Jump to content

The truth behind Fahrenheit 911


Agent Risktaker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Taken from http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/. Here are several glaring ones:

There is no link between Iraq/al-Qaeda

From the film:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists. Including members of al Qaeda.

VP CHENEY: There was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam / al Qaeda / Saddam / al Qaeda / Saddam / al Qaeda / Saddam / Saddam / Saddam / al Qaeda

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: It is only a matter of time before terrorists

states armed with weapons of mass destruction develop the capability to

deliver those weapons to US cities.

SECRETARY POWELL: What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.

PRESIDENT BUSH: This is a man who hates America. / This is a man who

cannot stand what we stand for. / His willingness to terrorize himself.

/ He hates the fact, like al Qaeda does, that we love freedom. / After

all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time.

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT: They simply got people to believe that there was a real threat out there, when in fact there wasn't one.

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: You get told things every day that don't happen. It doesn't seem to bother people.

NARRATOR: Of course, the Democrats were there to put a stop to all these falsehoods.

Moore groups the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection under the word "falsehoods". But there is a well-documented Iraq/Al Qaeda connection.

Dave Kopel writes:

...consider the facts presented in Stephen F. Hayes's book,

The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has

Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). The first paragraph of

the last chapter (pp. 177-78) sums up some of the evidence:

Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an

Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993

nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy

director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden

asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting

in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi

intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency

intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese

military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in

1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons

of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice

Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in

1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told

the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had

supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working

closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with

September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting

for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000.

Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en

masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi

regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated

openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported

hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal

that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an

Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...

The Iraq Al-Qaeda connection is well-documented, and hardly a "falsehood" as Moore claims.

Watch this drive, Yassir!

Here's another one of Moore's myriad misrepresentations, this time involving one of the most quoted scenes in F-9/11. The Media Research Center had this to say:

The TV ads for Michael Moore’s “documentary” Fahrenheit 9/11 feature a mocking clip of President Bush on a golf course. Bush declares, “I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorists killers,” and then Moore jumps to Bush adding, as he prepares to swing at a golf ball, “now watch this drive.” Tuesday night on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how “the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists.” But Wilson disclosed that “a check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber.”

Saddam has murdered Americans

Many thanks to Dave Kopel, who's forthcoming article on Fahrenheit 9/11 provides many, many factual problems with the film, as well as providing us with a lot of facts. Here he addresses the assertion that Saddam never "murdered" an American:

Fahrenheit asserts that Saddam’s Iraq was a nation that “had never attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen.”

Jake Tapper (ABC News): You declare in the film that Hussein’s regime had never killed an American …

Moore: That isn’t what I said. Quote the movie directly.

Tapper: What is the quote exactly?

Moore: “Murdered.” The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen. I’d like you to point out one.

Tapper: If the government of Iraq permitted a terrorist named Abu Nidal who is certainly responsible for killing Americans to have Iraq as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police—now this is not a murder but it’s a plan to murder—to assassinate President Bush which at the time merited air strikes from President Clinton once that plot was discovered; does that not belie your claim that the Iraqi government never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering an American?

Moore: No, because nothing you just said is proof that the Iraqi government ever murdered an American citizen. And I am still waiting for you to present that proof.

You’re talking about, they provide safe haven for Abu Nidal after the committed these murders, uh, Iraq helps or supports suicide bombers in Israel. I mean the support, you remember the telethon that the Saudis were having? It’s our allies, the Saudis, that have been providing help and aid to the suicide bombers in Israel. That’s the story you should be covering. Why don’t you cover that story? Why don’t you cover it?

Note Moore’s extremely careful phrasing of the lines which appear to exonerate Saddam, and Moore’s hyper-legal response to Tapper. In fact, Saddam provided refuge to notorious terrorists who had murdered Americans. Saddam provided a safe haven for Abu Abbas (leader of the hijacking of the ship Achille Lauro and the murder of the elderly American passenger Leon Klinghoffer), for Abu Nidal, and for the 1993 World Trade Center bomb maker, Abdul Rahman Yasin. By law, Saddam therefore was an accessory to the murders. Saddam order his police to murder former American President George Bush when he visited Kuwait City in 1993; they attempted to do so, but failed. In 1991, he ordered his agents to murder the American Ambassador to the Philippines and, separately, to murder the employees of the U.S. Information Service in Manila; they tried, but failed. Yet none of these aggressions against the United States “count” for Moore, because he has carefully framed his verbs and verb tenses to exclude them.

According to Laurie Mylroie, a former Harvard professor who served as Bill Clinton's Iraq advisor during the 1992 campaign (during which Vice-Presidential candidate Gore repeatedly castigated incumbent President George H.W. Bush for inaction against Saddam), the ringleader of the World Trade Center bombings, Ramzi Yousef, was working for the Iraqi intelligence service. Laurie Mylroie, The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2d rev. ed. 2001.)

But even with Moore’s clever phrasing designed to elide Saddam’s culpability in the murders and attempted murders of Americans, Tapper still catches him with an irrefutable point: Saddam did perpetrate the premeditated murder of Americans. Every victim of every Palestinian terrorist bomber who was funded by Saddam Hussein was the victim of premeditated murder—including the American victims.

Fox called Florida for Gore first; CBS was the first network to retract the Gore result

In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore makes the assertion that the Fox News Channel was the reason that other networks began to call Florida for Bush instead of Gore:

NARRATOR: Did the last four years not really happen? Look, there's Ben Affleck. He's often in my dreams. And the taxi driver guy. He was there too. And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so happy, like a miracle had taken place. Was it a dream? Or was it real? It was election night 2000 and everything seemed to be going as planned.

Series of news clips: In New York, Al Gore is our projected winner. / The Garden State is green for Gore. / We project that Mr. Gore is the winner in Delaware. This state has voted with the winner in... / (Tom Brokaw interrupts) Mike, you know I wouldn't do this if it weren't big: Florida goes for Al Gore. / CNN announces that we call Florida in the Al Gore column.

NARRATOR: Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy.

BRIT HUME: Sorry to interrupt you; Fox News now projects George W. Bush the winner in Florida and thus it appears the winner of the Presidency of the United States.

NARRATOR: All of a sudden the other networks said, "Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true."

Here's a timeline of the network projections, from an article soon to be published in National Review by David Kopel:

In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.

The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided, and many voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. (Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the West coast, the early concession was widely blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while West coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West.) Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold; depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes.

At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature Florida result? The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox.

Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.

Gore didn't win "every recount scenario"

In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore asserts that Gore won the election, even after vote recounts. From the film:

NARRATOR: And hope that the other side will just sit by and wait for the phone to ring. And even if numerous independent investigations prove that Gore got the most votes...

JEFFREY TOBIN: If there was a statewide recount, under every scenario, Gore won the election.

Now, it is true that many post-election investigations claimed Gore had won. But under every scenario? Turns out, no. From the LA Times:

WASHINGTON — If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed Florida's courts to finish their abortive recount of last year's deadlocked presidential election, President Bush probably still would have won by several hundred votes, a comprehensive study of the uncounted ballots has found.

But if the recount had been held under new vote-counting rules that Florida and other states now are adopting--rules aimed at recording the intentions of as many voters as possible--Democratic candidate Al Gore probably would have won, although by an even thinner margin, the study found.

The study provides evidence that more Florida voters attempted to vote for Gore than for Bush--but so many Gore voters marked their ballots improperly that Bush received more valid votes. As a result, under rules devised by the Florida Supreme Court and accepted by the Gore campaign at the time, Bush probably would have won a recount, the study found.

Since the study was launched, the nation's debate over the Florida recount has cooled and Bush, whose legitimacy as president already was accepted by a large majority in January, has won massive public approval for his leadership of the war against terrorism.

The study, a painstaking inspection of 175,010 Florida ballots that were not included in the state's certified tally, found as many as 23,799 additional, potentially valid votes for Gore or Bush.

The significance of these ballots depends on what standards are used to weigh their validity. Under some recount rules, Bush wins. Under others, Gore wins.

So yes, Gore did win some recount scenarios. But so did Bush- clearly at odds with the "every scenario" Bush loss claim that "Fahrenheit 9/11" makes.

There's plenty more on the website. It's defiantly an eye-opener and just goes to show that Michael Moore is a god at spinning the facts to his favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if annyone dident notice yet, this was written by AR under his new nick

i have him on ignore so i have no idea what he wrote, but that he managed to get behind the fakt that moore dossent always run around annywere near the trouth just now proves how much of a slow thinker he is. Juste a little bit for mister narrowminded AR, Moore is fighting fire with fire, if you rant him down for ling you kick your own points in the nutz, becaus Moore decided to go the same way than the people you belive in went, stupid screaming and making the other side look like ideots with foul arguments, i guss thats just the way to get the majorety of american people behind you, wich quiet frankly is extremly sad. . .

i wish you never had returned

Edited by Michael Matzat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely actually reading the post would have been a good idea though. I haven't seen the film yet, but when Moore is trying to flog the fact his film is 'the truth', glaring innacuracies would hurt it a lot. The American government is trying to present these facts (and occasional bending of these facts) in order to justify the war in Iraq. Michael Moore is simply seeking to say "These are all lies, America is rubbish", which is fair enough if he's actually telling the truth himself. As it is, it seems like he's just in it for the money. Controversy = $$$.

I think it would have been pretty funny if his whole post had just been 'People who ignore me smell', thus rendering your criticism quite funny. Never mind. Basically, making a personal attack on someone after reading a topic title seems a tad harsh, no matter who it is.

Edited by Colly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest NotMeekin

Micheal Moore is a Blubbering Vagina, I no facts, or proof, just hearsay.

Whose that remind you of.

...and I just realzied that your little banner thingie looks like a penis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micheal Moore is a Blubbering Vagina, I no facts, or proof, just hearsay.

Whose that remind you of.

War on Iraq ? Wepons of Mass Distruction ? Annyone ? Exactly the same, talk bullshit in a way that it serves your purpos.

...and I just realzied that your little banner thingie looks like a penis

http://www.ewbattleground.com/forum/index....view=getnewpost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck Michael Moore!

I am so sick of him acting like he's the patron saint of everything that's wrong and fucked up with America.

This morning in the newspaper, there's this big picture of the mom from F9/11, going on an anit-Bush campeign.

Now, I am very sorry that her son was killed in Iraq, but that was his job.

Our boys over there are not electrictians, cryptologists, mechanics, etc. They are soldiers.

Every single one of them, made an oath they day they enlisted. They all said "That I do solemnly swear to defend and support the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Michael Moore is a media whore. Anything that can buy him publicity, he exploits to it's full potential.

I am willing to bet, the whole reason he said what he did when he won the Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine", was to promote F9/11.

That whole controversy over Miramax, was bullshit. He spread the rumors himself.

And for all of Michael Moore's supposed "Good-deeds", he encouraged kids to disobey their parents, and to sneak into it because it was rated R.

That's great Michael, really. What a way to preserve the future generation, by planting the seeds of disention.

Actually, do you know where the first time I saw Moore's "Editing Tactics", meaning where he takes clips and uses them to suit his needs?

GOOD MORNING VIETNAM

Remember the part where they have the Nixon interview on, only Robin Williams' is on the tape?

WILLIAMS: How would you describe your testicles?

NIXON: They are small, withered, and serve on purpose.

Same concept.

The whole Florida election was fucked up, but that's what networks get for jumping the gun.

Now, the whole "Murder" issue, is just ridiculous. If someone tries to kill me, then I'm going to go after them. It's common sense...

You want the truth:

DON'T LISTEN TO MICHAEL MOORE.

Well, don't believe Farenheit 9/11.

It's just bullshit, plain and simple.

I will never respect him after F9/11, and the only way for him to get my respect (as if he fucking cares) is to give some of his money from the F9/11 grosses, to the families of those that were lost.

After all, America's about caring. If he's such a great man that's doing public service by bashing the leader of the free world, then he shouldn't have a problem with that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless your going to name your sources, you're no better then the person you're attacking.

There shouldn't of been any controversy in the first place, since Disney told Miramax and Michael Moore about a year before the movie was finished that they wouldn't let it be released under their name/company. They both simply ignored Disney, thinking they'd change their minds once the film was finished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ringmaster

Yes because we all know no one in Canada locks their doors :P

And let's not forget about the zero murders a year that happen in "some of Canada's larger cities, like Windsor".

And let's not forget about how our Wal-Marts don't sell guns either.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go turn on my car, unlock the doors, park it in the streets and leave it as such. Clearly, no one is gonna steal it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There shouldn't of been any controversy in the first place, since Disney told Miramax and Michael Moore about a year before the movie was finished that they wouldn't let it be released under their name/company. They both simply ignored Disney, thinking they'd change their minds once the film was finished.

a year ago? I thought this was a couple of months before the release? Btw AR, all this was disected by both sides in the Fahrenheit 9/11 Thread a month or so ago.

And for all of Michael Moore's supposed "Good-deeds", he encouraged kids to disobey their parents, and to sneak into it because it was rated R.

Care to tell us where he told kids to sneak in? I saw an interview on TV in which he said kids should get their parents to take them. Give me a source here if I'm wrong.

Edited by sahyder1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let's not forget about the zero murders a year that happen in "some of Canada's larger cities, like Windsor".

And let's not forget about how our Wal-Marts don't sell guns either.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go turn on my car, unlock the doors, park it in the streets and leave it as such. Clearly, no one is gonna steal it.

Don't forget how the ghetto's in Canada are essentially like a park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got back from watching the film and thought I'd add my thoughts.

Whilst there is evidence that Moore is spinning facts, I'm not in the least bothered by it. I've read his first major book and began reading the second, when I realised I didn't want to because it was the same thing again. The film is in the same vein and I knew a lot of the early facts based on the books. However I still enjoyed the film. I think Moore's use of music is fantastic and the selection of material is powerful. Whilst you have to take things with a grain of salt, it's still very informative.

I think films like his are needed because they offer perspective. Whilst Moore may be guilty of spinning the facts, so is everyone else. It's propaganda, but it offers a different side to what we are normally fed. It's like the angel-devil scenario. If you have one of them on your shoulder all the time, telling you what's what you're going to get a one sided look of things. To put some propaganda from one side into perspective, you need to get some from the other.

I think the message of the film is that troops are dying for something which isn't worth fighting for. I think the bit towards the end with the mother at the White House where she confronts the other woman is extremely powerful and reflects his point perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ringmaster

Don't forget how the ghetto's in Canada are essentially like a park.

And how we can strike conversations with complete random strangers, and aren't afraid to voice our opinions because people here don't have guns and won't shoot us.

Actually, during my vacation I went to France where I was in a store and looking at books when I found his book (I think its Dude Where's My Country?) and the book had an intro made specially for the readers in France. Basically, he said that he loved France and the people there where good people, that they cared about each other and showed that they did so because they had the Socialists in power since 1981. Clearly, someone didn't tell him that Jacques Chirac is a conservative, and that he has been in power since 1995.

As for Fahrenheit 9/11, it's not nearly as entertaining as Bowling For Columbine, and Micheal Moore appears to be some sort of asshole. The beginning of the movie is just too long and drags on and kind of puts the viewer to sleep.

Using the woman at the end of the movie is a cheap technique. Someone could have done the same thing with the mother of a Nazi soldier and you'd have felt bad. Now, it's not all bad and it has its funny moments, like Britney pledging her allegiance to Dubya. And he does manage to make at least some valid, altough twisted, points.

I really didn't enjoy his portrayal of Iraq. That was almost offensive. To show Iraq as a peaceful country with no problems prior to Bush's intervention is just wrong. And to insinuate that the population isn't happier nowadays is erroneous as well.

I think that this whole movie isn't about having legitimate proof that Bush is awful, it's about convincing John Doe that he shouldn't vote for Bush. I think that if Moore had made a movie where a cartooned version of Bush stood around going "I'm the biggest idiot ever" (ala Clerks cartoon) over and over would have been just as convincing. If he's trying to convince the populace, I sincerely doubt concrete arguments would be useful. I doubt that John Doe, who lives in a trailer in the South, who has no internet and has 4 channels on his TV will care whether or not his arguments are valid. He'll come out of the theater saying "Dang, that Bush, he a bad man" and not vote for him, unless he's confronted by another medium which states the greatness of Bush/evilness of Kerry. This isn't about convincing intellectuals, yuppies or people who aren't sheep. It's about leading the sheep in a certain direction, and that's why he's pushing for a DVD release before the election. So it can stay fresh in the mind of the sheep.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with a lot of things Bush does and if I were an American, I'd probably vote in a blank ballot, but I think Moore is a pretty much full of shit and I certainly don't think it's a coincidence that he won an award at Cannes of all places, where stern Bush haters like Jean-Luc Godard or Thierry Frémaux reside. The other movies there like Oldboy where certainly better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone could have done the same thing with the mother of a Nazi soldier and you'd have felt bad.

But not many people think that the Nazis entered that war for no reason.

As for Moore winning at the Cannes.....he's won an Oscar too. So his recognition isn't in "hostile" territory only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let's not forget about the zero murders a year that happen in "some of Canada's larger cities, like Windsor".

Gasp! Trash talking Windsor, eh? I'll admit, we had a few murders last year. And I'll admit, one was right near my house. And yes, I'll admit that I was heavily involved, but let me tell you.... and I've said too much.

Ugh, this "Michael Moore spreads lies/no he doesn't" point/counterpoint thing has been way over done around here lately. Yes, he spins facts, it's what good filmmakers do. You use the evidence you've got to support your argument.

The study provides evidence that more Florida voters attempted to vote for Gore than for Bush--but so many Gore voters marked their ballots improperly that Bush received more valid votes.

This was somewhere up above, and it made me laugh. How difficult can it be to properly mark a ballot? And how convenient is it that a multitude of Gore ballots were found to be improperly marked, and that the amount was substantial enough to lose him the election? Vote tampering has never seemed so blatantly obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a year ago? I thought this was a couple of months before the release? Btw AR, all this was disected by both sides in the Fahrenheit 9/11 Thread a month or so ago.

Care to tell us where he told kids to sneak in? I saw an interview on TV in which he said kids should get their parents to take them. Give me a source here if I'm wrong.

"Disney mouthpieces also said Miramax was informed nearly a year ago that the company wouldn't distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. Miramax apparently hoped Disney would change its corporate mind. Moore apparently was convinced that would happen, or else Miramax would use another distribution outlet for Fahrenheit 9/11 to reach theaters, which is what it did with the controversial Dogma in 1999. That film, with its satire of Roman Catholicism, also was disavowed by Disney."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Disney mouthpieces also said Miramax was informed nearly a year ago that the company wouldn't distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. Miramax apparently hoped Disney would change its corporate mind. Moore apparently was convinced that would happen, or else Miramax would use another distribution outlet for Fahrenheit 9/11 to reach theaters, which is what it did with the controversial Dogma in 1999. That film, with its satire of Roman Catholicism, also was disavowed by Disney."

not that I don't believe you here.....but a source with that quote would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the ploy with the mom. She was the one who told her son to join the military. Here's what I don't understand. She told him to join the military because it would pay for college and send him around the world. Here's what I am thinking, she will let him use the military as his personal travel agency. How could it never occur to her that the military might enter a war? And when they do it's their problem, not her's despite her urging her son. I dunno that's just my two cents if anyone see's where I am going with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the biggest reasons that some families don't support the war in Iraq has nothing to do with whether or not it's justified. It has to do with their precious child going off to war, which they weren't expecting. People use the navy and army to pay for college, without fully grasping the concept that they will be shipped off if a war starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. To learn more, see our Privacy Policy