

 

You need to stop ducking these challenges to your view of morality and try to stand up for your beliefs here.

 

My dictionary doesn’t have “killing unarmed prisoners of war” as a word so I can’t say it’s much help here.

 

I live in the bush outside Melbourne in Australia by the way.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oz !  Well Russel , I'm not ducking anything , what you refer to as a justified killing is strictly subjective .Depends on what is going on in the mind of the perpetrator . I am standing up for my beliefs , without grey lines . As I defined murder,that is my position . Soldiers in battle who capture a town obviously are facing defenders , and no one is going to simply walk away from the battle . One side will capitulate or defend their position , and die trying . This is not murder unless one side surrenders and is summarily murdered after putting down their arms and surrendering . I'm sure this is not always the case , as both Allies and Japanese and Germans shot their prisoners , maybe less so with the Allies , but nonetheless it occurred on both sides . Where they legally culpable ? No .Were they morally responsible ? Yes ,they would be guilty of murder . And since you insist on bringing euthanasia into the discussion , how can it be murder when both parties agree . It is assisted suicide , unless of course the one performing the euthanasia is doing so on an unwilling person ,and I'm sure we both have heard stories of mad nurses deciding for themselves who shall be euthanized against their will - that is murder .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

I agree that it’s subjective but that’s the point isn’t it.  The line between murder and killing is subjective.

 

You’re getting close in your consideration of the soldiers attacking a town, what you’ve failed to explain is the position of soldiers who didn’t need to attack the town to save their lives or the lives of someone else but did so to reclaim territory.  Sure both sides will take casualties in the conflict but if the attackers just wanted to take back territory their attack, which they must know would kill people, was murder by your definition as they were not defending lives.

 

On euthanasia your view as explained here is, in my world view, correct but it’s not correct in the strict letter of your earlier description when you said that killing was murder if it was not to defend your own life or the life of someone else.  You call it assisted suicide and again I agree but that does not fit in with your earlier view so it looks like you’ve learned something here which is good.  There is still one grey area that needs to be considered, what if the patient is too far gone with dementia to be able to agree to the euthanasia.  Some people have living wills that may well authorize euthanasia before their mind went but some people may not but they are suffering terribly and beyond communication to agree.  How does that fit into your world view?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subjective for folks who have a different view of murder and killing , and have trouble defining the two . The definition of murder that I previously gave , and what you will find in most dictionaries is not subjective . It is a clear description of what is lknown as murder. I used the word "hypotheticals " to avoid saying what you are actually presenting , and that is strawman arguments .  The issue hear is what is the difference between murder and killing ,is it not ?

 Well murder is well defined . When you insert situations differing from that clear definition of murder , yes you are using hypothetical situations and by doing so engaging in a straw man argument . You yourself said " what if ....." followed by situations , while ignoring the generally accepted definition .

 Now you could "hypothetically "  go after the man who just killed your sister ,and kill him . If he was not posing a threat to you , you would find yourself in jail brought up on murder charges .

 Can't make it any clearer than that Russell .

 My advice to  you is make sure your definitions are correct  before you engage in the activity of what we are discussing . That is because when you face a jury in a court of law , it won't matter what you may call it . If it is murder you will be convicted .

 If you need a real-life example in order to understand the difference I will provide one .

 

 Here in the US about 5 years ago in the State of Indiana , a retired man had his house broken into two times . After the second he installed cameras and was at home when the same teens broke in yet again, he was able to make out who it was and was actually watching them break in - two teenagers a girl and a boy . They proceeded to break in and as they entered his basement where he was waiting with a loaded rifle , he shot them both dead . He was charged with two counts of murder [not manslaughter] convicted and now sits in jail serving a life sentence .

  Call it what you like Russell , just be sure of your definition before you act .  Whole your at it look up the legal definition of premeditation , it might further clarify that definition for you .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

So it’s only subjective if you have a view different to Eclipse is that the definition?

 

Dictionary.com defines murder as “killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law”.  In other words the dictionary definition of murder is subjective, it is subject to the law of the land in which it is committed which was created by the people of the land and not based in any absolute source.  Its definition is not absolute it is subjective contrary to your claims.

 

From the dictionary a straw man argument is “A made-up version of an opponent's argument that can easily be defeated.” Now the challenges I presented to your argument were not presented against a false weakened version of your argument they were direct challenges to exactly what you said.  By definition that’s not a straw man position.  Not really much more to say about that one.  Logic / Philosophy 101.

 

Looking up Hypothetical in the dictionary doesn’t lend any support to your claim, the two terms, “Straw Man” and “Hypothetical” don’t overlap.  The view I argued against was exactly what you said not a weakened version and the challenges were not hypothetical but retelling of real world situations, I didn’t make any of them up though I didn’t give you the individual case details. I can if you’d rather but I don’t think it would add anything here.

 

I accept the view, and it conforms to my view of morality, that you should be up on charges if you hunt down and kill your sisters murder once he was no longer a direct threat but that is not the case in some countries and murder is defined as subjective and based on the law of the land so in some countries that makes this killing just fine.

 

We had a similar case here where a man waited in his rental property, which had been broken into a few times, and caught a burglar in the act.  The criminal was surprized and ran away but was shot while leaving by the home owner who was charged with malicious wounding, he survived in this case.  When it came to trial the jury would not convict and the home owner was freed without conviction after trial.

 

You complain that my position on murder would land me in trouble because I would be judged by the law of the land but you don’t actually know what my position is as I’ve never told you.  A straw man is based in arguing against a false view of an opponent’s position, is that not what you have done here because you don’t know what my actual position is on murder so you can’t be arguing against that.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another strawman Russell . [ you did that exactly on the other thread with 3 planck seconds and your allegation that I said something different than science knowing nothing before those 3planck seconds] . You have refined that to an art .

  A jury is subjective even though the  law and morals are clear - another Example -OJ Simpson .  Also I did not "complain " about your position , I advised you of your implied confusion or lack of clarity ,if you will, on the difference between murder and killing . For if you were asking me of my position , I stated that , so for you to continue to ask the question in different forms or situations , is an indication of confusion on your part . Either that or you are just being facetious . Which is it Russell ?

 

 Maybe the dictionaries down there in Oz are a bit skewed .

 

 Murder : the unlawful , malicious , premeditated killing of a human being by another ;also, any killing done while committing some other felony , as rape or robbery ; to kill inhumanely or barbarously in war, with malice .

 

 Didn't see going after your sister's murderer , euthanizing another willing person , shooting thieves or any of the ' examples " [to keep it polite ]  that you brought forward .

 It becomes subjective when a person rationalizes the act , thus in that persons mind it is a justified killing . Or if in a society where legal license is given to the act of murder such as in an Honor Killing .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Dictionary.com is not an Australian website, I can use an Aussie one if you’d rather.

 

Subjective:- existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.

 

Objective:- intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

 

So you are saying that murder is objective except that it’s subject to the law of the land in which it is committed which are created by minds not read from the rocks.  Sorry but by definition that’s subjective.  Different minds have different ideas on this question; you can’t just test the water and read out a figure for what murder is.  Please read the dictionary definitions above.

 

Now again a strawman is defined as an argument against a false and weakened version of an opponent’s position, please show me in detail where I have ever done that to you?  Do a cut and paste to illustrate your view on this.  It does not include pointing out the fringe cases that show the flaws in an opponent’s argument which I have done, that’s not classified as a straw man, no I must have misrepresented what you said or claimed that your argument was something different and weaker than what you actually said it was.

 

Yes the jury is subjective and the law is a construct of minds so that too is subjective to be objective, by definition, it has to be based outside and independent of minds.  Please show me where the objective truth of your definition of murder comes from, remember that to be objective it must be outside minds, it must be written in the rocks or the stars.  Can you do that?

 

No there’s nothing facetious about what I’m doing and no I haven’t told you about my view of morality rather I took you at your word, I accepted that you really believed that your definition of murder was objective and I pointed out where it fails using boundary cases that your bland statements cover but in which the results are not compatible with your stated view or the view of most rational people.  Remember even one failure proves that the idea is not objective, and I’ve pointed out three at least, but now I’ve challenged you to show how this idea is written in the rocks, how it exists independent of minds for that is the definition of objective so let’s see how you go with that before we delve deeper.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL....Russell you run a good line of B.S.  I'm sure you have convinced yourself that you are being direct and honest .  Oh well .

 

 " Wriiten in the rocks" Russell ? Seriously ?   What are they putting in the water down there Russell ?

 

If you can not see the objective truth , in the dictionary definition of murder , which by the way, would not be in the dictionary if it's meaning wasn't a universally agreed upon and accepted description , then there is no remedy for your dilemma .  I would imagine even the Neanderthals knew it was wrong to kill your hunting buddy over a piece of meat.  I guess reason and common sense ain't so common eh Russell ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell , you go on "delving deeper  " boy  , who knows , you may have an epiphany .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine even the Neanderthals knew it was wrong to kill your hunting buddy over a piece of meat.

 

But under what circumstances would this action be determined 'wrong'?

Would you kill a friend for a piece of meat if it meant the survival of your family?

Is this murder? As it is essentially self defence.

 

There are plenty of words in the dictionary that do not have a universally agreed upon description.

 

Freedom, magic, consciousness, God, soul...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right Donald , and Murder is not one of them . Donald , do you know the difference between right and wrong ? Do you have a sense of right and wrong ?   Or do you practice situational ethics ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not answering the questions heh?

 

You're missing the point.

This sub-category of killing (murder) needs to be applied after the fact; In order for one to murder, one must kill.

Killing does not require adjudication. Unlike murder.

 

Right = Correct = True,

Wrong = Incorrect = False.

 

But you're not talking about right and wrong in this fashion (as an absolute value). What you really mean is 'good' and 'bad'.

 

The 'best' action I could take must be decided AFTER the evidence is assessed.

The 'worst' action I could take must be decided AFTER the evidence is assessed.

 

And again. Good and bad require perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee you're good at double-talk too Donald .  That was a nice little dance you did . No , Donald do you know right from wrong ? Good or bad is subjective , good for who /bad for who ?  Correct and incorrect - same dance Donald . True or False , you apply that at the end of your mental machinations , and that is subjective .

 

Do you need to go through a set of soliloquies before you reach your conclusion ?  Sorry Donald , but your answer was total B.S. , and B.S. is always bad unless you're playing poker , where it's called bluffing .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again.

If you can't define these words. You should not be using them.

 

Perhaps we should do this the other way round this time;

It's exactly the same problem you're a having with the word 'murder'...

 

Right and wrong are objective.

 

2+2=7=Wrong=Incorrect=False (Not valued as bad, nor is it subjective).

2+2=4=Right=Correct=True (Not valued as good, nor is it subjective).

 

Something that is wrong, is incorrect, is false. Like an answer in your exams.

Edited by Donald_M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×