Govt Buildings Bombed In Oslo

At least Michael (Savage) Weiner has it right. On July 22 he had the foresight and global understanding to know exactly who committed such disgusting attacks:

http://youtu.be/RA2Ove2ccvA

Why would the UK ban this guy from entering their country, I wonder.
 
It's a little sad that the same right wing bloggers who attempt to indict all Muslims for the actions of the violent few are now being hoisted by their own petard. Think a lot of them were directly cited in the dude's manifesto.
 
For those of you who follow right-wing head pieces a little more than I do, has anyone approached this from the angle of Norway's overly strict (in comparison to the US) gun laws?
 
Bob, I'm not sure either, but at least based on a report that was released at the beginning of all of this, the shooter had two legally, registered guns.

Now to take it off-topic and start a new rant-what if the laws were less strict, and a staff member or someone else had a gun for self defense at the youth center and could've interrupted the shooter's rampage?
 
[quote name='berzirk']Bob, I'm not sure either, but at least based on a report that was released at the beginning of all of this, the shooter had two legally, registered guns.

Now to take it off-topic and start a new rant-what if the laws were less strict, and a staff member or someone else had a gun for self defense at the youth center and could've interrupted the shooter's rampage?[/QUOTE]

It's my (admittedly, limited) understanding that regular beat cops in Norway don't carry firearms - so even if police were on-scene at the exact moment it started, they would have had to wait for a special unit to roll in - or get lucky.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's my (admittedly, limited) understanding[/QUOTE]

Hmph.

They do not carry firearms on their person, but they do have firearms in their patrol cars.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's my (admittedly, limited) understanding that regular beat cops in Norway don't carry firearms - so even if police were on-scene at the exact moment it started, they would have had to wait for a special unit to roll in - or get lucky.[/QUOTE]

That blows my mind. But then again, I remember seeing "soldiers" in Saudi Arabia that were asleep in chairs holding assault rifles with tissues stuffed where the magazine should be. Heh.

Edited after Myke's post. Good to know they at least have a damn firearm at their disposal. Why they don't just carry it is beyond me though. There are emergency situations that could arise where the guy is saying to himself, hmm, that patrol car a block and a half away has my means for protecting the public. I should probably go back and get that!
 
The more likely scenario is that police drive to the location of an emergency call, and, when they get out of the car, they take their firearm with them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The more likely scenario is that police drive to the location of an emergency call, and, when they get out of the car, they take their firearm with them.[/QUOTE]

Overwhelmingly I would suspect this is what happens, but what about those once in a blue moon situations where an officer is on-site for something that doesn't appear to be violent, and it takes a turn for the worse? To me there is no excuse for a trained law enforcement officer to not have a lethal weapon on their person.
 
[quote name='Clak']Crimes and crime rates aren't the same around the world.[/QUOTE]

I get that, but as a law enforcement officer that could be in one of those "never thought it would happen" scenarios, I would think all officers should be required to carry. A person with a knife can do a ton of damage fast. The criminals don't need to be using guns in order to justify lethal weapons by law enforcement.
 
[quote name='Clak']Crimes and crime rates aren't the same around the world.[/QUOTE]
Also, not everyone reacts to it the same way we do.;)
 
I'm just saying, you find it hard to believe they don't carry, they'd probably be surprised our police do carry. Now the American way to react to this would be to require police to carry automatic assault rifles from now on, hopefully the Norwegians are a little more level headed.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm just saying, you find it hard to believe they don't carry, they'd probably be surprised our police do carry. Now the American way to react to this would be to require police to carry automatic assault rifles from now on, hopefully the Norwegians are a little more level headed.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree with you there. Maybe it's cause I know a couple of guys in federal law enforcement so I hear some pretty outrageous stories, but those guys can barely go to bed at night without a holster.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Overwhelmingly I would suspect this is what happens, but what about those once in a blue moon situations where an officer is on-site for something that doesn't appear to be violent, and it takes a turn for the worse? To me there is no excuse for a trained law enforcement officer to not have a lethal weapon on their person.[/QUOTE]

This is because you are American, and American law enforcement = guns.

Your logic here is the same of those who thought Virginia Tech could have been stopped if we allowed concealed carry laws to carry over to college campuses. Which is not only untrue, it neglects to consider the residual effects of more guns in more places (i.e., more accidental firearms-related fatalities).

[quote name='Clak']Any opinions on this?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/accused-norway-killer-may-land-luxurious-prison-173329040.html[/QUOTE]

Well, in the US we treat incarcerated persons in dehumanizing and militaristic ways that degrade their person, reduce their freedom, and challenges their basic rights. They continue to reoffend at such high rates that 2/3 of everyone released from prison this year will be back in prison in 3 years. Our folly is one that believes we must continue to punish, punish, punish. As more punitive policies have passed in the past 4 decades, recidivism has only increased. I can guarantee you the recidivism rate (and overall crime rate) in Norway is far lower than in the US. So we have no place to critique them, as their prisons succeed where ours fail.
 
Not to mention that in the VT case you would have had multiple people shooting at the guy or even each other if someone walked into it and didn't know what was going on. You would have had a firefight where we had one guy shooting the place up. Plus how do the police know who the criminal is and who is just defending themselves when they walk into a situation like that? The bad guys don't wear signs letting you who is who.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This is because you are American, and American law enforcement = guns.

Your logic here is the same of those who thought Virginia Tech could have been stopped if we allowed concealed carry laws to carry over to college campuses. Which is not only untrue, it neglects to consider the residual effects of more guns in more places (i.e., more accidental firearms-related fatalities).



Well, in the US we treat incarcerated persons in dehumanizing and militaristic ways that degrade their person, reduce their freedom, and challenges their basic rights. They continue to reoffend at such high rates that 2/3 of everyone released from prison this year will be back in prison in 3 years. Our folly is one that believes we must continue to punish, punish, punish. As more punitive policies have passed in the past 4 decades, recidivism has only increased. I can guarantee you the recidivism rate (and overall crime rate) in Norway is far lower than in the US. So we have no place to critique them, as their prisons succeed where ours fail.[/QUOTE]

I actually sway back and forth on whether guns on campus are a good thing. I'm definitely pro-gun, but even trying to push that bias aside, I just don't see how law enforcement can be prepared for all threats they may encounter in Norway or anywhere else in the world, without a lethal means of defense.

Regarding recidivism rates, I just read that in some Scandinavian country it is only 20% compared to our 60%. It's true there are completely different societies and norms to consider, but I still get back to the same issue. Let's say there's a crazy running around with a knife slashing at people. There is a cop on site, but he has to run off to get his gun, or risk being slashed himself by apprehending the guy by hand. Why be put in that risky situation when something as simple as having law enforcement armed could reduce the risk?

I don't think we necessarily need a bunch of vigilantes running around with a six shooter, but I'm sure glad law enforcement is armed here in the States.
 
[quote name='Clak']Not to mention that in the VT case you would have had multiple people shooting at the guy or even each other if someone walked into it and didn't know what was going on. You would have had a firefight where we had one guy shooting the place up. Plus how do the police know who the criminal is and who is just defending themselves when they walk into a situation like that? The bad guys don't wear signs letting you who is who.[/QUOTE]

100%, all good questions/issues to consider. Completely agree.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I don't think we necessarily need a bunch of vigilantes running around with a six shooter, but I'm sure glad law enforcement is armed here in the States.[/QUOTE]

Ask Amadou Diallo or Oscar Grant about that. They're not the only ones, mind. I'm not disagreeing fully, but there are social costs to arming our police in the way we do: innocent people are killed by police from time to time. That is our burden.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I actually sway back and forth on whether guns on campus are a good thing. I'm definitely pro-gun, but even trying to push that bias aside, I just don't see how law enforcement can be prepared for all threats they may encounter in Norway or anywhere else in the world, without a lethal means of defense.

Regarding recidivism rates, I just read that in some Scandinavian country it is only 20% compared to our 60%. It's true there are completely different societies and norms to consider, but I still get back to the same issue. Let's say there's a crazy running around with a knife slashing at people. There is a cop on site, but he has to run off to get his gun, or risk being slashed himself by apprehending the guy by hand. Why be put in that risky situation when something as simple as having law enforcement armed could reduce the risk?

I don't think we necessarily need a bunch of vigilantes running around with a six shooter, but I'm sure glad law enforcement is armed here in the States.[/QUOTE]You could train the police to disarm them? I mean if you know what you're doing, a guy with a knife isn't that dangerous. Then again, even our police have gotten a bit lazy as well. Easier to just taze someone.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I actually sway back and forth on whether guns on campus are a good thing. I'm definitely pro-gun, but even trying to push that bias aside, I just don't see how law enforcement can be prepared for all threats they may encounter in Norway or anywhere else in the world, without a lethal means of defense.

Regarding recidivism rates, I just read that in some Scandinavian country it is only 20% compared to our 60%. It's true there are completely different societies and norms to consider, but I still get back to the same issue. Let's say there's a crazy running around with a knife slashing at people. There is a cop on site, but he has to run off to get his gun, or risk being slashed himself by apprehending the guy by hand. Why be put in that risky situation when something as simple as having law enforcement armed could reduce the risk?

I don't think we necessarily need a bunch of vigilantes running around with a six shooter, but I'm sure glad law enforcement is armed here in the States.[/QUOTE]
I might be a far left loonie, but I support gun ownership if one is so inclined. Let's be real for a moment.

The ability of two police officers to effective contain, dis-arm, and apprehend a suspect in situations like VT and Norway are extremely slim. A vast majority of cops aren't marksmen or trained in urban warfare. Whenever there's a case of someone walking around shooting shit up, hundreds, or thousands depending on the situation, of rounds are fired by cops. Only a few ever hit their targets. The same applies on any battlefield on the planet as most rounds are fired to provide cover. So having a couple of cops armed to the teeth has been proven to not work time and time again. Hell, last year a cop was shot to death trying to apprehend someone that just tried to rob a Kohls. One robber against 2 cops and one cop was killed. This is not some abberation.

I'm not saying that cops trained in urban warfare or carry hi-cap automatic rifles will help, but that a cop with a gun won't make much of a difference in these types of situations. Stress fucks people up in very profound ways and an organized response is always preferable because not every cop will be an elite operator and we don't need a militarized police force...or at least anymore than it already is. By the time the first shot is fired, it's already too late.
 
[quote name='Clak']You could train the police to disarm them? I mean if you know what you're doing, a guy with a knife isn't that dangerous. Then again, even our police have gotten a bit lazy as well. Easier to just taze someone.[/QUOTE]

Hmm. Disarming a guy with a knife is extremely dangerous. I'm not sure where your opinion on that is coming from. They have done studies and I believe it works out to be that if a person with a knife is within either 16 or 20...ahh, here it is, Tueller's Drill:

-Sgt. Dennis Tueller of Salt Lake City Police Department conducted experiments which let [sic] to the conclusion that an attacker with a knife in his hand covers 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. Therefore anything under 21 feet is considered to be in the zone of "imminent danger of death or great bodily harm."

In other words a person with a knife or any edged weapon is a direct and imminent threat to you if that person is within 21 feet (7 yards).

Research shows that a person with a knife who is closer than 7 yards can stab or cut you before you can stop them with a gun.

Most police officers, even with the gun already in hand, cannot hit a target twice before the "assailant" can cover 10 yards.
Cutting that distance down to around 7 yards takes lots of practice and training.-
Click to expand...

Yes, there are hand to hand combat methods fo trying to disarm a person with a knife, but that's sort of the point of the firearm for the officer, they don't need to be in harm's way to still eliminate a threat. Yes tasers and non-lethal options are present, and I'm not saying everyone should go Clint Eastwood and start emptying lead, but an officer with a firearm can eliminate more threats, and permanently-for good and for bad-with lethal weapons when the situation warrants it.
 
I stand by the comment, if you actually know what you're doing, that being operative here, I don't think it would be. Problem being that I don't think police are really trained in how to disarm someone without a taser or pepper spray or something of that nature.

Just so you know what I mean, train them like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_4q5dTo_Bg

Rather than have them rely on guns or non lethal weapons.
 
[quote name='Clak']Plus how do the police know who the criminal is and who is just defending themselves when they walk into a situation like that? The bad guys don't wear signs letting you who is who.[/QUOTE]


One of my favorite pro gun arguments: if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns

Well, certainly makes them easy to identify then now doesn't it?
 
[quote name='Clak']I stand by the comment, if you actually know what you're doing, that being operative here, I don't think it would be. Problem being that I don't think police are really trained in how to disarm someone without a taser or pepper spray or something of that nature.

Just so you know what I mean, train them like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_4q5dTo_Bg

Rather than have them rely on guns or non lethal weapons.[/QUOTE]

Oh for sure, there are techniques, Krav Magra is an Israeli martial art that is all about disarming people, but you're significantly raising the risk of injury or death to an officer. It's not the movies, as Doh said, where the superstar cop fires 3 shots and kills 4 dudes, plus blasts the gun out of a 5th guy's hand, but the flip side is that just because there are techniques for disarming, doesn't mean the officer does it right, and while they could have used a gun to get the person to surrender or eliminate the threat, now instead, the officer is bleeding to death and the criminal is running away.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both methodologies, but if the officer had a gun on them, they could elect to use whichever method they thought was the most effective for them personally, and which one kept them and the public the safest.
 
I just think we rely on guns far too much in the U.S. Police haven't always carried guns, and obviously in some countries not all do even now. They're certainly necessary in some cases, but I simply think it isn't necessary to have every cop on the street with a pistol on their belt. It seems obvious to us that they'd have them, because none of us have known a time when they didn't, but obviously that isn't the case in all countries.

I look at it as, it's cheaper and easier to rely on guns to protect somebody then actually training them to protect themselves without one. Training like that takes time and money, while just about anyone could shoot somebody at say 5 feet or so.
 
Well, I think cops need to have guns in this country just because any citizen can have them. The cops need to ideally be better armed than criminals they may come across in the majority of encounters. Other countries they don't need guns as much as many fewer citizens have guns. I'm not a fan of guns at all, but that's just the reality of this country.

And police generally do get trained on other disarming techniques etc. But it's kind of silly to take the risk involved in trying to do those things vs. using the tazer or pepper spray etc. When dealing with an armed suspect who is threatening them and/or others, the safety of the officer and other citizen's is the top priority. Not the health of the knucklehead who is threatening someone with a weapon.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, I think cops need to have guns in this country just because any citizen can have them. The cops need to ideally be better armed than criminals they may come across in the majority of encounters. Other countries they don't need guns as much as many fewer citizens have guns. I'm not a fan of guns at all, but that's just the reality of this country.

And police generally do get trained on other disarming techniques etc. But it's kind of silly to take the risk involved in trying to do those things vs. using the tazer or pepper spray etc. When dealing with an armed suspect who is threatening them and/or others, the safety of the officer and other citizen's is the top priority. Not the health of the knucklehead who is threatening someone with a weapon.[/QUOTE]

Wholeheartedly agree with both parts of the comment. It would be great if officers in our country didn't need guns, but I think they do, and disarming sounds great, but to when it puts an officer's life in danger. You nailed it IMO.
 
This guy has been called a Christian terrorist by some people, and of course we can guess who here in the U.S. takes issue with that. My question though is, why not? We can't have Christian terrorists in the same way we have Muslim terrorists?
 
[quote name='Clak']This guy has been called a Christian terrorist by some people, and of course we can guess who here in the U.S. takes issue with that. My question though is, why not? We can't have Christian terrorists in the same way we have Muslim terrorists?[/QUOTE]

He IS a Christian terrorist, it's not a question or a debate. Saying he's not a Christian terrorist because he isn't peaceful as the Bible says to be means that you can't call anybody a Muslim terrorist because they aren't peaceful like the Quran says to be. You can't have one or the other.
 
Clak's point is sarcastically made. To many on the right in the US, a person who looks Muslim and isn't submissive or demure is a Muslim terrorist. A Christian will always be a "lone nut."

It's basic confirmatory bias, but to anyone with elementary critical thinking skills, it's preposterous logic.

Sadly, some politicians either reflect these bigoted belief systems themselves, or refuse to condemn them because they need those racists' votes.

Worst of all, you'll have these racists admit that there are Christian Terrorists (in theory), and they'll wrangle their way around explaining that Brevik was not one. This is where they show their true bigotry, by flipping and flopping back and forth to point to satisfy their confirmation bias ideals.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Clak's point is sarcastically made. To many on the right in the US, a person who looks Muslim and isn't submissive or demure is a Muslim terrorist. A Christian will always be a "lone nut."

It's basic confirmatory bias, but to anyone with elementary critical thinking skills, it's preposterous logic.

Sadly, some politicians either reflect these bigoted belief systems themselves, or refuse to condemn them because they need those racists' votes.

Worst of all, you'll have these racists admit that there are Christian Terrorists (in theory), and they'll wrangle their way around explaining that Brevik was not one. This is where they show their true bigotry, by flipping and flopping back and forth to point to satisfy their confirmation bias ideals.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I think it was O'Reilly who said that no one who followed the word of Jesus could be a terrorist. That in and of itself is such a stupid statement it's mind numbing. Hell, the crusades had the backing of the Catholic church for crying out loud. I know I know, that was a long time ago and doesn't count, but it does.
 
[quote name='Clak']Exactly. I think it was O'Reilly who said that no one who followed the word of Jesus could be a terrorist. That in and of itself is such a stupid statement it's mind numbing. Hell, the crusades had the backing of the Catholic church for crying out loud. I know I know, that was a long time ago and doesn't count, but it does.[/QUOTE]

Are you seriously trying to say the catholic church and the "words of Jesus" are, or ever have been, the same?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Are you seriously trying to say the catholic church and the "words of Jesus" are, or ever have been, the same?[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to infer that any Christian church has ever interpreted the Jesus mythology correctly?
 
[quote name='camoor']Are you trying to infer that any Christian church has ever interpreted the Jesus mythology correctly?[/QUOTE]

If they try to use Jesus' words as justification for killing? Absolutely.

If an atheist interprets Darwin's works in a way that leads him to justify killing, it doesn't make Darwin, or Atheism dangerous or suspect.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']If an atheist interprets Darwin's works in a way that leads him to justify killing, it doesn't make Darwin, or Atheism dangerous or suspect.[/QUOTE]

This doesn't make any sense.

Darwin's works were scientific in nature. It seems that you and Knoell (among others) don't get this - science doesn't justify anything, it just is.

The sun is hot, animals evolve, the earth is heating up, these are all scientific theories.

Once you begin to draw moral conclusions based on these theories you've exited science and entered philosophy (specifically ethics). In other words, it's not Darwin you're thinking of, it's likely Dawkins or someone of his ilk.
 
People have used science to justify evils though. Take eugenics for one example.

Anything--be it science, religion, philosophy, etc. can be used to justify things.

And in any of these cases, it's the morons using it to justify evils that are fault, not the science or religion used to justify their actions.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']People have used science to justify evils though. Take eugenics for one example.

Anything--be it science, religion, philosophy, etc. can be used to justify things.

And in any of these cases, it's the morons using it to justify evils that are fault, not the science or religion used to justify their actions.[/QUOTE]

Nailed it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Are you seriously trying to say the catholic church and the "words of Jesus" are, or ever have been, the same?[/QUOTE]
The Catholic church is the largest Christian body on earth. The Pope, according to Catholics, is god's representative on earth. The pope sanctioned it, what more do you need? Jesus' words are what Christians say they are, no one knows what the guy actually said about anything. Plenty of things have been taken out, put in, reinterpreted etc. Besides, do we really need to trot out the violent passages in the bible again?

Besides, it isn't for you or me, or anyone to say someone is or isn't something. It's like saying someone isn't really a democrat/republican, who the hell are you to say that?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']People have used science to justify evils though. Take eugenics for one example.[/QUOTE]

However on it's own science does not justify anything. No matter how much a philisophical arguement may purport to be scientific in nature, a subjective evaluation is always involved. The arguements for or against eugenics always include a subjective evaluation about what is "just" or "good".

To Thrust's post, a person cannot intepret Darwin's scientific works in a way that leads him to justify killing unless he is flat-out hallucinating. I challenge anyone to quote any passage of Darwin's scientific works that would refute this. Science lays out the facts and lets you decide. It's religion that tells you how to think, the underlying factual basis varying by religion.
 
Oh I agree re: Darwin.

Just saying that people can twist science to justify things just like they can twist religion.

I mean I'm a (social) scientist and abhor religion. But I realize in general that religion isn't the problem, it's whack jobs who twist it to justify their evils. Just like people can twist science to support policies like eugenics.

But I do get your distinction you're making in that there are violent passages in religious texts that say to stone adulterers etc. and that's more direct than say science showing mental defects are hereditary then leading to policies of sterilizing the mentally ill etc. There is an extra step of "twisting" involved when it comes to science, when lots of the religious issues are just extremists focusing on long disregarded parts of religious texts.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']People have used science to justify evils though. Take eugenics for one example.

Anything--be it science, religion, philosophy, etc. can be used to justify things.

And in any of these cases, it's the morons using it to justify evils that are fault, not the science or religion used to justify their actions.[/QUOTE]

Well said.

If someone shoots up motorists because they listened to Al Gore on global warming would we villify that scientific movement because of that? If it's not stated directly in the bible or koran or an inconvient truth to do that then do we hold that institution or the guy who did it responsible? I'm not denying this guy was ethnocentric and didn't want other nationalities or religions in his country but your only going to lump the man with the institution if you have an agenda against it. Should I lump the green movement with eco-terrorists and Greenpeace?
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Well said.[/QUOTE]

Sure, but I wonder if you understand the following converstation just as well.

[quote name='jputahraptor']If someone shoots up motorists because they listened to Al Gore on global warming would we villify that scientific movement because of that?[/QUOTE]

You get back to me when that happens (IE never)

[quote name='jputahraptor']If it's not stated directly in the bible or koran or an inconvient truth to do that then do we hold that institution or the guy who did it responsible? I'm not denying this guy was ethnocentric and didn't want other nationalities or religions in his country but your only going to lump the man with the institution if you have an agenda against it. Should I lump the green movement with eco-terrorists and Greenpeace?[/QUOTE]

Can you please cite the passages in "An Inconvenient Truth" that you believe are inflammatory? Any ol' quote will do.
 
I think his point was that there's not anything in An Inconvenient Truth that tells eco-terrorists to go bomb things etc., just like there's nothing in the bible that tells people to go blow up buildings and shoot people to protest muslim immigration.

Again, I hate religion but I think people are going overboard if they blame it for these kinds of incidents. Anything can be twisted by a nutjob to try to justify their evil.

Again, I get that religion is different in certain cases like stoning adulterers etc. as their are direct passages about that in the bible and koran etc. But I've never seen a compelling argument that anything in either text can support terrorism without an extreme amount of twisting of the text by extremists. And I don't see that as any different than people twisting science to support eugenics etc.
 
[quote name='camoor']Sure, but I wonder if you understand the following converstation just as well.



You get back to me when that happens (IE never)



Can you please cite the passages in "An Inconvenient Truth" that you believe are inflammatory? Any ol' quote will do.[/QUOTE]

Ironically it was you who didn't understand. Dmaul understood the point I am trying to make and we have completely different points of view of religion. I haven't even seen his film but the point I was making is that I'm sure there WASN"T anything in it to incite violence and that if someone took his MESSAGE of people harming the enviroment to the extreme, it would be foolish to say that his film was inflammatory and directly responsible for inciting violence unless it actually said that which of course it didn't. There are Earth First and other individuals that do fringe things but nobody associates them with his film or a green movement, there just tresspassing tree huggers.

I never read the Koran so I won't debate it but there are terrorists who use it and terms like Jihad and the teaching of Mohammed to justify their actions, even though they are basically killings their own people more than anyone else. Surely that does not speak for all Islamic people. In the same way, you can twist things in the Bible if you want but the Bible doesn't condone the use of violence pretty much at all and surely not against people for reasons of different faiths or nationalities, or innocent people in general. Unless you can point to a passage spefically advocating the use of violence against others. If you do the exact opposite of what your religion teaches are you really true to that religion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top