HOME | DD
jollyjack — Naught but an Irritation
#paris #terror #terrorism #terrorist
Published: 2015-11-14 11:46:39 +0000 UTC; Views: 52799; Favourites: 1946; Downloads: 455
Redirect to original
Description
I don't think the people conducting these attacks quite understand: on an individual level, for those directly caught up in the event, terrorism is as harrowing and tragic an experience as any other act of aggression, but collectively, no one here gives a sh*t. Why? Because Europe was the birthplace of Industrial Warfare. Random killings don’t achieve anything. Small minded fools with delusions of grandeur who think killing a few civilians and then dying themselves will somehow benefit their cause are just seen as an irritation.Take the 2005 bombings in London, for example. More people were pissed off because the Tube was shut down rather than because an act of terror had just happened in the capital.
Picking up a gun and shooting lots of unarmed people before you yourself are taken down doesn't make you special. Anyone can do it and at the end of it, you’re dead, so the problem has essentially solved itself. The infrastructure you’re blaming for all the evils in the world is still fully functional because it’s never military or industrial targets that are attacked. It’s not “warfare”, it’s just random violence, and that’s easy for a nation to shrug off.
Related content
Comments: 583
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sorry for the events last days in London... Greetings from France.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Unfortunately, I don't remember if i stated my opinion on this artwork of yours. May I say it is genius ?
Thanks for the smile, and the more serious statements hidden beneath the humour.
Have a good day, sir.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Why is France a Poodle? I don't like poodles :/ French Bulldog are so much more sympathetic :3 I kind of agree that terrorism will never win, still, it's always sad to think people would get killed for something that stupid...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I guess security was on holiday at the time and took their metal detectors with them for treasure hunting at the beach.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You've been posting angrily all over my gallery. You seem desperate to try and pick a fight. If you want to make hypocrisy the theme, at least point to an actual example. I've been on DA long enough. There must be something I posted 10 years ago that you can hold up now and say "HA! Look! See! You said this then and have since changed your mind!". Look harder.
The above image is commentary on lone wolf attacks and how they ultimately have no effect on European countries.
The image you link to is commentary on the Syrian war, the related humanitarian crisis and inactivity because of politicians fretting over their careers rather than people's lives.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well this is a late reply but still counts even if they do eradicate the Isis exact this action can become the reason for other similar groups to arise
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hell before Islamic extremist were blowing things up and killing people, the British had to deal with the IRA... they're used to handling terrorist factions and their damage.
but the terrorists attacks are not to break and or hut the Europeans, they realize the Europeans are not the Americans, you can't cave them in with fear as easily as they can the US, these are actually recruitment tools for new fighters... "see what we can do, join us and we'll do more,"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The 2005 bombings in London? I literally don't even remember what you're referring to. Must have been one for the ages...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
People are more so pissed less at the fact that random attacks are happening more so than the government willing letting these people in that angers the people. Terrorism never really invokes terror, only anger. A government that seemingly doesn't give a damn about its native population spells civil unrest. They are also extremely pissed that these same people seem to be initiating an islamification of Western civilization. Their terrorism tactics are stupid, but their overwhelming population of like minds are nothing to snuff at. A couple terrorism attacks are nothing to Europe, but a constant threat of death in a neighborhood you once knew as safe is alarming.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's too bad the people who get attacked don't see it this way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
But now the tactic of human waves in the form of refugees has the potential of Europe becoming Islamic due to the shift in population.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Really, the only difference between these terrorists and hitler is opportunity and ambition.
Their ambition is to blow themselves up after shooting a bunch of people. One attack, and you're done. Big whoop.
If you want to make people REALLY scared, go into politics. Whip up a frenzy. Rig elections. Start a fucking war. Make people terrified that you're going to invade their country, round them up, and shoot them. Because you've done it to a lot of other countries already.
Terrorism is old hat. The IRA didn't kill me through causality when they tried to blow up my mother's workplace before I was born. Al-quaeda didn't get me. The taliban didn't get me. Why should this bunch of idiots who can't even decide on an acronym worry me?
Terrorism is not a danger to the average person. You know what is? What's infinitely more likely to kill you than terrorist attacks?
Stairs.
They lurk there, waiting, watching, just biding their time until you're tired, or drunk, or just not feeling particularly upright, or for a spillage. Then they strike.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The problem is that these people are desperate and don't have enough resources to actually aim their efforts towards a significant target, there was a time when these "terrorist" were proclaimed heroes by the US government for impeding the advance of communists in the middle east, but once that was over, and seeing that the "greatest ally" had a bone to pick up with them, the ultimate instrument of american diplomacy was deployed to get rid of them, they tried to retaliate in the only way they could at the moment and so the "war on terrorism" began. And it's been going like this for over a decade now. These guys hardly now how to hold a rifle without getting knocked off their feet by it, you think they'll now anything about strategic targets? some of them have an idea; they get weapons and money from some shady organizations through the black market and a few years later get killed by the marines, cue the cycle starting over. But that's exactly what the west wants, how else are they going to excuse their own campaigns of mass genocide to keep the world at their feet?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The west doesn't need genocide. They don't need to kill anyone. All they need is a way to keep throwing expensive guided weapons and have expensive vehicles developed, bought, and sold off again cheaply. The war on terror is mostly a construct of the American military-industrial-lobbyist complex.
Not that I'm really one to complain. It DID let me afford a couple of nice leather jackets and a holiday.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, they don't need to kill everyone themselves, they just need people somewhere trying to kill people somewhere else. Also, we're talking about options available, some may be more efficient than others but that doesn't mean you can exclude one on the grounds that there's another one, even without regarding which one is more efficient; and even more so if you can actually do both.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Stairs, the true enemy, but you know what's worse?........
Cows: The true land shark
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've never been hurt by a cow. Stairs? Lots of times.
Worst a cow's ever done was block my progress down a footpath while on holiday. Joke's on them; I'm going back this year, I'll go around them, and I will track down who owns them and the supply chain they end up in, and I'm going to eat them. Part of them, at least.
Pretty sure they're owned by someone in my family anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're more likely to be killed by a cow than a shark
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But far more likely to be killed by a fall down the stairs than by interaction with cows.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ha.
This actually puts a lot of things in perspective.
I was studying the Boston Tea Party the other day and I was wondering why the tea, and why not showering the blood of other English men and soldier instead as it may make it look like a more harmful impact.
What you just said just helped it make a lot of sense.
But just in case I don't get it wrong, is this the correct analogy?
US: OH NO! THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ARE GETTING SLAUGHTERED!
UK/Europe: DAMMIT! Now I can't watch Chap of the Manor. Darn media.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Either the leaders of ISIS/various terrorist cells are really, really dumb, or they don't want to destroy European countries at all. Take a look at the attacks in Paris. Sure you killed 150 people and injured hundreds, but imagine if you did than in Germany. Neo-nazi and anti-immigrant groups are already barking really loud and Merkel could have serious problems in the next elections. Now imagine if the attacks happened in Berlin in that kind of atmosphere. This could potentially cause mayhem in EU and would certainly cause more widespread effects than attack on France.
I personally think that ISIS was a product of someone's power play in the middle-east region and i am sure that that ''someone'' could pull the plug anytime they wanted.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Finally.....You're right,damn right.If NATO really wanted to destroy terrorist organization they could've done it.Easily with their resources.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Even if the nation isn't terrified, these events will have consequences. The number of hoops you have to jump through may become more overbearing, like trying to fly in an airplane. The pendulum of the nation's political thought may swing, perhaps towards right-leaning, conservative, or nationalism. In the event of a crisis, politicians will always jump on the legislative bandwagon to push through some kind of laws "in order to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again" (like they were suppose to already). And pray tell what exactly are France's politicians going to do to prevent another massacre? How many massacres is too many? Will politicians giving speeches about solidarity and strength going to deter a single Islamic terrorist?
The Islamic terrorist's ultimate goal is to impose Shariah law. It is their religious duty to do so. And how exactly do you dissuade religious fanatics from continuing to sacrifice their lives towards what they believe is righteous? I'll tell you what, it didn't stop the pacifist Christian martyrs. Christians conquered the world with a message of peace, dying at the hand's of their oppressors with righteous zeal for their Lord. And today, Muslims are fervently dying in the name of violence to bring about an Islamic State with just as much righteous zeal as the pacifist Christian martyrs. Do you really think this will end well for anyone?
History has proven time and again to be cyclical. A group of religious zealots will rise up and declare the old religious establishment to be corrupt. The religious zealots will overthrow the old religious establishment and eventually settle down as the authority and become dominant, rich and powerful. And eventually a new group of religious zealots will then rise up and declare the now old religious establishment to be corrupt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, your comment has three points I'd like to clear out and make a comment on, and in the eventuality that you consider this as some form of attack to you or your beliefs: Don't. I've had this argument far too many times and at this point it's mostly an issue of clearing out facts. Also, my original language is Spanish so sorry if I make any grammar mistakes.
Firstly, [to push through some kind of laws "in order to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again" (like they were suppose to already)] is, in practice, impossible. Regardless of how many laws you pass and how much control you have over the population, the ONE and only way to prevent a single individual (or six or twelve) to illegally bring in weapons or make their own and begin a shootout is through ABSOLUTE control of who's who and where they are. Even then, the logistics of trying to find a single person out of millions who's face and name you don't know without any information regarding when and where they'll attack is... well, nightmarish.
Secondly, please DO NOT mistake Islamic State with Muslims. ISIS (or DAESH or whatever they call themselves) are about as Muslim and representatives of Islam and Muslims in general as KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church is of Christianity and Christians. To give you a bit of a perspective: Pretty much 99% of ISIS victims are Muslims in places where Shariah law was already (at least partially) enforced, and the estimated number of people in ISIS is less than 0,1% of the world's Muslim population.
On a more history related note: Christianity did not spread as much as it did through "Peaceful Martyrs", they too had their "Zealot" years throughout the end of the middle ages and the beginning of the colonial ones. The short of it is that throughout their emergent years they were more or less peaceful (as most religions, really, here's a very brief timeline i.imgur.com/mBi4k2Z.gif ) spreading across the Roman empire the same way a cult would today: "Hey, have you heard of our lord and saviour?".
But things got iffy once the empire fell and kingdoms began to pop up all over the place with high % of Christians and a more religiously devout government system. That's when the Holy wars began, the Christian church had amassed a HUGE amount of $ and influence over the centuries and as many institutions they wanted to grow further, so began the whole "You're either with us or against us" that had a big conflict with Celts and Nords but quickly found Muslims and had their Crusades going on. It was bloody and it was messy. Latter on came the infamous Inquisition, which was geared and aimed mostly to get rid of "Infidels" or "Non believers" since the Iberian Peninsula had been heavily occupied by Muslim rulers for quite a while and they wanted to "Purify" the area (eventually this same inquisition would be the one that began the "Witch hunts" that had far too many people tortured and killed in a myriad of creative ways).
But the real reason Christianity has spread as much as it has is thanks to mister Columbus and his wild goose chase of finding a way to reach the Indies (Asia) through the Atlantic. It turned out he discovered a whole new continent, though the poor sod died believing he had achieved his original goal of getting to Asia. So, now with a foothold in America and with a great deal of the locals having died out of diseases they had not encountered EVER before (it's roughly estimated around 80% of the original Indian population had been annihilated by the common flu between Columbus's first and second visit), the inquisition had a great interest in making sure that the locals were "Enlightened" to Jesus's words of peace and forgiveness.
Being the inquisition, their preferred method of "spreading" the religion was through enslavement of the locals until they converted, and then only granting them the rights of a third class citizen (Hispanic descendants born on America would be given the rights of second class citizens... which would eventually lead to the rebellions that'd begin the various nations in America becoming independent from their European rulers). The English too had a method of "Spreading the love" that I'm a bit less informed on but that to my understanding the process involved a whole lot more killing and a whole lot less enslaving.
HOWEVER, at the same time this was happening something big took place within the Catholic ranks in Europe: Martin Luther. Basically the dude didn't like that the Roman Catholic church had become so opulent while demanding $ in exchange of Holy Salvation. And though the Roman Church did not like this because it would cut one of their main forms of profit, a whole lot of people (many with power and wanting to become detached to the Church's overbearing influence) LOVED the idea.
Initially considered an irritation they tried to ignore, the influence in Luther's variation of Christianity (Lutherism) grew enough that the Pope himself could not allow it to continue, and following the good old example of the inquisition did what they did best: Kill those that didn't follow their own variation of their doctrine. Fortunately (or not depending on who you ask) a great deal of people did not like this, and a big-ass war broke out that drained Europe's resources fast and weakened their hold on America. So this dude called Simon Bolivar that helped out during the US's independence came to South America and said: "Hey, freedom seemed to go swell up north, how about we get some of that over here too?"... so he pretty much began a tour through South America that kicked Spain's nuts all the way into their throat. At which point religious conflict began to tapper of and the more political sides of this took over (Now the fighting was more along the lines of who owns what rather than who's way of praying is the "Proper" one).
And ALL this is to reach the little part at the end of this narration: you're right, history DOES repeat itself, but only if you oversimplify it to the extreme.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Sorry for the late response, but this required a good investment of time considering how thoughtfully and well written your piece was. So I wanted to respond in kind with a detailed explanation rather than circumspect piece full of generalities that would not express the nuances of the subjects.
As to your first point, I am not an advocate of Orwell's Big Brother watching over and tracking the movements of the populace. Logistically it would be a nightmare and in terms of human rights it would be an atrocity. What I was alleging is that the government claims to be the people's protectors, so how does the government explain how these massacres happen? And if they claim that these new laws will 'actually' protect us, how? How exactly? If the government is suppose to be our protector, then they were either lying about protecting us and/or they failed at their duty. And because they failed before, how can anyone trust them to protect us now?
Personally I don't think individual persons should rely on the government to protect the people. Individual people should arm themselves and protect themselves because the government wont and cannot protect the individual people.
Second point, members of ISIS are Muslims. ISIS members are militant Muslims spreading Sharia law. Your point that ISIS specifically and Islamic terrorism in general does not represent Islam would make sense if it was only a small, radical part of Islam. But it's not a small radicalized part of Islam. Muslims all over the world, in every country are committing acts of terrorism, from beheading innocents, to blowing up religious temples, to raping women, to shooting indiscriminately into crowds of people. The amount of terrorist activities performed by Muslims around the globe are not statistically irrelevant. You cannot open a newspaper without seeing news about a new massacre or tragedy. And moderate Muslims are not speaking up and denouncing these terrorist acts. So I am not inclined at all to believe that ISIS is not representative of Islam as a whole. Normally I would say that "the actions of a few should not malign the identity of the majority", but this is not a few radicals committing terrorism, it is a significant number of Muslims fighting under the banner of Islam. To say otherwise is just fooling yourself.
I cannot say too much about the KKK because I am not as familiar with their history. However, the KKK in the 21st century are practically irrelevant and defunct. Nowadays, nobody but a unbelievably minuscule part of America would willingly call themselves a KKK member. And no one is going to confuse the activities of a white supremacist/separatist group with any mainstream christian organization. Name me one single incident in 2015 where KKK members actually did something newsworthy. Just one.
Third point, generalizing history. You are correct, I am generalizing, in fact I am using huge generalizations. But you are going to have to give me some slack because I am trying to describe the entirety of the formation of the Christian church over 2,000 years in one paragraph. Give me a break. It is not possible express the entire history of the Church in such a small space, nor to include all of the nuances, and the nuances of nuances. We could get lost for hours just trying to discuss every single major event in Christianity's history. If you want to talk about history in detail, I would love to, it's one of my favorite subjects. It is true that Christians have had quite an extensive, and at times, bloody, corrupt, nasty past. Ever hear the phrase, "Kill them all and let god sort them out."? This is a saying that people like to bandy about when talking about Muslims nowadays, but rarely are the origins of this quote ever discussed. It was from a major piece of history, the Albigensian Crusade , spoken by Arnaud Amalric. He was a Catholic Christian abbot who was leading Catholic Christian soldiers in a crusade against heretic Christians in southern France. This crusade exterminated entire villages and cities of Cathar Christians, considered to be heretics. During the razing of a city, when the abbot was asked by a soldier how to tell the difference between the Catholic Christians and the Cathar Christians who lived in the city, the abbot spoke his immortal phrase. History can be quite fascinating.
"And ALL this is to reach the little part at the end of this narration: you're right, history DOES repeat itself, but only if you oversimplify it to the extreme." -TGFWriter
Fourth point, Just because something is a generalization does not make it false. Things that are hot will burn the hand. Objects will fall towards the ground. Human societies have beginnings, middles, and ends. Things that are old and decrepit will succumb to the new and robust. Old religious organizations will be ousted by newer religious organizations. This last one has numerous examples. such as:
-Mesopotamian Gods are defunct
-Norse Gods replaced by Christianity
-Greek Gods replaced by Roman Gods, then replaced by Christianity
-Zoroastrian Gods replaced by Christianity
-Celtic Gods replaced by Christianity
-Christianity schisms into Catholics and Protestants
-Protestants schism into numerous even small groups
-England decides to make their king the pope of their version of Christianity, Anglicanism
-Islam replaces all the tribal gods of Arabia and Persia
-Islam schism into Shiite and Sunni
etc...
I can go on and on, but I think I have proven my point. History is cyclical. Older religious establishments are usurped and ousted by newer versions, and eventually the newer versions are in turn also ousted.
"those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
I hope this clarifies my argument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd like to start off by thanking you for the extensive reply. It's rare to find people willing to take the time to properly make a calm and reasoned response
About how politicians have claimed the laws will protect the country I agree with you in that it's mostly bull and/or are infringing into our own privacy/freedom with claims of "Better Security". Frankly, it's bull. As I mentioned earlier, the only possible way to truly guarantee such a thing would be through complete control of who's who and where they are, something that's nigh impossible and a complete atrocity to our rights.
And though I do agree that people should be able to defend themselves, it's an iffy subject at best. There should be boundaries as to how far one should have access to be able to "Protect oneself". What these are I'd rather not go into since I feel it depends too heavily on context and personal preferences/discipline. What I WOULD like to point out is that even if every single person in a country were capable of defending oneself with (for example) a gun, it's still going to be impossible to 100% stop any such incident from happening.
And this happens EVERYWHERE, from countries like Canada en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_sho… to the (in)famous school shootings in the US en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_… ;, as well as other attacks such as the recent event where a student went on a rampage using knives/swords edition.cnn.com/2015/10/22/eur… , which happened in Sweden, a country that handles the whole gun issue in a very interesting way (that I personally like to believe is perhaps among the best ways to do it). Here's a very resumed version if you're interested www.sweden.org.za/gun-laws-in-… (though they skipped on the part that shops also have a very tight hold on the selling of ammunition as well, requiring certain paperwork to be filled out if you want to buy any).
On to the second point.
"And moderate Muslims are not speaking up and denouncing these terrorist acts." -Nick-Matulich
Maybe in your news channels they don't, but...:
www.thedailybeast.com/articles… - time.com/4112830/muslims-paris… - edition.cnn.com/2015/11/16/wor… - www.pri.org/stories/2015-11-18… - www.cbsnews.com/videos/america… - www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.6… - www.beliefnet.com/columnists/c…
And even if we ignored the point that they're also actively fighting against ISIS...:
www.nbcnewyork.com/news/nation… - edition.cnn.com/2015/12/14/mid… - www.breitbart.com/national-sec… - edition.cnn.com/2015/11/19/eur…
You seem to forget that not only are most ISIS victims other Muslims, but the forces shedding blood in the war against this extremist abomination are composed near in their entirety by Muslim soldiers (Almost all terrorist attacks are local and aimed at civilians, making the victims people of similar religion/nationality than those of the terrorists).
Also, here's a very well written article regarding terrorism in general, how it works/started, and good ways to fight against it that I think you should give a read-over issuu.com/f3magazine/docs/f3_m…
I personally like to believe that your case is one of misinformation as it's common that first-world media not quite show the whole picture or be more biased against Muslims in general because, hey, Islam and Christianity have not been getting along that well throughout the past couple hundred years, so it makes a bit of sense that we have a certain bias against the religion in general.
Case in point, using the definition of terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" then this man should have been called out as such en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_B… after he killed 77 people in Norway to further his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and pro-“Christian Europe” agenda as he stated in his manifesto. But he wasn't labelled such, instead, articles all over the world called it a shooting, mass murderer.
But not a terrorist.
All the while, we have this also very known and more recent case: edition.cnn.com/2015/09/16/us/… where a Muslim kid brought a more or less hand-built clock to school and got labelled a terrorist quicker than you can say "It's not racism".(I'd like to avoid the controversy of the latter since it'd be only going in circles, I just took the first two most notable cases).
This makes (from the get-go) a near impossibility to make real estimates of what % of terrorists are of one agenda or another. After all, how in the world are you supposed to find out (unless you're a hired professional, then it'd be your job to figure it out) how many terrorists are trying to do what? (which shows a bit less biased numbers here www.globalresearch.ca/non-musl… and a curious article over here www.thedailybeast.com/articles… and a couple other examples www.alternet.org/tea-party-and… )
That issue aside, if you you want the short of it as to why we find the middle east is the hot-spot for terrorism, you should also give a read to this little comment by reddit user "DrColdReality" that does a decent job of TL;DR'ing down the whys to the situation www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeim… ;
And here's a couple tables that give a decent outlook over terror attacks throughout the past 15 years or so:
www.smh.com.au/content/dam/ima…
cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/…
EVEN THEN, let's say you want to talk statistics, claim that regardless of potential media bias, Muslims have a high rate of being murder/terrorists/extremists/etc. Let's roll the numbers:
It's estimated (as of 2010) there was about 1.6 BILLION Muslims worldwide. That's 1600000000 Muslims.
A quick search gives out that it's estimates about that ISIS has around 200000 militants. To carry my point across, let's say the numbers are SEVERELY wrong and it's in fact FIVE times that. (So 1000000).
EVEN THEN, the numbers would show that 0.0625% of Muslims are terrorists.
That means that if you're likelier to be struck by lightning at some point in your lifetime (0.083%) than to pick a terrorist out of a randomly selected Muslim.
UGH. That was a lot.
To the last bit.
It's just a sidenote really since I don't have much issue with what you mentioned (other than there was a recently opened Norse church in Iceland www.history.com/news/first-vik… )
The problem with "History repeating itself" it's not so much that we forget what happened and so ignore what's happening now. It's that we can draw such a HUGE number of similarities between what's happening now and many different events that happened before (each of which having ended a different way) that the only point at which we're certain as to when "History repeated itself" is AFTER the events have taken place and the damage has been done.
Which is why I find the whole phrase somewhat frustrating to say the least.
That is all I think, hope I didn't rant too much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... and now I'm imaging fleas killing of other fleas on the far end of a dog's ass, that look no different than the one it's beside...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Holy shit that was EPIC! Have you ever considered helping out a series called "Extra History" on YouTube?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd heard of them though no, not very interested in it.
My history is too general and not too specific, ask me for specific dates/names and I'll get dizzy.
But thanks on the comment
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
English Bulldog.
French Poodle.
d'ohohohohoho.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I could so imagine an american bulldog chasing a laser-dot through the picture (in a 3koma way).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Barking it's head off at a Chinese Crested.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
OMG, the chinese chow-chows have a laser satelite in space and they use it to bully the poor americans, nooooo!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd think that they'd be Shar Peis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
China is big country. Big country for many dogs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Too many dogs, one would say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That why they made "one-dog" policy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm just here to read the arguments, nice work though, really funny.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
'Tis is but a scratch...
And with that hair... on the poodle...
Well, 'tis is not a poodle so... www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd2tIu…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>