Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Should Iran be attacked?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Kith of woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, February 23rd, 2009 @ 11:06 PM
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    England England
    Location
    cheshire
    Gender
    Family
    Single, looking
    Posts
    241
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Should Iran be attacked?

    Should we attack Iran? I personally think not. What they do in thier own country is up to them. I have a grievence with Immigration into my country, but not with what Iranians get up to in their own country.I dont think they are a threat to our society. This from The daily mail
    Iran: A nation of nose jobs, not nuclear war

    For years we in the West have been looking for a new Evil Empire to fill the gap left when Russia - a genuine threat - retired from the job and deprived us of an enemy. What were all those spies to do? How could we justify those missiles and bombs? What should we be scared of now?

    At one stage we were reduced to pretending that Panama's General Noriega was a menace to our way of life. Then it was Slobodan Milosevic. Finally, we inflated the piffling Saddam Hussein into a looming Hitler.

    Now the same experts think they have found something to be afraid of in Iran. It is tempting to believe them. This is the land of the glowering ayatollahs, the book-burning mobs, the fatwas of death and the black chador. And Iran has just become even more frightening because in its secret vaults Islamic scientists are fumbling with atoms and testing long-range rockets.

    Such is our terror of this mysterious land that Navy bluejackets and Royal Marines seem to have thought they were in the hands of cannibal dervishes when they were captured by them, quailing at the thought of rape, torture and death. Even now, having been subtly humiliated instead of butchered, they do not seem to have grasped that things might not be as they seem. Nor have many of us.

    When I told my friends and family I was going to Tehran, they looked at me as if I were taking a short break in Mordor, and expected that the next time they saw me I would be being paraded by Revolutionary Guards after confessing to espionage, and then publicly hanged from a large crane at a busy traffic intersection.

    Well, not quite. The people of Iran are probably the most pro-Western in the world, though that will not stop them fighting like hell if we are foolish enough to attack them. Not that they will do so with nuclear weapons any time soon. Iran is rather bad at grand projects. Its sole nuclear power station has never produced a watt of electricity in more than three decades, the capital's TV tower is unfinished after 20 years of work and Tehran's airport took 30 years to build.

    By bringing this information back to you I expect to annoy the frowning mullahs, who want their people to fear us as much as George W. Bush and Anthony Blair want us to fear Iran. That is why they constantly tease us about their inadequate nuclear programme. They long for our rage and threats.

    Again and again, Iranians told me Western hostility was the main force that could push them into the arms of a regime they did not much like. The last thing the ayatollahs need is for the peoples of Europe and America to know much about their country and its people, or to realise the truth - that Iran is our natural ally in the Middle East, a European civilisation trapped by history and geography in the midst of Arabia. It does not belong there, culturally or religiously.

    We treat Turkey like a brother, when it is a militant Islamic state kept secular only by a disguised military dictatorship. And we treat Iran like a pariah, when it's a largely secular nation kept Islamic only by an ageing and discredited, but open, despotism.

    In the past ten days I have travelled across beautiful, hospitable Persia and talked to many of its people, unsupervised, unmonitored and unofficially. I have been inside private homes and found out what Iranian people think and why. I have met citizens who voted for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, citizens who now wish they hadn't and those who think he is a sick joke.

    I have sat among hot-eyed zealots at Friday prayers in Tehran as they chanted 'Death to England'. I have seen the melodramatic anti-aircraft defences round the nuclear plant at Natanz. I have met supporters of the regime and endangered, persecuted dissenters, as well as plenty in between. I am under no illusions about how barbaric the government can be to those who challenge it openly in the Press or other public forums. But I think its power is waning, and can be kept alive only if we are fool enough to fall for the propaganda of the people who brought us the Iraq War.

    I have tried to understand the sweet, sad mystery of Iran's unique brand of Islam, quite unlike the hard, aggressive faith found in the Arab lands. I have touched the silver bars of the holiest shrine in the country, as the pious crowds thronged around it, many crying out in ecstasy that they have reached this sacred place. I suspect these scenes are the closest I shall come to what English pilgrims to Canterbury must once have known.

    I have heard the hundredfold 'thwack' as prayer carpets were unrolled across enormous, majestic courtyards and watched the faithful at their evening devotions beneath gold domes and among some of the loveliest architecture on the planet. I have also talked to those who enjoy the illicit thrill of drinking whisky in an Islamic republic whose soldiers still spend hours smashing smuggled cargoes of alcohol. I have observed the cunning efforts of Iran's women to subvert and mock the ridiculous dress codes forced on them by silly old men. I have seen how many others choose to follow rules of modesty they personally believe in.

    I have been told unprintably rude jokes about the late Ayatollah Khomeini. And I have been kissed on both cheeks by a hairy mullah in the holy city of Qom.

    Let me begin in Tehran, Iran's colossal, ugly and charming capital city, which contains two wholly different nations within its ever-expanding boundaries. This is a very young city in a very youthful country. About 40 per cent of Iran's 70million people are 15 years old or younger, and in Tehran the concentration of the young is even greater.

    Grinding along its clogged, modern streets where buildings are the colour of porridge or a sort of dirty custard-yellow, you see plenty of evidence of the horrible, murderous revolution that shocked the world in 1979. Portraits of Khomeini and of other religious leaders are everywhere. So are anti-American murals - the most striking is a US flag in which the stripes are the slipstreams of falling bombs and the stars are replaced by skulls.

    On the walls of the long-deserted US Embassy, site of the kidnap of dozens of diplomats, slogans in English and Persian still promise to inflict a great defeat on America. Perhaps that promise has now been fulfilled in Iraq, a few hundred miles away, where American arms have suffered their greatest catastrophe since Vietnam - though the White House does not seem to know it yet.

    But these things are old, flaking, faded and largely ignored by the people. They have other things on their minds - mainly private life.

    In a bustling restaurant in north Tehran, where Iran's wealthy middle classes live, it is obvious that Islamic dress has been forced on the many women present and that they are determined to let everyone know it is not their choice. Personally, I found Tehran much less oppressively Islamic than Kensington High Street in London, where an ever-growing number of women voluntarily go about in black shrouds, masks and veils.

    This is not some medieval theocracy where females are hidden away or forced to do the will of their menfolk. Men and women sit in animated mixed groups at the lunch tables, conversing as equals. Headscarves are worn. It is still the absolute law. But they are worn in such a way as to make a fool of that law. They are pushed back as far as they can go without actually falling off, held in place by no more than a blast of hairspray, revealing the front parts of elaborate and often vertical hairstyles - frequently blonde.

    In a park by a lake, some teenage girls are splashing each other. Incredibly, several of them have illegally taken off their headscarves. Even more incredibly, their teachers pretend not to notice. This would have been unthinkable a year ago. What unthinkable things will be happening a year hence?

    Everyone knows next month there will be the annual ritual crackdown, when the police will reprimand thousands of women for defying the official code. And everyone knows that, once it is over, scarves will creep back a little further and heels will get a little higher.

    On the streets the women walk and stand like Parisians. Somehow, with a belt here and an adjustment there, they manage to make the modest 'manteau' jackets look chic. They laugh and chatter. The days when public laughter was a criminal offence are long gone.

    About one in 50 seems to have had recent plastic surgery on her nose. They wear their bandages with pride and some even stick plaster on their faces to pretend that they have undergone this subversive surgery.

    The desire among lovely Persian women to look like Snow White is strange but it is a direct reaction to authority's attempts to make them look like bats and crows.

    The fashionable cafes are full of painted, un-Islamic butterflies, sipping milkshakes or coffee. The upstairs rooms are reserved - by common consent - for couples to meet away from the intrusive eyes of their families.

    In the evenings, cinemas are popular places for some mild canoodling, though it is unlikely to go further than a Fifties-style kiss. But there is plenty of extramarital and illicit sex in Iran, some of it licensed by the Islamic authorities who permit highly dubious 'temporary marriages'. Among the rich, operations for 'revirginisation' are quite common before marriage, and contraceptives, once prohibited, are now freely on sale. Prostitutes patrol the night streets. I point this out not because I am specially glad about it, but to show how morals enforced from on high will fail if they do not have real popular support.

    But travel in the smooth, modern metro down to poor south Tehran and you will find many more black veils and chadors, and many more beards and ringed fingers, the usual signs of serious Islam and support for the regime. For it is the poor who have largely benefited from the revolution, which gave them state jobs and good schools.

    Even here, things are not quite what they seem. My guide in this part of the city was Reza, who is now unemployed thanks to the mullahs' mismanagement of what ought to be a fabulously rich oil and gas economy. Reza recalls wryly: 'When I was four, Ayatollah Khomeini came to my school and blessed me. It's been downhill ever since - everything just gets worse. I've even gone prematurely bald where the old man put his hand on my head.'

    In his part of town, there is often more fervour for football than for Islam.

    Reza cannot hide his distaste when we go together to the great shrine to Khomeini, a few miles out of the city. This is a startlingly shabby place - and far from busy.

    Its only charm is that the Ayatollah apparently willed that it should be a place of relaxation, so small children are allowed to run around and even play football close to the old man's tomb. On the motorway that leads to it, speed cameras alternate with signboards bearing quotations from the Koran.

    On the anniversary of the Ayatollah's death, great crowds gather round the shrine in a strange celebration - half holiday, half memorial service. Stallholders sell mementoes and you might think they are keen on the Ayatollah's memory. But an Iranian-American friend recalls how he once tried to buy some Khomeini clocks to take home.

    The salesman became suspicious. 'You're American, aren't you?' he asked the returning exile. 'Yes, I am,' the Iranian-American replied. 'What of it?' He thought the merchant was an admirer of the one-time supreme ruler and expected to be upbraided for being irreverent. But no. The clock-seller asked him: 'Then why on earth do you want to buy so many pictures of this ****hole?' Both exploded in relieved laughter.

    Things are quite different at another nearby shrine, a shocking, city-sized cemetery for the young men who died in the terrible war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Each shaded tomb is decorated with a touching portrait of a very young man (some of the volunteers who marched into minefields or poison gas were as young as 11).

    Suddenly Reza is not cynical. He shows me a grave that is said to be always wet (with tears?) and to smell permanently of rosewater. I think Reza wishes to believe in this miracle, even if he couldn't give a dried apricot for the rest of the official myths.

    This war, which most Iranians regard as at least partly the doing of the West, ended in 1988. It is shamelessly used by the regime to create a sort of unity between the revolutionary government and the people.

    It cannot last for ever. This year, for the first time, a comedy film was made about the war - reverence is beginning to fade. And so is the revolution's claim to have made life better, which is untrue for so many.

    People are encouraged to visit the Shah's old palace, with its vulgar chandeliers, decaying tennis courts and enormous bedrooms, so that they can look on his opulent living quarters and rejoice that he was brought down. The Khomeini state has wittily sawn down a large statue of the monarch that used to stand here, leaving only his boots behind.

    But people such as Reza have the wrong reaction when they come here. They walk around muttering that the Shah cannot have been that bad and become madly nostalgic for his reign, which was, in fact, notorious for corruption, secret-police savagery and wild incompetence.

    The more the Islamic Republic tells them to loathe the Shah or America, the more they yearn to have the Shah back, and to live in America. In this country, America is probably more popular, even now, than in any other country on the planet.

    Some people here, the Westernised intellectuals, have always despised a regime they see as backward and stupid. It is gospel among them that Khomeini was not specially clever. They refer scornfully to the regime's supporters - usually poor state employees or tradesmen - as 'Hizbollah'. Women who wish to join the West's drive for sexual equality also loathe the state and are loathed back. One woman I met had been arrested for her feminist views and is now facing trial. Her likely fate is a suspended prison sentence, which will be imposed if she steps out of line again.

    But such people are always dissenters. To seek a more representative view, I took the clean, comfortable sleeper train 500 miles east to the shrine city of Mashhad, near the Afghan border, where I met many devout but open-minded and tolerant Iranians.

    In some houses, the women stayed covered at all times and I could not even shake hands with them, bowing instead. In others, they dressed and acted like Westerners. It was clear that public opinion exists and matters here. I asked about the gruesome public hangings. My neighbour at the dinner table explained: 'At the beginning of the revolution these sorts of things, public hangings and floggings and the amputation of limbs, were common. But people didn't like them. They do sometimes hang mass killers or child molesters but if they announced the public hanging of an ordinary murderer, people would stay away to show their disapproval.'

    Remember, this is a country that does have elections and those elections don't always go according to plan, despite ruthless official rigging. I asked those present if they had supported Ahmadinejad in the presidential poll. All hands but one went up. Would they do so again? No hands went up. By the way, the women dominated this conversation.

    'We were hoping he would be different,' one said in justification. This kind of hope that something or someone will turn up is at the heart of Iran's Shia Islam, a religion of mourning and loss, whose adherents still feel woe over the defeat and murder of the three great Imams, Ali, Hossein and Reza.

    These martyrdoms took place 1,300 years ago but are still grieved over, especially at the shrine in Mashhad where Reza's tomb lies. The real zealots mark this each year by beating themselves bloody with chains and slashing their scalps with swords. It is rumoured that people die at these events.

    In a belief rather like the ancient British one that King Arthur will one day come back and save his people, Shias constantly await the return of the 'hidden Imam', who disappeared in 878 AD, and may reappear at any time, with Jesus at his side, to restore peace and goodness to the world. I know how this sounds in cold print, but even the modest 39 Articles of the Church of England look pretty extravagant when seen from the outside.

    It would be hard for anyone to see the devotion of the pilgrims at Mashhad and not come away respecting the force of this faith, which is a living, normal thing among Iranians, as natural a part of their lives as the low passions of football and the Lottery are in ours. Who is to say they do not have the better part of the bargain? I have never been anywhere with such a sense of generous hospitality and consideration to strangers.

    At the evening prayers, the sense of deep human emotion is electric. But it is important to realise Sunni Islam, the great majority of the Muslim world, regards Shia Islam as a serious, idolatrous heresy, much as Ian Paisley regards the Pope and all his works.

    The austere brand of Islam favoured in Saudi Arabia is specially displeased by the Shia love of relics and glitter. When Iranian Shias go to Mecca, they are said to be treated with cold hostility. The only Shia beloved in the Sunni world is President Ahmadinejad, whose noisy, disreputable hostility to Israel and whose support for Holocaust denial has made him the taxi-drivers' favourite in every Sunni Muslim country from Indonesia to Morocco.

    Which brings me to Friday prayers in Tehran, the weekly festival of loathing for the West that takes place in a hangar-like building in the university. Many of the thousands who attend are bussed in, and one of them, a soldier in uniform, confessed to a friend of mine that if he didn't bellow 'Death to America!' at the appropriate moment he wouldn't eat that day. A middle-ranking mullah presides, starting with a sermon on family values, and then moving on to political matters.

    His message is interesting. Shia and Sunni Muslims, he urges, must forget their differences. Wicked England has been seeking to divide the two branches of Islam for centuries. There is a general belief that British spies are behind everything in Iran. It sounds funny, but it isn't. It dates partly from the 19th Century when, with guile and bribes, British agents controlled the south of the country, hoping to keep the western borders of the Indian Empire safe.

    But more recently, it results from our involvement in a 1953 coup against Iran's most beloved modern leader, Mohammed Mossadeq. This cynical and short-sighted action was designed to stop Iran getting a bigger share of the proceeds from its own oilfields, then owned by BP, so that we could spend the money instead on our expensive new welfare state.

  2. #2
    New Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 29th, 2007 @ 07:05 PM
    Location
    Deep South, CSA
    Age
    71
    Occupation
    inn owner/operator
    Posts
    9
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I totally agree.

    The West is ignoring the fact that Persians and Arabs are VERY very different.
    Even the name "Iran" has the base "aryan" in its origin.

    Persians are not tent dwelling savages.
    Iran is a very sophisticated place, and its folk are our distant ancestors in many cases.

    It would be a grave mistake to lump them in with the Semitic Arabs in our policies.

  3. #3
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    59
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,350
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    641
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    877
    Thanked in
    467 Posts
    I think for the time being we should leave Iran alone. If they were close to successfully building a nuclear bomb I would feel differently but it seems unlikely they could built a bomb anytime in the near future. They're not even capible of refining their own oil into gasoline. Left alone the current Islamic regime will probably collapse from within.

  4. #4
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    If your main beef with Iran is the Iranian refugees coming to England, you should bear in mind that starting a war there will only increase their numbers.

    http://www.exile.ru/2005-January-27/war_nerd.html

  5. #5
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, April 3rd, 2009 @ 09:10 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Ancestry
    Maternal: Norway, Paternal: Massachusetts
    Subrace
    I don't know Lundman's taxonomy.
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Connecticut Connecticut
    Location
    South Glastonbury, Connecticut
    Gender
    Age
    90
    Family
    Single, not looking
    Occupation
    Nothing (retired)
    Politics
    monarchist
    Religion
    agnostic
    Posts
    1,698
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    31
    Thanked in
    31 Posts

    Should Iran be attacked ?

    No ! There is NO justification for attacking Iran. There is widespread discontent with the Islamic Republic within Iran. We should act under cover to overthrow that regime. Iran is not [yet] a threat. It may never be if we do not unite and galvanise them by attacking them.

  6. #6
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    59
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,350
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    641
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    877
    Thanked in
    467 Posts
    The Islamic nation that may be more of a problem in the near future is Pakistan. Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal. And the government is not that stable. The current president, Pervez Musharraf, took power in a coup & could very likely be replaced in the same way. The next leader of Pakistan could be an al-Qaeda sympathizer.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Mazorquero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 4th, 2016 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Son of Mars
    Ancestry
    South Tirol mainly, Italy, Northern Spain and France
    Subrace
    Subnordid + Atlantoid admix
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Córdoba
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Peronista ortodoxo
    Religion
    Agnóstico
    Posts
    549
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Let's suppose Iran develops nuclear technology for militar purposes... so what? Having nukes doesn't mean in any way the'll be used; actually only two nuclear bombs were used with militar purposes: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, every other nuclear explosions were made as proofs in some atolls, the Nevada desert and Siberia. So if we consider that USA and Russia (which own the biggest nuclear arsenal) went into much more wars than Iran during the XXth cent. and only two bombs were used, why would Iran use them? Consider also that Ahmadinejad in all his speeches, wether you like them or not, never made any reference to imperialist or expansionist politics, which are one of the main causes of war. The only serious hypotetical conflict to Iran is a war with Israel. Oh! I almost forget it, Israel has a non declared nuclear arsenal but it's ok because Israel is so democratic...
    So IMHO not only Iran has all the right in the world to own nuclear bombs, but also the very fact of owning nukes is not a synonim of threat. Actually if Argentina (my land) starts a militar nuclear program I'd be glad.
    Other reasons to not fear Iran are that the possible targets (namely Israel, USA and some countries of Europe like UK) posess the same or better technology, would you attack your enemy knowing it has a bigger response capacity than you? Mahmud might be crazy but not stupid. Other facts on nuclear weapons besides who owns them, are that ICBM are supposed to be effective, but as they haven't been used no one can ensure it (consider here that USA has a bigger and longer development of this technology than Iran); also it's true that USA and its allies tested some anti-ICBM strategies, a thing Iran never did. but it's also true those strategies are little or no effective (which is why even USA fears nukes).
    Finally we can mention the mistake which lead many empires to ruin, including Romans, Napoleon's and Hitler's: too many combat fronts, you cannot keep an eye on all of them. USA has deployed large numbers of soldiers in Afghanistan and Irak, both places where things are not very in favour of USA, and places far away from USA to keep a direct control. Iran is better prepaired for war than those two countries, and Israel (USA's closest ally in the region) can't help, it has too many troubles with the growing Hamas and was recently defeated by a guerrilla army.
    The issue with Iran is simple: live and let live.

  8. #8
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Tuesday, May 11th, 2010 @ 03:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scot-Saxon mutt
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Jack London
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    328
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    With modern politics and the current situation, i say we'd fuck up any war we tried to start with dirka dirkastan.
    Tequila Sunrise

  9. #9
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 04:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Ancestry
    Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    State
    Hedmark Hedmark
    Location
    Hamar
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Having a longtime compani
    Occupation
    I'm a parasite, I sell stuff.
    Politics
    Man marks the Earth with ruin.
    Religion
    Nature shall prevail!
    Posts
    1,948
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Well, to attack or not, I don't know. But honestly, I wouldn't care if they were bombed.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Kith of woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, February 23rd, 2009 @ 11:06 PM
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    England England
    Location
    cheshire
    Gender
    Family
    Single, looking
    Posts
    241
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldritch
    If your main beef with Iran is the Iranian refugees coming to England, you should bear in mind that starting a war there will only increase their numbers.

    http://www.exile.ru/2005-January-27/war_nerd.html
    Exactly, that is one of the reasons why I stated that I am oppossed to attacking them.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. When SJW's Are Attacked By Their Pets
    By Wulfram in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Monday, July 11th, 2016, 12:05 AM
  2. Campers Attacked
    By Hamrammr in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Saturday, November 6th, 2010, 10:34 PM
  3. How to Avoid Being Attacked By a Dog
    By Sissi in forum Pets & Animals
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, October 2nd, 2010, 06:57 AM
  4. Attacked Pupil 'Was Disruptive'
    By Willow in forum England
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 28th, 2010, 07:18 PM
  5. Replies: 39
    Last Post: Friday, January 9th, 2009, 12:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •