welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

End of the Drug War: Mexico and the Cartels
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9520

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:05 am    Post subject: End of the Drug War: Mexico and the Cartels Reply with quote

Warning: depressing shit

So, anyway, Mexico is becoming a failed state. Maybe already is. From Juarez to Matamoros, even right down to the smallest towns, Mexico's cities have had their police decimated, the Cartels have started to rule with impunity, and the media has been scared away from reporting anything. People in Matamoros are reporting right now that the cartels have escalated to all-out warfare against the Mexican army, because they're the only thing left to step out. There's shootouts every day, and mutilated corpses are left in the streets or to hang from trees. Hundreds of people disappear every day and are occasionally found mutilated and skinned and left as warnings to others.

One person in Matamoros has been describing the area as essentially being a warzone for the past three days, with the cartels now flat-out hijacking busses and using them to create barriers to block and trap military convoys.

There's no police left in many, many cities. Here's a story about Juarez Valley:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_16696869

Quote:
The only police officer in a long and deadly stretch of border towns in the Juárez Valley is 28-year-old Erika Gándara.

She works in plainclothes but keeps a semi-automatic rifle, an AR-15, hidden between cushions in her stark office. A bulletproof vest hangs near the door. A portrait of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Mexican version of the Virgin Mary, adorns one wall. These items are all Gándara has for company at the station.

Eight officers constituted the police force of Guadalupe. One was shot dead the week Gándara joined the department as adispatcher in June 2009. The other seven resigned within a year, driven out by fear, Gándara said. The last one quit in June, and no potential replacements have applied, Gándara said.

"I am here out of necessity," she said.

Women have increasingly become the face of police forces in rural areas outside Juárez. The territory borders a string of small Texas towns, including San Elizario, Tornillo and Fabens, and stretches all the way to Presidio.

In the Mexican town of Praxedis Guerrero, also in the Juárez Valley, the police chief is a 20-year-old college student with a department staffed by 12 women and two men. Most of them, including the chief, are unarmed.
The appointment of this young police chief created an international media frenzy. In contrast, Gándara has received little notice, even though her town of 9,000 is larger than Praxedis.

It is chilling that inexperienced policewomen are left to safeguard violent towns, said Maki Haberfeld, a professor at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She said cultural perceptions account for females running these police departments.

"They are operating under the assumption that the killers would be more likely to kill men than to kill women because of the machismo culture," Haberfeld said.

Speaking specifically of Gándara's situation, Haberfeld said, "It is jeopardizing her life."

Gándara did not go through any type of police academy or formal training. Still, she said, given the corruption in Mexican police forces, she may not be in the worst position.

"I am better off alone than in bad company," she said.


She has since disappeared and is almost certainly dead.

The country's legal system is disintegrating because the cartels have all the money and the power, have bought out and corrupted the police and military forces in most of the provinces, and have an endless supply of youth with no other financial prospects who can get recruited into the Zetas and sent out to murder and disfigure any opposition or any police or governmental figures who don't leave when warned or accept bribes.

The position that any remaining government officials or police is left in through a large part of the country is to take additional money in bribes to let the cartels do what they want and kill who they want, or be kidnapped and tortured to death, with their body parts (usually heads and genitals) left alongside spraypainted warnings to others. In some towns, the killings are grim and frequent and bodies hanging from bridges have become a common sight.

Here's some talk on the way things are working down in Mexico right now. Warning: the pictures are extremely graphic, don't click on them unless you're absolutely sure you can take it.

Quote:
Any individual, politician, governor that opposes them or can be linked to opposing them is marked for death. People who have taken positions and said things about stepping up the pressure have been killed before their very first day in office. The cartels and their death squads are very good at tracking and stalking people who they want to kill and with invariably do so. The younger recruits are basically have no concept of preserving the lives of innocents or just about anybody. They often will kill their own or anyone suspected in their groups of hindering their business.

'Los Zetas' and cartel enforcers are basically like an army of sociopaths. Or serial killers. They have murdered thousands upon thousands of people whether they be uninvolved civilians, police, military, government officials, anybody. They are masters of torture and it's pretty much guaranteed if you are captured you will be killed most horribly. These people make some of the most violent acts of Al Qaeda and fundamentalist religious groups seem pretty tame much of the time. Let's list the fun things they do.
-cutting torture
-hacking your body up into dozens of pieces
-putting you in a barrel and lighting you on fire or dousing you with FUCKING ACID.
-beheadings (which are very common)
-skinning people
-skinning severed heads
-hanging dead people/body parts from things as warnings
-pretty much everything that is like is in the "not cool" territory of violence.
-They also will shoot you though! Can't forget that classic method.



http://img.waffleimages.com/2c553035a2ad16d613e03369a7d78f8d0468cfbe/Mexico-drug-gang-beheadings-500x330.jpg This is routine, several heads found in the street. Several instances involve finding severed heads in coolers.

A very striking image of violence against a young woman. I tried to find one without that fucking watermark. Ugh. Oh well, it's not like it makes it any less fucked up. The photograph is a woman who's arms and legs were severed for some reason.
http://img.waffleimages.com/4ea4b3fe3b71d661b4b235032ce82c70a0459b61/mexican-drug-war-12.jpg
This next photo is perhaps one of the most disturbing and terrifying things I've ever seen in a real photograph. A description is pile of body parts that were discovered and ontop is a head that has been skinned . This guy must have pissed somebody off more than usual.
http://img.waffleimages.com/3b3105d5a3ea1adf3591f53b80bc16b96695988a/Captura%20de%20pantalla%202010-12-29%20a%20las%2014.24.04.png

One thing that I find slightly disconcerting is the number of women that are often found within these massacres. It would appear women are either very much involved in the trade as men, or that they are the victims of family killings.

As you can see. They are insane. Like one thing I cannot understand is how the lure of money could be strong enough to make men lose their minds in such a manner. But only in places like Mexico where poverty and back breaking labor are pretty much the norm in many parts of the country.

Of course, firefights happen daily killing innocents and police alike. Cops are nearly killed on sight. Just like insurgents in Afghanistan, it seems like no matter how many Zetas and cartel are killed, there are always more. The cartel has lost thousands more people of course, not that it matters much to them but many of them go to prisons were they are more or less still operating within the groups and facilitating business.


Right now, the way things work in a lot of places there is, essentially, plata o cuello. Silver, or your neck. you either take the bribes, or you are killed by the current ruling cartel/enforcer powers. And those powers have been refined over the years by a system where the most sociopathic killers and organizations rise to the top and murder and intimidate everyone below them. Nobody wants to find out what happens to them if they stand in the way of the zetas, for instance, and the zetas got tired of even bothering to bribe police officers in some places and decided that killing them was the simpler option.

Hmm well this is all pretty depressing I guess I should talk about something more uplifting er wait no

Quote:
The elderly are killed. Young women are raped. And able-bodied men are given hammers, machetes and sticks and forced to fight to the death.

In one of the most chilling revelations yet about the violence in Mexico, a drug cartel-connected trafficker claims fellow gangsters have kidnapped highway bus passengers and forced them into gladiatorlike fights to groom fresh assassins.
...
Members of the Zetas cartel, he says, have pushed passengers into an ancient Rome-like blood sport with a modern Mexico twist that they call, "Who is going to be the next hit man?"

"They cut guys to pieces," he said.

The victims are likely among the hundreds of people found in mass graves in recent months, he said.

In the vicinity of the Mexican city of San Fernando, nearly 200 bodies were unearthed from pits, and authorities said most appeared to have died of blunt force head trauma.

Many are believed to have been dragged off buses traveling through Mexico, but little has been said about the circumstances of their deaths.

The trafficker said those who survive are taken captive and eventually given suicide missions, such as riding into a town controlled by rivals and shooting up the place.

The trafficker said he did not see the clashes, but his fellow criminals have boasted to him of their exploits.

Former and current federal law-enforcement officers in the U.S. said that while they knew Mexican bus passengers had been targeted for violence, they'd never before heard of forcing passengers into death matches.

But given the level of violence in Mexico — nearly 40,000 killed in gangland warfare over the past several years — they didn't find it tough to believe.

Borderland Beat, a blog specializing in drug cartels, reported an account in April of bus passengers brutalized by Zeta thugs and taunted into fighting.

"The stuff you would not think possible a few years ago is now commonplace," said Peter Hanna, a retired FBI agent who built his career focusing on Mexico's cartels. "It used to be you'd find dead bodies in drums with acid; now there are beheadings."

Even so, Hanna noted, killing people this way would be time-consuming and inefficient. "It would be more for amusement," he suggested. "I don't see it as intimidation or a successful way to recruit people."


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/topstory/7607122.html

And here's a mama jones article about how the army is, well

http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/07/we-bring-fear

Yeah.

Quote:
The reporter may die for committing a simple error. He wrote an accurate news story. He did not know that was dangerous because he thought the story was very small and unimportant. He was wrong and that was the beginning of all his trouble.

There are two Mexicos.

There is the one reported by the US press, a place where the Mexican president is fighting a valiant war on drugs, aided by the Mexican Army and the Mérida Initiative, the $1.4 billion in aid the United States has committed to the cause. This Mexico has newspapers, courts, laws, and is seen by the United States government as a sister republic.

It does not exist.

There is a second Mexico where the war is for drugs, where the police and the military fight for their share of drug profits, where the press is restrained by the murder of reporters and feasts on a steady diet of bribes, and where the line between the government and the drug world has never existed.

The reporter lives in this second Mexico.

Until very recently, he liked it just fine. In fact, he loves Mexico and has never thought of leaving. Even though he lives about 20 miles from the border, he has not bothered to cross for almost 10 years.

But now, things have changed. He knows about the humanitarian treaties signed by the United States and he thinks given these commitments, he and his boy will be given asylum. He has decided to tell the authorities nothing but the truth. He has failed to realize one little fact: No Mexican reporter has ever been given political asylum.

Suddenly, he sees a checkpoint ahead and there is no way to escape it.

Men in uniforms pull him over.

He discovers to his relief that this checkpoint is run by Mexico's migration agency, and so, maybe, they will not give him up to the Army.

"Why are you driving so fast?"

"I am afraid. There are people trying to kill me."

"The narcos?"

"No, the soldiers."

"Who are you?"

He hands over his press pass.

"Oh, you are the one, they searched your house."

"I have had problems."

"Those sons of bitches do whatever they want. Go ahead. Good luck."

He roars away. When he stops at the port of entry at Antelope Wells in the bootheel of New Mexico, US customs ask, as they always do, what he is bringing from Mexico.

He says, "We bring fear."


Anyway, there's two things which I think need to be talked about in relation to the situation in Mexico, which I don't believe is getting much better.

1. How seldom it's really talked about. It really is happening just more than two day's drive away from where I live, it's starting to spill over the border, and we just don't want to talk about it, and there's hardly as much attention given to it as there is to things like protests in China. This might have to do with how unseemly the whole situation is, given that it's a result largely of U.S. policy and attitudes towards drugs.

2. This, more than anything else, underscores that the drug war has failed. This is the consequence. It's a screaming notification that we are probably at the point where prohibition is our only remaining option, and the only issue is how long we can waffle and ignore this before finally taking the pill.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dazedb42



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2348
Location: Margaret River, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:28 am    Post subject: Re: End of the Drug War: Mexico and the Cartels Reply with quote

Sam wrote:

2. This, more than anything else, underscores that the drug war has failed. This is the consequence. It's a screaming notification that we are probably at the point where prohibition is our only remaining option, and the only issue is how long we can waffle and ignore this before finally taking the pill.


Do you honestly believe that prohibition will work this time round?
_________________
(_**_) *note to self, insert bottle at other end.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9520

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What do you mean this time around? It worked last time, so it would be more like 'do you believe that it would work again?'

But to answer your question, I'm not talking about it like I would prefer it. It may legitimately be the last option. It's a solution insofar as it is 'least bad option' — for legal and sociopolitical stability, among other things.

It's an uncomfortable thing to think about. Like, wouldn't even meth get legalized? What the fuck? Well, we'll see where it goes, but we know it starts with marijuana, which can't be far from legalization, in overall terms.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, this will just sound like it's off-topic and not bring any substance to the discussion, but the moment someone mentions that a country is becoming a failed state, I start thinking they have no little to no idea what's really going on.

Especially if you're not privy to how things work in Mexico, or if it's really as bad as it sounds and/or looks. Sure, it's bad, but a failed state?

As for the two points you address,

1) It sure is unseemly to the U.S., but more importantly I just don't think the majority of Americans care. Just considering how conservative and protectionist they've become, with immigration laws and whatnot. Mexico is Mexico. The United States is the United States. Or actually, that's a bit of a gross generalisation. What I should've said was, I don't think the majority of the American government cares. Which is not just a problem, it's a health hazard.

2) Yeah, but then that was evident fourty years ago. Ok, maybe not at the drop of the hilt, but it cut it pretty damn close. And I thought prohibition was the cause of this problem in the first place?
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9520

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guest wrote:
So, this will just sound like it's off-topic and not bring any substance to the discussion, but the moment someone mentions that a country is becoming a failed state, I start thinking they have no little to no idea what's really going on.

Especially if you're not privy to how things work in Mexico, or if it's really as bad as it sounds and/or looks. Sure, it's bad, but a failed state?


What do YOU think failed state means? Failed state is not an ex-state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state

Quote:
The term failed state is often used by political commentators and journalists to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. In order to make this definition more precise, the following attributes, proposed by the Fund for Peace, are often used to characterize a failed state:
loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
an inability to provide public services, and
an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.
Often a failed nation is characterized by social, political, and economic failure.
Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline.


there are some failed states in such dire conditions that they threaten total governmental collapse, such as Zimbabwe. But you're a failed state long before then.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
What do you mean this time around? It worked last time, so it would be more like 'do you believe that it would work again?'


I don't think so, Sam. This is the prohibition of alcohol from early 1919 to late 1933, right? The one that increased organised crime in the U.S. to record levels? You would argue that this was a success? Err...

Quote:
It's an uncomfortable thing to think about. Like, wouldn't even meth get legalized? What the fuck? Well, we'll see where it goes, but we know it starts with marijuana, which can't be far from legalization, in overall terms.


It's sad that there aren't more movements—prominent movements—out there that fights for this sort of thing. We see a lot of movements to legalize marijuana, but we don't see many combat the alleged "war on drugs." And if they are, they're few and far in between. If for example heroine and meth were legalised, or at least decriminalised, then you would see a lot more meth and/or heroine addicts seek help and care for their problem. Not to mention it costs the government thousands of dollars, millions of dollars, to keep it ongoing. Which is not just wrong, but stupid. If Obama finds sense to end this war (and if he has such power), he should. But I'm preaching to the choir.
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
dazedb42



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2348
Location: Margaret River, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
What do you mean this time around? It worked last time, so it would be more like 'do you believe that it would work again?'

But to answer your question, I'm not talking about it like I would prefer it. It may legitimately be the last option. It's a solution insofar as it is 'least bad option' — for legal and sociopolitical stability, among other things.

It's an uncomfortable thing to think about. Like, wouldn't even meth get legalized? What the fuck? Well, we'll see where it goes, but we know it starts with marijuana, which can't be far from legalization, in overall terms.


My limited understanding of the prohibition was that crime rates soared, police corruption was the norm and alcohol became much more dangerous to consume.

The US already gaols more than most countries so where will that end? Overflowing gaols waiting for a new influx of petty offenders ready to be hardened into real criminals for what? Smoking a fucking joint? I agree that meth is a right shite drug but given an alternative source to high quality drugs would users even bother with the crap?

Education and proper counselling is the only real option. Empowering the addicts by giving them choices, not arbitrary punitive actions.

The US has created this whole shit fight with it's war on drugs $2 billion plus dollars a year would go along way to help solve the problem. The cartels are a symptom of the misguided logic used in the war on drugs not the cause.

Human beings evolved using drugs, have used them for hundreds and thousands of years it's not even only humans who actively seek an altered state of awareness, it's everywhere in nature all around us. Denying the right of people to alter their perceptions is criminal in itself.
_________________
(_**_) *note to self, insert bottle at other end.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Am I wrong in thinking you meant to say that lifting the prohibition is the only option left? Because I think that's what's confusing Dazed.

Anyway, first thing you start with is ending the War on Drugs and decriminalising all of them, while going as far as to legalise harmless drugs like marijuana and LSD and such. This alone would be a huge step forward. I personally wouldn't mind all drugs being legalised, but a lot of problems would be solved just by doing the above.

Also, waffleimages only works on Something Awful or what? It's down, either way.

And here's a link showing a panel calling for the end of the global drugs war.

Quote:
A high-level international commission has declared the global "war on drugs" to be a failure, and has urged countries to consider legalising certain drugs, including cannabis, in a bid to undermine organised crime.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy, in its report released on Thursday, called for a new approach to the current strategy of reducing drug abuse by strictly criminalising drugs and incarcerating users.

It said the new approach should focus on battling the criminal cartels that control the drug trade, rather than targeting drug users.
...
The 19-member panel includes current Greek prime minister George Papandreou, former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, British businessman Richard Branson and former US secretary of state George Shultz.

Other members include former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, former Swiss president Ruth Dreifuss, former EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and former US Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker.

_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dudes, stop unknowingly agreeing with each other.
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10688

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Uhm. Legalising marijuana in the states, not in mexico, would mean the US has to grow their own shit. I'm guessing the best place to do this would be down near the mexican border. Existing farms etc would be converted as you'd create this instant high profit giant hole in the market. Wouldn't this be an invitation to the organised mexican cartels to become the #1 texas maffia?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9520

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't think so, Sam. This is the prohibition of alcohol from early 1919 to late 1933, right? The one that increased organised crime in the U.S. to record levels? You would argue that this was a success? Err...


No, i get where the confusion lies — i totally omitted the word 'ending' and I mean to say I think that ending prohibition, and legalizing drugs, is probably the conclusion we will be forced to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael wrote:
Uhm. Legalising marijuana in the states, not in mexico, would mean the US has to grow their own shit. I'm guessing the best place to do this would be down near the mexican border. Existing farms etc would be converted as you'd create this instant high profit giant hole in the market. Wouldn't this be an invitation to the organised mexican cartels to become the #1 texas maffia?

You can pretty much grow pot anywhere. And I'm guessing a shift in drug policy would weaken the cartels. Combine that with a renewed focus on shutting them down and maybe we'll eventually get rid of them or cut them down to manageable size.

Edit: Also, if America legalises it, Latin America will probably follow shortly after. Not to mention many, many other countries.
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dazedb42



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2348
Location: Margaret River, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
Quote:
I don't think so, Sam. This is the prohibition of alcohol from early 1919 to late 1933, right? The one that increased organised crime in the U.S. to record levels? You would argue that this was a success? Err...


No, i get where the confusion lies — i totally omitted the word 'ending' and I mean to say I think that ending prohibition, and legalizing drugs, is probably the conclusion we will be forced to.



ahh I see said the blind one. My bad, carry on.
_________________
(_**_) *note to self, insert bottle at other end.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael wrote:
Uhm. Legalising marijuana in the states, not in mexico, would mean the US has to grow their own shit. I'm guessing the best place to do this would be down near the mexican border. Existing farms etc would be converted as you'd create this instant high profit giant hole in the market. Wouldn't this be an invitation to the organised mexican cartels to become the #1 texas maffia?


The cartels are good at being cartels. Smuggling drugs, intimidating/killing people, .... Not exactly skills that translate well to legally growing pot. They might be able to take over a legal drug industry in Mexico as they have the influence and manpower there to do so, but they don't have that on the other side of the border.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Willem wrote:
Michael wrote:
Uhm. Legalising marijuana in the states, not in mexico, would mean the US has to grow their own shit. I'm guessing the best place to do this would be down near the mexican border. Existing farms etc would be converted as you'd create this instant high profit giant hole in the market. Wouldn't this be an invitation to the organised mexican cartels to become the #1 texas maffia?

You can pretty much grow pot anywhere. And I'm guessing a shift in drug policy would weaken the cartels. Combine that with a renewed focus on shutting them down and maybe we'll eventually get rid of them or cut them down to manageable size.

Edit: Also, if America legalises it, Latin America will probably follow shortly after. Not to mention many, many other countries.


I was gonna suggest the Netherlands model, but then I remembered you're anarchists now.
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 1 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group