Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Why does Turkey & Pakistan have great friendship?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
Author
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why does Turkey & Pakistan have great friendship?
    Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 05:20
No way, Ummah definitely exists and the Turks I've met in person definitely have it.
Where was the "Ummah" in WWI? Fighting Turkish troops with Lawrence of Arabia and other such characters.

Providing thousands of troops to the Ottoman Empire from the future countries of Afghanistan, Pakistan & India.

I don't know about in Turkey, but the Turks I have met outside of Turkey, (and therefore still identify as Turks, else I wouldn't have known they were Turkish) certainly have the concept of Ummah.
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
  Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 06:09

If you look at it in retrospect, most of Islamic History (besides African & South East Asian) was the hegemony of different Turks laced deep in Persian Culture. The greats of the Muslim World all had elements of Turkish rulers and Persian Culture.

Seljuq Khanate
Qara Khitai Khanate
Sultan e Rum
Mamluke Empire
Safavid Empire
Mughal Empire
Ottoman Empire
 
They were all Turks. Arabs only came into the picture for the first 300 years and in modern day post 1350 Hijri.
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 09:07
kara Kitai isn't turkic
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 10:04

I think Turkish understanding of Islam is little bit different from, say, Arabic form of Islam. There's no conception of Ummah in Turkey basically - which is because of the nationalization process of Turkish society I believe. Even most religous groups in Turkey don't use the term ummah so much when spreading their propagandas. Not to mention that being a supporter of ummah -or more properly "mmetci"- is generally seen as a shame by nationalist groups in Turkey.

Than you did not listen Refah propoganda much. Ummah is not used but idea is there.

Sure Turkish-muslims(MHP-BBP) does not care much for ummah but "muslim-turks"(FP,AKP)  care for ummah much. (Their kurdish approach is a evident for this.)

 
Back to Top
The Hidden Face View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Ustad-i Azam

Joined: 16-Jul-2005
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1379
  Quote The Hidden Face Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 11:54
Comparing to AKP, BBP cares much more about "Ummah", If you ask me. As for Refah, or more generally "Milli Gorus hareketi" meaning "The National Vision Movement"  by the way Smile, used Ummahism to minimize the Kurdish issue in local areas indeed, and they failed due to the fact that neither Kurds nor Turks have sympathy towards eachother just because they are part of Ummah. Being liberal and europeanist, AKP's agenda doesn't include supporting ummahism, to say the least.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 14:20
Omar al Hashim
Providing thousands of troops to the Ottoman Empire from the future countries of Afghanistan, Pakistan & India.

I don't know about in Turkey, but the Turks I have met outside of Turkey, (and therefore still identify as Turks, else I wouldn't have known they were Turkish) certainly have the concept of Ummah.
 
Alot of Turks will talk about their support of the "Muslim world" but not use the word "Ummet" to refer to this.
Most Turks I met have this feeling of being betrayed by Arabs, that their grandfathers fought for the Ummah but were stabbed in the back by fellow muslims.
 
Also this was exaggerated and the propoganda used was hypocritical, they had no problem building relations with the West but with the Arab middle east it was a different story.
 
 
Mughaal

If you look at it in retrospect, most of Islamic History (besides African & South East Asian) was the hegemony of different Turks laced deep in Persian Culture. The greats of the Muslim World all had elements of Turkish rulers and Persian Culture.

Seljuq Khanate
Qara Khitai Khanate
Sultan e Rum
Mamluke Empire
Safavid Empire
Mughal Empire
Ottoman Empire
 
Seljuk had strong elements of Persian culture
 
Mughall had strong elements of Persian and Hindustani culture
 
Sultanate of the Rum, Ottoman, Qara Khitay, Timurids had strong elements of Turkic culture
 
Safavid was initially Turkic later a hybrid Persian culture
 
Mamluke had more of a Arab culture with Qipchak millitary elite
 
The Turkic establishment would adapt to the areas they conquered unless the Turks became a majority in population then the region would adapt to suit the Turks, as was seen in Turkic areas West of the Caspain Sea today.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 14:26
Mortaza
Than you did not listen Refah propoganda much. Ummah is not used but idea is there.
 
Sure Turkish-muslims(MHP-BBP) does not care much for ummah but "muslim-turks"(FP,AKP)  care for ummah much. (Their kurdish approach is a evident for this.)
 
This is very misleading.
 
FP,Akp are "muslim Turks" while people who voted for other parties are not?
 
Firstly, there is a huge difference today between AKP and FP, infact BBP is closer to FP than the AKP is today.
 
MHP support a Turko-Islamic ideal, their ultimate goal being a unity of Turkic states and then being able to unite the muslim world.
 
The Refah part, have the ideal that Turks will rise, take control and guide the muslim world out of the misery they are in.
 
The BBP are a cross between the MHP and Refah, they support a Turko-Islamic ideal with a stronger emphasis on religion.
 
The Akp have no open goal of a muslim unity, they are currently pro-EU, liberal conservatives with a religous root. Recently they have been building closer ties with Turkic states and have good relations with Arab states however, there is no open policy they have come up with like these other parties clearly stating their goals regarding these matters.


Edited by Bulldog - 16-Mar-2008 at 14:28
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 20:17
Originally posted by xi_tujue

kara Kitai isn't turkic


i guess he was refering to Qaraqanids.
Back to Top
kafkas View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
  Quote kafkas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 08:26
Originally posted by Bulldog

Alot of Turks will talk about their support of the "Muslim world" but not use the word "Ummet" to refer to this.
Most Turks I met have this feeling of being betrayed by Arabs, that their grandfathers fought for the Ummah but were stabbed in the back by fellow muslims.


These are my sentiments exactly (my great-grandfather fought in WWI). What makes it worse is that Arab countries also have very anti-Turkish domestic and foreign policies, and to this day, despite their talk of "brotherhood", they are very proud of the cooperation they gave to the Allies against the Ottoman State.

Even all the Arab-American and influential so called "Islamic" organizations in the US, such as CAIR, openly cooperate with anti-Turkish lobbies (even supporting Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan).

I'm still surprised by the amount of support Arab causes such as Palestine and Iraq have in Turkey despite the widespread hostility by Arabs and "Islamic" organizations towards Turks. It comes from being naive I guess.


Edited by kafkas - 17-Mar-2008 at 08:57
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 08:53
Comparing to AKP, BBP cares much more about "Ummah", If you ask me.
 
Indeed but not becoming goverment is a plus for BBP and of course, If We does not count kurds as muslims. Because BBP approach to kurds have zero relation with "ummah"
 
If you ask me. As for Refah, or more generally "Milli Gorus hareketi" meaning "The National Vision Movement"  by the way Smile,
 
Yep I know, but their sensitivity of ummah is unresistable. Bosnian war and arab resistence to israel is supported by them.
 
Again, Erbakan famous words also show how nationalist was Refah. " Eğer sen ne mutlu trkm dersen onlarında ne mutlu kurdm deme hakkı vardır."
 
sed Ummahism to minimize the Kurdish issue in local areas indeed, and they failed due to the fact that neither Kurds nor Turks have sympathy towards eachother just because they are part of Ummah.
 
As we both know, other than DTP it is only refah or akp, Kurds voted. Reason may both become ummahism or critics of AKP-Refah against nationalist politics of Turkey.
 
So We cannot say, Kurds ignored their ideology.
 
Being liberal and europeanist, AKP's agenda doesn't include supporting ummahism, to say the least.

Well, allying with liberals and EU does not mean becoming a liberal and europeanist. They always called themself as conservative.(Infact, It is a conflict between deep state and goverment. So when liberals are supporting AKP, kemalist are supporting deep state.  

Their approach to islamic world is much more better than precedent goverments. (maybe except Refah.)
 
FP,Akp are "muslim Turks" while people who voted for other parties are not?
 
Sorry, Infact this is a term used at turkey.  Trk islam or islamcı Turkler. It has no relation with religion of voters.
 
Firstly, there is a huge difference today between AKP and FP, infact BBP is closer to FP than the AKP is today
There is a huge difference? Well, There is some difference not huge difference. Difference is leaders, their approach and their economical politics.
 
Both are conservative and both are fighting for samething.
 
The Akp have no open goal of a muslim unity, they are currently pro-EU, liberal conservatives with a religous root. Recently they have been building closer ties with Turkic states and have good relations with Arab states however, there is no open policy they have come up with like these other parties clearly stating their goals regarding these matters.
 
Well, We can discuss this. Sure AKP is an oportunist party but still, It sometimes ignore benefit of state for their ideology. Critisizing israel does not benefit turkey and It can harm turkey. But still, they critisize israel every time they had opportunity.
 
AKP is just more intelligent.
 
I'm still surprised by the amount of support Arab causes such as Palestine and Iraq have in Turkey despite the widespread hostility by Arabs and "Islamic" organizations towards Turks. It comes from being naive I guess.
 
And bosnians and chechens and afghans and azeris, ext.
 
 
 
Back to Top
kafkas View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
  Quote kafkas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 09:05
BBP and MHP are racial supremacists, although they see Islam as an important part of the modern Turkish identity that's where their religious rhetoric stops. If anyone watches some videos of Grey Wolves rallies online, you'll realize their anti-Israel stance has to do more with their belief of a Zionist conspiracy against the Turkish state rather than support for Palestinians. Of course both parties trace their ideologies back Nihal Atsiz's works
 

Edited by kafkas - 17-Mar-2008 at 09:06
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 12:49
Originally posted by Temujin


Originally posted by xi_tujue

kara Kitai isn't turkic
i guess he was refering to Qaraqanids.


most likely
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 12:54
BBP and MHP are racial supremacists, although they see Islam as an important part of the modern Turkish identity that's where their religious rhetoric stops. If anyone watches some videos of Grey Wolves rallies online, you'll realize their anti-Israel stance has to do more with their belief of a Zionist conspiracy against the Turkish state rather than support for Palestinians. Of course both parties trace their ideologies back Nihal Atsiz's works
 
Uh not excatly. They are ulusalcılar. Even I dislike both parties, I cannot call them as racist.
 
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 15:21
Kafkas
Of course both parties trace their ideologies back Nihal Atsiz's works
 
Actually both parties trace their ideologies back to "Alparslan Turkes".
 
While Turkes and Atsiz were both involved in the trial of the Turkish nationalists in 1944, soon after their paths split. A fundamental change occured which resulted in a battle between the two of them over whose ideology would be more influential.
 
The major division occured, Atsiz was a product of his era, encouraged by the racism rhetoric in Europe his ideals were a ultra nationalist, shamanist movement. According to him, being muslim had somehow held Turks back and to free themsevles they must return to being Shamans and have a racist zeal. This is similar to racist movements across Europe, which renounced religion for a notalgic pagan one and stress their superiority.
 
In total contrast, Turkes saw Islam as an important part of the Turks history, since they became muslim Turks became superpowers and their rule spanned three continants. There was respect for the pre-Islamic history of the Turks but unlike the Atsizcilar no shame in their history as muslims.
 
Turkeses stance was unforgivable according to Atsiz, the Turkes group were called Ummetci (Ummah supporters), and so forth. However, the Turkes group was far more popular, it gained much more support and became an established party in Turkey.
 
Ultimately this resulted in the removal of hard core racism from these nationalists. Later the BBP was formed, being more religous than MHP, FP being more religous than both of them and AKP initially a splinter group of FP now a more pragmatic, liberal conservative group.
 
The Turk-Islam ideal which suceeded over the Turk-anti Islam ideal resulted in respect from religous groups, intellects like Necip Fazil Kisayurek etc
 
 
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
kafkas View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
  Quote kafkas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 20:06
It's true that they might take more from Turkes politically, but still a lot of their symbols and rhetoric about the Grey Wolves and Turkic myths come from Atsiz's works. Nihal Atsiz also stopped getting involved in politics after he got in trouble with Inonu so of course Turkes had a better opportunity to start political parties and what not. Even if the MHP officially doesn't approve of Atsiz most of its followers do.

About Atsiz being anti-Islamic, I thought he was just extremely secular? Can you PM me some quotes or something from him on that?




Edited by kafkas - 17-Mar-2008 at 20:29
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 23:15
Kafkas
It's true that they might take more from Turkes politically, but still a lot of their symbols and rhetoric about the Grey Wolves and Turkic myths come from Atsiz's works. Nihal Atsiz also stopped getting involved in politics after he got in trouble with Inonu so of course Turkes had a better opportunity to start political parties and what not. Even if the MHP officially doesn't approve of Atsiz most of its followers do.
 
The Grey Wolf greeting was adopted from the Gagauz and Baskurt Turks. Your correct in stating Atsiz had some influential works especially popularising Turkic myths and legends, however, there were many other who were doing the same. The Grey Wolf, (Bozkurt Kok-boru) was on the first printed bank notes of Turkey before Atsiz's time.
 
Most Atsiz followers don't approve of Turkes and the Turk-Islam ideal.
 
Kafkas
About Atsiz being anti-Islamic, I thought he was just extremely secular? Can you PM me some quotes or something from him on that?
 
To be honest, what I meant is Atsiz followers being anti-Islamic.
 
Like alot of popular leaders, their views can sometimes be distorted by their followers.
 
I've seen that image and other like it before and have been told Atsiz wasn't anti-Islamic however, I'm not an expert on him so I couldn't verify his actual stance.
 
It seems Atsiz, Turkes and even Gulen could sit in a room together and even say favourable things about each other. 
 
 
However, today, some of their followers would have a hard time doing this which is ironic.


Edited by Bulldog - 17-Mar-2008 at 23:17
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 07:33

Bah, Atsız was as racist as hitler. I do not care who talk him and say good things about him.

And you cannot both become a racist and follower of islam.
 
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 08:36
Originally posted by Kafkas

These are my sentiments exactly (my great-grandfather fought in WWI). What makes it worse is that Arab countries also have very anti-Turkish domestic and foreign policies, and to this day, despite their talk of "brotherhood", they are very proud of the cooperation they gave to the Allies against the Ottoman State.

Even all the Arab-American and influential so called "Islamic" organizations in the US, such as CAIR, openly cooperate with anti-Turkish lobbies (even supporting Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan).

I think you are missing a little bit here. I would say not that they are anti-turkish, but anti-kemalist. People have mostly forgotten that the secular-nationalist elements had already seized much power in the Ottoman Empire before the Arab revolt.
The Arabs stayed with the Empire until right at the end, well after nationalists like Kemal had already alienated non-Turk Arabs.

Not to mention of course that the nationalist tendencies were affecting the Arabs too; and all over the world in the 20th century nationalism took precedence over Ummahism.

While in the modern world I think there are not too many people who support the Arab revolt. You should be careful about thinking that the Arabs betrayed the Turks, because equally did the Turks betray the Arabs.

~And if you hadn't noticed the Ummah consists of many more people than just Arabs and Turks
~And the Arab revolt didn't include most Arabs
Back to Top
kafkas View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
  Quote kafkas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 14:03
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Originally posted by Kafkas

These are my sentiments exactly (my great-grandfather fought in WWI). What makes it worse is that Arab countries also have very anti-Turkish domestic and foreign policies, and to this day, despite their talk of "brotherhood", they are very proud of the cooperation they gave to the Allies against the Ottoman State.

Even all the Arab-American and influential so called "Islamic" organizations in the US, such as CAIR, openly cooperate with anti-Turkish lobbies (even supporting Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan).

I think you are missing a little bit here. I would say not that they are anti-turkish, but anti-kemalist. People have mostly forgotten that the secular-nationalist elements had already seized much power in the Ottoman Empire before the Arab revolt.
The Arabs stayed with the Empire until right at the end, well after nationalists like Kemal had already alienated non-Turk Arabs.

Not to mention of course that the nationalist tendencies were affecting the Arabs too; and all over the world in the 20th century nationalism took precedence over Ummahism.

While in the modern world I think there are not too many people who support the Arab revolt. You should be careful about thinking that the Arabs betrayed the Turks, because equally did the Turks betray the Arabs.

~And if you hadn't noticed the Ummah consists of many more people than just Arabs and Turks
~And the Arab revolt didn't include most Arabs


I guess you're right.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Originally posted by Kafkas

These are my sentiments exactly (my great-grandfather fought in WWI). What makes it worse is that Arab countries also have very anti-Turkish domestic and foreign policies, and to this day, despite their talk of "brotherhood", they are very proud of the cooperation they gave to the Allies against the Ottoman State.

Even all the Arab-American and influential so called "Islamic" organizations in the US, such as CAIR, openly cooperate with anti-Turkish lobbies (even supporting Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan).

I think you are missing a little bit here. I would say not that they are anti-turkish, but anti-kemalist. People have mostly forgotten that the secular-nationalist elements had already seized much power in the Ottoman Empire before the Arab revolt.
The Arabs stayed with the Empire until right at the end, well after nationalists like Kemal had already alienated non-Turk Arabs.

Not to mention of course that the nationalist tendencies were affecting the Arabs too; and all over the world in the 20th century nationalism took precedence over Ummahism.

While in the modern world I think there are not too many people who support the Arab revolt. You should be careful about thinking that the Arabs betrayed the Turks, because equally did the Turks betray the Arabs.

~And if you hadn't noticed the Ummah consists of many more people than just Arabs and Turks
~And the Arab revolt didn't include most Arabs


I guess you're right.

Originally posted by Mortaza

Bah, Atsız was as racist as hitler. I do not care who talk him and say good things about him.

And you cannot both become a racist and follower of islam.
 


Not necessarily, everyone has a thing or two about them others don't like, for some people it's drinking, in Nihal's case it's his racism.



Edited by kafkas - 18-Mar-2008 at 14:07
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 15:42
My attention got drawn to this thread by someone complaining about it: otherwise I haven't been following it. Personally I've always assumed Pakistan and Turkey got on well because they had no reason not to - like, perhaps, France and Greece, or Ecuador and Argentina. Modern Turkey has had pretty good relations with everyone, hasn't it? Even Israel much of the time. (Except for the Kurds, I suppose.)
 
I haven't seen anything yet to substantiate the complaint in my opinion.
 
However, as a comment on something that catches my eye:
 
Originally posted by kafkas

  As for judging, it's explicitly not allowed in Islam to judge others. I think in this context you're being a hypocrite.
I don't think you thought that one through. Unless you're saying you yourself are not Muslim.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Where was the "Ummah" in WWI? Fighting Turkish troops with Lawrence of Arabia and other such characters.

Providing thousands of troops to the Ottoman Empire from the future countries of Afghanistan, Pakistan & India.
Plus the troops sent to Mesopotamia to fight for the British, and the Arabs in revolt for their own sake. Tens of thousands died fighting against the Ottomans: the history books say that they were 'Indians'or 'sent from India', but that was because there was no distinction made at the time between the various inhabitants of the sub-continent at the time.
 
It is surely crass to claim Muslims never fight Muslims.


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.110 seconds.