Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Syria: Support

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
  • View Poll Results: ..
    The Syrian Government/Alawites/Shia Population/Christian Population
    11
    28.21%
    Free Syrian Army/Assorted rebel Groups
    16
    41.03%
    Neither/Undecided
    10
    25.64%
    Outside Inteference supporter FSA/Rebels
    2
    5.13%

    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Next time you answer me, quote me properly.


    (Original post by Clessus)

    No, the Bosnian army was weak and poorly armed, ........... attacking

    Right, whereas the Serbs had surrounded the city and their snipers could enter at will without major resistance.

    If the Serbs were serious about massacring everyone, then they would have done it.

    (Original post by Clessus)
    The intentions of the Serbs (and the Croats, as is often forgotten) were painfully obvious, and the only reason they were unable to gain control of all of Bosnia was due to foreign intervention.
    Yes. I Am sure the intentions of the Serbs were obvious. They were so obvious that they couldn't even get Milosevic with anything.

    (Original post by Clessus)
    Oh please, the crimes of the KLA (just like the crimes of the FSA), were nothing in comparison to the actions of the Milosevic regime. To bleat santimoniously about the KLA (I wonder how long before the old allegations of "organ trafficking" get brought up), is to ignore the illegal and unconstitutional abrigation of Kosova's autonomy in 1989, the years of police terror and the crushing of peaceful protests in the years preceeding the 1998-1999 war..


    That is without mentioning the crimes which took place in 1912-1941, and between 1945 and 1974.

    In the view of left-wing defenders of Milosevic, when a US client like Turkey, Indonesia or Israel massacres innocent civilians it is wholly to blame; when a ‘socialist’ regime does so it is the victims who are primarily to blame.
    The KLA committed war crimes in the years prior to 1998 and widespread ethnic cleansing of Serbian citizens in the Kosovo region.

    The crushing of peaceful political protest does not justify War Crimes.

    Unlike you, I apply the same standard to Milosevic that I apply to the KLA.


    (Original post by Clessus)

    What you're saying is (or at the least, strongly implying), is that the NATO bombing made the situation worse, and therefore NATO is at fault for the deaths which occured. I've said how such an argument is bull****. Was the NATO campaign a success? Ask the people there, they will tell you. (Or, the fact that there is a statue of Clinton, and plans for a statue of Blair will give you a fairly strong idea of what the answer will be).
    I have already told you at least once before that is not what I am saying.

    Hence....making your explanation about my non-existent bs argument irrelevant.



    (Original post by Clessus)
    It needs to be explained why Serbian military intervention in Kosova (which was not simply part of Serbia), Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia is less objectionable to you than American military intervention, even when it was incomparably more bloody.
    Again, more inaccurate and irrelevant assumptions.


    (Original post by Clessus)
    Imagine the bleating of the so-called "anti-war" crowd had we have committed ground troops to Kosova. Can you imagine what they would say if we committed ground troops in Syria? Besides, it was done do minimise NATO casualties (many don't care what happens, as long as "our boys" aren't being killed, such was the case in the First Gulf War), hardly a noble reason, but understandable, seeing as it was believed that air strikes would force the Serbs to surrender and no-one wants soldiers to die unnecessarily.
    I don't really care about the lives of soldiers. They are certainly not more valuable than the civilians that they could have saved in Kosovo instead of taking part in a moronic bombing campaign.


    (Original post by Clessus)
    Oh yeah, becuase Serbia hadn't ran roughshod over the sovereignty of its neighbours....oh wait nvm it did. As said before, Serbia violated Bosnia's sovereignty far more than NATO did with Serbia. Besides, Serbia knew that it would not resist NATO bombing for long (as it saw in Bosnia), and that rejecting the Rambouillet Accords would result in said bombing, but it rejected them anyway.
    The fact that Serbia acted like Thugs in Bosnia does not justify the opposite with the West. That is why what they did was illegal.

    If Serbia had forced Bosnia to sign an agreement where they could move their troops around when they wanted with full immunity from prosecution then you would be saying something very different now.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The west has an agenda, everyone knows it, and the lies of liberals will not be believed again.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    I'd ban you from the forum (which is on a private site with a contract you signed up to, therefore banning is perfectly acceptable and you have signed a contract agreeing so) because you are clearly not a libertarian. There is no reason you should be allowed in the party forum to possibly spill details to other parties. And no, I'm not an 'ideologicall [sic] purist' libertarian at all.
    I CBA listing all the question or the big hitter positions for libertarians (such marriage/sex laws, free speach, regulation, war, guns, crime punishment, drugs, private property, business views, tax etc etc, I am what you would expect me to be)

    but

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ZLmUU.png 
Views:	23 
Size:	1.1 KB 
ID:	162221

    The only things that separate me from other orthodox right-libertarians is that I would view myself, somewhat, as a Geo-libertarian, the Land Value tax is the only legitimate tax metho, the fact I don't agree with an open doors immigration policy, and the answer to the recession is deffinately not more austerity, or austerity at all, we need to spend and create proper industries. Most right-libs have an ahistorical view of capitalism, that it is the state that has corrupted the free market, Anwhat they should understand is that today's capitalism is true capitalism (whereas right-libs would say it is all crony or state capitalism) as what we have is the logical outcome of private interests, and the state is an extention of those interests, not the state ruining the free market.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Next time you answer me, quote me properly.
    Where did I quote you improperly, if I did so, apologies, it was not intentional.

    Right, whereas the Serbs had surrounded the city and their snipers could enter at will without major resistance.
    You are aware of course that the Serbs and the JNA made several attacks on Sarajevo, even coming within 50 metres of the President's building, but were beaten back. That's why they decided to besiege the city. Most of the snipers were in the hilltops surrounding the city, or in Serb controlled areas.

    If the Serbs were serious about massacring everyone, then they would have done it.
    They did in virtually every area they controlled.

    Yes. I Am sure the intentions of the Serbs were obvious. They were so obvious that they couldn't even get Milosevic with anything.
    Bwahaha, you would probably say the same about Hitler. Besides, that isn't even true. This is what the ICTY had to say about Slobo

    246. On the basis of the inference that may be drawn from this evidence, a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there existed a joint criminal enterprise, which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, whose aim and intention was to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslim population, and that genocide was in fact committed in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi. The genocidal intent of the Bosnian Serb leadership can be inferred from all the evidence, including the evidence set out in paragraphs 238 -245. The scale and pattern of the attacks, their intensity, the substantial number of Muslims killed in the seven municipalities, the detention of Muslims, their brutal treatment in detention centres and elsewhere, and the targeting of persons essential to the survival of the Muslims as a group are all factors that point to genocide.

    With respect to the Amici Curiae submissions concerning genocide, the Trial Chamber, except for its holding in paragraph 324, DISMISSES the Motion and holds that there is sufficient evidence that

    (1) there existed a joint criminal enterprise, which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, the aim and intention of which was to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group, and that its participants committed genocide in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi;

    (2) the Accused [Slobodan Milosevic] was a participant in that joint criminal enterprise, Judge Kwon dissenting ;

    (3) the Accused was a participant in a joint criminal enterprise, which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, to commit other crimes than genocide and it was reasonably foreseeable to him that, as a consequence of the commission of those crimes, genocide of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group would be committed by other participants in the joint criminal enterprise, and it was committed;

    (4) the Accused aided and abetted or was complicit in the commission of the crime of genocide in that he had knowledge of the joint criminal enterprise, and that he gave its participants substantial assistance, being aware that its aim and intention was the destruction of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as group;

    (5) the Accused was a superior to certain persons whom he knew or had reason to know were about to commit or had committed genocide of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group, and he failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the commission of genocide, or punish the perpetrators thereof.


    The only reason that Milosevic was never formally convicted is because he used every delaying trick in the book, and died during the trial.

    The KLA committed war crimes in the years prior to 1998 and widespread ethnic cleansing of Serbian citizens in the Kosovo region.
    Please give one instance of widespead ethnic cleansing of Serbian citizens in Kosova committed by the KLA before 1998 (and no, merely killing some Serbian civillians dosen't count).

    Like I've said, I acknowledge that the KLA has committed war crimes, but they are simply incomparable with the war crimes committed by Milosevic. Just like the war crimes committed by the Partisans to not compare with those committed by the Ustashe/Chetniks and the crimes of the Republicans in Spain do not compare with those committed by the Nationalists.

    The crushing of peaceful political protest does not justify War Crimes.
    No, but that, plus everything else that happened, justifies armed struggle.

    Unlike you, I apply the same standard to Milosevic that I apply to the KLA.
    That's foolish and does not make you "neutral" or "objective" any more than applying the same standard to the British, Americans or even the Soviets during WW2 as to the Nazis does not make one "neutral".

    I have already told you at least once before that is not what I am saying.
    I'll let the readers decide whether or not you implied that NATO was responsible for the deaths which occured after the bombing began.

    Again, more inaccurate and irrelevant assumptions.
    How is it irrelevent, I think it is completely relevent to showing the double standards of the so-called "anti-war" movement who whine about NATO intervention in Kosova.

    I don't really care about the lives of soldiers.
    Maybe you don't, but many people do.

    They are certainly not more valuable than the civilians that they could have saved in Kosovo instead of taking part in a moronic bombing campaign.
    No-one in the contemptable "peace movement" who condemn the bombing would have supported sending in ground troops. The "moronic bombing campaign" saved many lives in the long run, or would you have rather given Milosevic a free hand in Kosova?

    And besides, there is no guarantee that ground troops would not have also "made the problem worse".
    The fact that Serbia acted like Thugs in Bosnia does not justify the opposite with the West. That is why what they did was illegal.
    The Serb's abrigation of Kosova's autonomy was illegal, as were their invasions of Bosnia, Slovenia and Croatia. A tyrannical state can't brutally oppress a subject people, then whine about "international law" and "territorial integrety" when their repression spawns a successionist movement which wins international acceptance. It may find that international law will not uphold its territorial integrety. Serbia's loss of Kosova should serve as an example to all such states.

    How was the western response to Serbian thuggery "the opposite", are you seriously equating the actions of the Serbs in Bosnia with the response of the western powers? The whole working through the UN approach did nothing for the people of Rwanda and Bosnia and it has done nothing for the people of Sudan. If it comes to defying the UN or preventing genocide, I will choose defying the UN every time.

    Blair and Clinton had many flaws, but they deserve credit for acting in Kosova, and for defying the arms embargo against Bosnia, in stark contrast to the absolutely shameful behaviour of the Major government in regards to Croatia and Bosnia.

    If Serbia had forced Bosnia to sign an agreement where they could move their troops around when they wanted with full immunity from prosecution then you would be saying something very different now.
    If you want an idea of what the Dayton accords were like, imagine an agreement in 1945 that ended with the Nazis being awarded 49% of Poland, and from a peace agreement between the Allies and Hitler in which Hitler was looked upon as a crucial partner.

    The Dayton agreements awarded the Bosnian Serbs, who had been militarily crushed by this point, a hugely disproportionate amount of territory, including large areas of ethnically cleansed territory, effectively awarding their aggression. Karadzic was offered immunity from war crimes on the basis that he did not return to politics, and none of the Serbian government was ever indited (Milosevic was only indited in 1998, during the war in Kosova, when the West finally saw through him).

    It led to the de-facto partition of Bosnia, giving the Serbs more autonomy than the Kosovar albanians were offered in 1998, it allowed the Serbs to keep their own army, gave the Serbs a stranglehold over Bosnian politics which means that now Bosnia is a barely functional state. it gave UN the right to dismiss any minister in the Bosnian government, and required UN approval for any appointments. Although there were some safeguards, such as the right of return for refugees and the requirement of Republika Srpska to cooperate with the ICTY, these remain unfulfilled. This agreement violated Bosnia's integrety and sovereignty far more than the Rambouillet agreements ever would have. This is an example of true western imperialism, as these terms were forced upon the Bosniaks by the west.
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    I CBA listing all the question or the big hitter positions for libertarians (such marriage/sex laws, free speach, regulation, war, guns, crime punishment, drugs, private property, business views, tax etc etc, I am what you would expect me to be)

    but

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ZLmUU.png 
Views:	23 
Size:	1.1 KB 
ID:	162221

    The only things that separate me from other orthodox right-libertarians is that I would view myself, somewhat, as a Geo-libertarian, the Land Value tax is the only legitimate tax metho, the fact I don't agree with an open doors immigration policy, and the answer to the recession is deffinately not more austerity, or austerity at all, we need to spend and create proper industries. Most right-libs have an ahistorical view of capitalism, that it is the state that has corrupted the free market, Anwhat they should understand is that today's capitalism is true capitalism (whereas right-libs would say it is all crony or state capitalism) as what we have is the logical outcome of private interests, and the state is an extention of those interests, not the state ruining the free market.
    So...you are not a libertarian in other words.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    Perhaps not, but it does seriously undermine his credibility, and gives readers some idea of who he is.



    Mostly true, but if that is the case, why cite him as an authority, why uncritically post a video of one of his speeches, as though it was indisputable fact?



    Given his record of support for the syrian regime (and everything else posted above), I think it is fair to treat everything he says on the issue with a fair amount of skepicism, to say the least.



    Partially true, much of his stuff in the 1980s was very good, I especially enjoyed his essay on Sharon's actions in Lebanon, it was brilliantly written and argued. However in the 1990s, starting with the breakup of Yugoslavia, he went off the wall and started to take incredibly wierd and reactionary positions which have completely discredited him in my view. That's not to mention his infamous and frankly bizzare essay on the Khmer Rouge.



    Lets face it, any impartial observer would see that Hitchens slaughtered Chomsky in their exchange.
    In relation to his posting of the Galloway video; It's not important of his past standings or even if how he acts contradicts what he espouses. The "tu quoque" fallacy is what you're inciting, and I agree people would be suspicious of his motives, you can't reprimand it on prior basis. It's a logical fallacy.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    So...you are not a libertarian in other words.
    Not agreeing with absolutely everything does not make a difference, did you not see the graph?

    I think you will find most people on the libt sub forum don't think austerity is working, most don't believe in an open doors immigration policy and most geo-libs (who are a growing near majority on the sub forum) also understand that the state and the market are mutually exlusive, that's why they are geo-libs.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
    In relation to his posting of the Galloway video; It's not important of his past standings or even if how he acts contradicts what he espouses. The "tu quoque" fallacy is what you're inciting, and I agree people would be suspicious of his motives, you can't reprimand it on prior basis. It's a logical fallacy.
    Actually, it is if anything, an ad hominem fallacy. And while it dosen't totally demolish his arguments, it undermines his credibility by showing his

    1. Lack of integrety
    2. Dishonesty
    3. His conflict of interest
    4. The blatently partisan nature of his views

    If Galloway were a historian, he would have absolutely no credibility (and he dosen't, he denied that thousands were killed in Hungary), and no one would take him seriously.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    Actually, it is if anything, an ad hominem fallacy. And while it dosen't totally demolish his arguments, it undermines his credibility by showing his

    1. Lack of integrety
    2. Dishonesty
    3. His conflict of interest
    4. The blatently partisan nature of his views

    If Galloway were a historian, he would have absolutely no credibility (and he dosen't, he denied that thousands were killed in Hungary), and no one would take him seriously.
    No you're committing the tu quoque fallacy. But I do agree he has no credibility from his past actions.
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    Where did I quote you improperly, if I did so, apologies, it was not intentional.

    You are aware of course that the Serbs and the JNA made several attacks on Sarajevo, even coming within 50 metres of the President's building, but were beaten back. That's why they decided to besiege the city. Most of the snipers were in the hilltops surrounding the city, or in Serb controlled areas.

    They did in virtually every area they controlled.
    There were still snipers within the city. If the City was so well defended, then they wouldn't have been able to get in, let alone control entire corridors of the city.




    (Original post by Clessus)
    Bwahaha, you would probably say the same about Hitler. Besides, that isn't even true. This is what the ICTY had to say about Slobo

    With respect to the Amici Curiae submissions concer............s thereof.

    The only reason that Milosevic was never formally convicted is because he used every delaying trick in the book, and died during the trial.
    I know what the charges were.

    AS I said before, there was no evidence connecting him to any of the massacres in 1995.

    That is why he was never charged in 1995.

    Find me one piece of evidence that directly attaches him to the massacre in Srebenicia as claimed by the ICTY prosecutors.

    (Original post by Clessus)
    Please give one instance of widespead ethnic cleansing of Serbian citizens in Kosova committed by the KLA before 1998 (and no, merely killing some Serbian civillians dosen't count).

    Like I've said, I acknowledge that the KLA has committed war crimes, but they are simply incomparable with the war crimes committed by Milosevic.
    Lol@ "Killing some Serbian civilains doesn't count"

    The KLA commited War Crimes. So I don't even know what the argument is. They were not on the scale of the crimes committed in the early 90's but neither were the Serbian Attacks in the same period as the KLA.


    (Original post by Clessus)
    No, but that, plus everything else that happened, justifies armed struggle.
    I wasn't talking about armed struggle. I was talking about War Crimes.

    (Original post by Clessus)
    That's foolish and does not make you "neutral" or "objective" any more than applying the same standard to the British, Americans or even the Soviets during WW2 as to the Nazis does not make one "neutral".
    No. It is not foolish to apply the same standards to everyone.

    If the KLA commit War Crimes then they should be brought to justice like the Serbians.


    (Original post by Clessus)

    I'll let the readers decide whether or not you implied that NATO was responsible for the deaths which occured after the bombing began.
    How is it irrelevent, I think it is completely relevent to showing the double standards of the so-called "anti-war" movement who whine about NATO intervention in Kosova.
    I told you. I don't know. I said that more people died after NATO began bombing than before the bombing began. That is a factual statement.

    If I claimed what you say I claimed, it would be a logical fallacy.

    (Original post by Clessus)

    he Serb's abrigation of Kosova's a.............d Bosnia.
    That has nothing to do with what I said. I wasn't talking about Genocide. I was talking about the Sovereignty of Serbia/Bosnia.

    I don't care about Hitler/Dayton/UN.

    I am talking about the Ramboiullet Agreement and had Serbia applied such conditions to Bosnia. No one would call it fair then.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I notice you still havent told me where I quoted you incorrectly, however you have repeatedly chopped bits of what I said and have misrepresented much of my position, as will be evidenced below.


    [QUOTE]
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    There were still snipers within the city. If the City was so well defended, then they wouldn't have been able to get in, let alone control entire corridors of the city.
    I never said that "the City was so well defended that the serbs weren't able to get in", I said that they controlled small, formerly Serb inhabited areas on the outskirts of the city, and that most of the snipers were outside the city. Besides, you position makes no sense, if the Serbs didn't really want to take the city, why did they besiege it for 3 years?

    AS I said before, there was no evidence connecting him to any of the massacres in 1995.
    I refer you to what I said above, the court refused to acquit him on those grounds. Again read carefully what it says, they are not merely charges.

    The Trial Chamber, on 16 June 2004, rejected a defense motion to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence and ruled in accordance with Rule 98bis, that the prosecution case contains evidence capable of supporting a conviction on all 66 counts

    That is why he was never charged in 1995.
    He was never charged due to the Dayton accords.

    Lol@ "Killing some Serbian civilains doesn't count"
    :rolleyes:, here is where you misrepresent my position, I said that "Killing some Serbian civilains doesn't count" as ethnic cleansing, it most certainly is a war crime, but killing civillians does not in and of itself constitute ethnic cleansing.

    The KLA commited War Crimes. So I don't even know what the argument is. They were not on the scale of the crimes committed in the early 90's but neither were the Serbian Attacks in the same period.
    The KLA's war crimes in 1998-1999 were not comparable to the Serbian war crimes in the same period.


    No. It is not foolish to apply the same standards to everyone.

    If the KLA commit War Crimes then they should be brought to justice like the Serbians.
    Yes they should be brought to justice, but do not say that the KLA is equivilant to the Milosevic regime, or that it is equally to blame for what happened in Kosova.

    I said that more people died after NATO began bombing than before the bombing began.
    Who is to blame for that? The Serbs, most definately.


    I am talking about the Ramboiullet Agreement and had Serbia applied such conditions to Bosnia. No one would call it fair then.
    Again, read the Dayton accords, they violated Bosnia's sovereignty far more than Ramboiullet did Serbia's, so it is hypocritical for Serbia to whine about Ramboiullet , especially as it was in the midst of a campaign of terror, mass murder and ethnic cleansing at the time, unlike the Bosnian Government.
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Stay on topic please if you want to talk about Serbia/Bosnia make another thread, this one is about Syria.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Stay on topic please if you want to talk about Serbia/Bosnia make another thread, this one is about Syria.
    Will do, apologies.
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Stay on topic please if you want to talk about Serbia/Bosnia make another thread, this one is about Syria.
    Okedokey International Mod lol.
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    I notice you still havent told me where I quoted you incorrectly, however you have repeatedly chopped bits of what I said and have misrepresented much of my position, as will be evidenced below.
    That is not what I meant.

    I didn't know when you had replied to me because you hadn't used the QUOTE function correctly with my Username. Therefore, I didn't know you had replied to me 2 days ago.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    That is not what I meant.

    I didn't know when you had replied to me because you hadn't used the QUOTE function correctly with my Username. Therefore, I didn't know you had replied to me 2 days ago.
    Ah ok, sorry.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Didn't the Government & army agree to a ceasefire, only for the rebels to continue so they in turn had to continue?
    The rebels say they wont back down, the army says it wont back down until the rebels back down, its an endless cycle. NATO will give it a nudge, kill some innocents by accident yet again and then in 40 years face another threat from Syria.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callan)
    Didn't the Government & army agree to a ceasefire, only for the rebels to continue so they in turn had to continue?
    The rebels only broke the ceasefire after the Houla massacre, as they could not protect civillians with Assad fragrently violating it. Assad also broke the ceasefire terms beforehand, as he continued shelling on Homs.

    The rebels say they wont back down, the army says it wont back down until the rebels back down, its an endless cycle.
    Exactly, that is why one side must acheive total military victory, preferably the rebels.

    NATO will give it a nudge, kill some innocents by accident yet again and then in 40 years face another threat from Syria.
    What is that supposed to mean?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 11, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.