Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Who caused the war on Terror: Muslims or American Foreign Policy? Watch

  • View Poll Results: US Foreign Policy or Muslims?
    US Foreign Policy
    48
    63.16%
    Muslims
    28
    36.84%

    • Offline

      2
      I take the Ron Paul answer here. :yep:
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Suetonius)
      I'd say a mixture of crazed exultation, social propaganda, perverse childhood "development", literalist readings of religious texts, and so on. The thing itself is not created by Western foreign policy in any case. The strands of thought, and the movements that hold them, have been in existence for over a millennium: through the Caliphate, the Islamist Ottoman Empire, writers such as Wahab and Qutb (even Khomeini and his 'velayat-e facqui' to an extent). The Islamist claim that a theocratic regime must spread by means of violent jihad* simply does not directly follow from any Western intervention in the region, nor can it be considered a rational response. It is completely sui generis. To use another example, it may well be said that had the Iraq war not taken place the mosque at Samarra would not have been blown up by Al Qaeda psychopaths in 2006. But the idea that all Shia be deemed impure - and practically subhuman - is not a direct consequence of Western foreign policy. That also predates it. As does fundamentalist anathematising of all Hindus, and the subsequent attempts to blow up the Indian parliament (in 2001) and Bombay (in 2008). Similarly, you see mosques being blown up in Pakistan on a weekly basis, where the U.S. has not invaded. Remember, the main victims of these movements are not Westerners, or Israelis, but other Muslims (spanning a range of countries: Mauritania, Mali, Somalia, Algeria, Nigeria, Libya, Tunisia, the Phillippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and so on; plenty of these countries being staunchly opposed to U.S. foreign policy). Al Qaeda are an imperialist bloc that wants to impose a Taliban-esque regime on the entire Ummah. These ideas are not a direct outcome of Western involvement in the Middle East in the same way that, for example, Pan-Arabism (or other forms of nationalism) are. Similarly, there are many other countries on earth that have been invaded, occupied and plundered by Western hegemonic interventionism that have not seen psychopathic criminal behaviour of the jihadist kind. When the United States supported the apartheid regime, for example, Nelson Mandela didn't use a tribalistic, mediaevalist form of Christianity in order to condone the throwing of acid in the faces of teenage girls, genital mutilation, suicide bombing or beheading. The same can be said of the NLF in Vietnam, the various resistance groups in Rhodesia, Fretilin in East Timor, the supporters of Allende in Chile, the Nicaraguan Sandinistas etc. Similarly, you don't see Cuban exiles launching suicide campaigns or "holy wars" against Fidel Castro in the same way that Chechan Islamists unhesitantly slaughter over a hundred schoolchildren in Beslan because of their belief that God is on their side. You don't see the Kurds attacking Iraqi society for what has been done to them over the past 30 years (poison gas, genocide, expulsions, mass graves), by blowing up Baghdad's UN offices and churches, suicide bombing in busy market places and funeral processions, cutting off the water supply, sabotaging elections etc. 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' (many of whose members aren't even Iraqis) are busy doing that. You really are looking at the face of evil with these religious fanatics. What we are truly up against is a form of imperialistic fascism, and no capitulation or appeasement on our part will deter them.

      *as Iran's constitution explicitly states

      P.S. The OP's so-called argument is obscenely post hoc ergo propter hoc. There is no direct causation between U.S. sanctions on Iraq (which were intensified to fatal levels by Saddam Hussein's own negligence, and refusal to make goods available to feed his own people while he was building a palace in each of Iraq's eighteen provinces) and the actions of the Saudis and Yemenis who committed that terrible atrocity. None of the 9/11 hijackers had any ancestral or familial relation to Iraq (just as none of the 7/7 bombers had any ancestral or familial relation to Iraq or Afghanistan). Indeed, if you say they felt solidarity with dying Iraqis during that period because of their mutual religious beliefs, then this obviously shows once more that religion is the ubiquitous and overarching problem. As it happens, I don't believe the sanctions had any bearing on the hijackers' motives.
      Whilst I agree with much of what you have said, I think it is important to consider the backgrounds of those people who become extremists.

      Many of them come from poor families and have little opportunity in life. Whilst this is not exclusively the fault of the West, Western policy has inevitably had a large impact. Whether this be the support of repressive regimes such as Iran in the mid-twentieth century or the continuing of support of the Saudi Arabian government. Furthermore, the people of these countries see little benefit from the exploitation of their natural resources.

      When you see no future prospects for yourself and your family, and when you are confronted with propaganda declaring that you can become a martyr and serve a higher cause, then it is perhaps possible to see why some people may turn to extremism.

      As regards to the thread title, I do not think you can attribute the blame to anyone in particular. Both sides have played a part in it. The actions of the US in particular have exacerbated tensions, the CIA itself had warned of this when it talked about 'Blowback'. At the same time, there are those 'Islamic fundamentalists' who seek to impose their beliefs on everyone else, often via violent means, who would exist regardless of the West's policy.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tw68)
      Whilst I agree with much of what you have said, I think it is important to consider the backgrounds of those people who become extremists.

      Many of them come from poor families and have little opportunity in life. Whilst this is not exclusively the fault of the West, Western policy has inevitably had a large impact. Whether this be the support of repressive regimes such as Iran in the mid-twentieth century or the continuing of support of the Saudi Arabian government. Furthermore, the people of these countries see little benefit from the exploitation of their natural resources.
      I'm afraid this still does not significantly explain (a) why these terrorists operate in countries that have little - or no - relation to Western imperialism, and (b) how religious extremism is not adopted by the many resistance movements in, for example, Vietnam or South Africa. Once again, the Kurds would have every right in the world to "respond" to Iraq for what has been done to them in the past 30 years, but they don't do it. Those who do blow up mosques, old people's homes etc. are doing so because they see their exploits as being part of a greater religious holy war. Your apparent argument, that despair is enough to elicit psychopathic, criminal behaviour, can just as easily be applied to the rise of Nazi Germany. But the problem is not with our behaviour: the problem is the ideology to begin with.

      In the case of Iran, there is no logical explanation that says the decision by the CIA to overthrow Mossadegh in 1953, and replace him with the Shah, has any direct connection to the subsequent seizing of power by a repressive clerical class. The United States cannot make ancient extremist religious doctrine any worse. The same is the case with Saudi Arabia. The truth is that the largest recipient of Saudi oil exports today is not the United States, but China. But if anyone suggested that a terrorist attack on Beijing (launched from bases in a country over 400 miles away from Saudi Arabia: as was the case with Afghanistan pre-2001) was a "response" to the Chinese involvement there, I have a feeling that the left would not be so eager to agree.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Suetonius)
      I'm afraid this still does not significantly explain (a) why these terrorists operate in countries that have little - or no - relation to Western imperialism, and (b) how religious extremism is not adopted by the many resistance movements in, for example, Vietnam or South Africa. Once again, the Kurds would have every right in the world to "respond" to Iraq for what has been done to them in the past 30 years, but they don't do it. Those who do blow up mosques, old people's homes etc. are doing so because they see their exploits as being part of a greater religious holy war. Your apparent argument, that despair is enough to elicit psychopathic, criminal behaviour, can just as easily be applied to the rise of Nazi Germany. But the problem is not with our behaviour: the problem is the ideology to begin with.

      In the case of Iran, there is no logical explanation that says the decision by the CIA to overthrow Mossadegh in 1953, and replace him with the Shah, has any direct connection to the subsequent seizing of power by a repressive clerical class. The United States cannot make ancient extremist religious doctrine any worse. The same is the case with Saudi Arabia. The truth is that the largest recipient of Saudi oil exports today is not the United States, but China. But if anyone suggested that a terrorist attack on Beijing (launched from bases in a country over 400 miles away from Saudi Arabia: as was the case with Afghanistan pre-2001) was a "response" to the Chinese involvement there, I have a feeling that the left would not be so eager to agree.
      a) Which countries are you referring to here?

      Yes the problem is with the ideology but you can't ignore the factors which lead people to embrace the ideology. For example, had Germany's economy recovered and prospered post-WW1 do you think so many people would have been willing to embrace Nazism? It is not a surprise now that the people most willing to embrace Islamic fundamentalism are those who have little prospects. You don't see too many rich sheikhs rushing to blow themselves up. Therefore, whilst it is important to address the ideology I think you must also look at the root causes.

      Well I would argue that the actions of the Shah government obviously contributed to the revolution of 1979. However, I think you missed my point with those examples. I was trying to show how the West conducts policy with little care for the effects it may have on the populations of those countries it deals with. When the US is preaching its desire to spread democracy whilst signing yet another arms or oil deal with the Saudi government, then perhaps you can understand why the average Saudi citizen who faces some of the most repressive laws on earth (especially if you are a woman) feels some sort of contempt for the US.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Idiots caused it.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      I can't be bothered to see whether you clarified things somewhere else in the thread, but if you seriously think that the war on terror began in 2001 you are unbelievably ignorant of history.
      There are also many, many more issues in play here than the measly two that you have decided to include in your poll.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      well, my take is, america started this, now although im muslim im not saying this because i hate america or whatever..put simply, america started conflicts in afghanistan iraq and so many other of the muslim countries, i dont know how they dont expect to be attacked back... if i were to start a fight i would expect some shots coming at me, and to be fair, the ammount america have spent on the war on terror (1.1 trillion) could basicaly have set up all necesary foundations to end world hunger/poverty, bit much dont u think?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tw68)
      a) Which countries are you referring to here?
      I listed them above. You only have to look at the suicide bombings in Pakistan today. In what way is an attack on Pakistani civilians (fellow Muslims) a "reaction" to Western imperialism? How is car-bombing in Algeria, kidnapping in Mauritania, genital mutilation in Somalia, and the various other operations by 'Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb' and 'Al Shabbab' a "response" to the United States? It seems to me bizarre that you would suggest the attempt to blow up the Parliament of India, or the actual destruction of the offices of the UN in Baghdad, or the anathemetising of Shia (and the subsequent demolition of their mosques) is a "response" to the U.S. These are not signs of a grievance with the United States (they obviously do have these grievances, but not for the reasons you're suggesting), but grievances with all Jews, all Hindus, all international law, all secularism, and so on. All it takes to bring on the bombing of the Danish embassy in Islamabad (2008) is the decision by the Danish PM not to censor his own media, and prevent the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. All it took for the Riverside Press to be bombed in 1989 was the publishing of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. You say this behaviour sparks from despair and suffering. Nonsense. The threshold to bring on jihad is at the stage where any exercising of a free press to criticise their religion is used. In essence, the only thing that will satisfy them is to change everything about our way of life, and succumb to an Islamic Caliphate. And, guess what, that is what they say they want. I'm willing to take their word for it. I know that when they declare the whole of Palestine to be an Islamic waqf, and every Jew be forced out of the Levant, that they mean what they say. I know that no-one blows up the water supply and oil pipelines in Baghdad in order to reduce unemployment and poverty. Jihad inflicts a phenomenal amount of despair and suffering on millions of people, it's taken over several large states and threatens to do so again. Shame on anyone who euphemises this evil, repellent thing.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      9/11 = inside job
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Suetonius)
      I listed them above. You only have to look at the suicide bombings in Pakistan today. In what way is an attack on Pakistani civilians (fellow Muslims) a "reaction" to Western imperialism? 1.How is car-bombing in Algeria, 2kidnapping in Mauritania, genital mutilation in Somalia, and the various other operations by 'Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb' and 'Al Shabbab' a "response" to the United States? It seems to me bizarre that you would suggest the attempt to blow up the Parliament of India, or the actual destruction of the offices of the UN in Baghdad, or the anathemetising of Shia (and the subsequent demolition of their mosques) is a "response" to the U.S. These are not signs of a grievance with the United States (they obviously do have these grievances, but not for the reasons you're suggesting), but grievances with all Jews, all Hindus, all international law, all secularism, and so on. All it takes to bring on the bombing of the Danish embassy in Islamabad (2008) is the decision by the Danish PM not to censor his own media, and prevent the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. All it took for the Riverside Press to be bombed in 1989 was the publishing of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. You say this behaviour sparks from despair and suffering. Nonsense. The threshold to bring on jihad is at the stage where any exercising of a free press to criticise their religion is used. In essence, the only thing that will satisfy them is to change everything about our way of life, and succumb to an Islamic Caliphate. And, guess what, that is what they say they want. I'm willing to take their word for it. I know that when they declare the whole of Palestine to be an Islamic waqf, and every Jew be forced out of the Levant, that they mean what they say. I know that no-one blows up the water supply and oil pipelines in Baghdad in order to reduce unemployment and poverty. Jihad inflicts a phenomenal amount of despair and suffering on millions of people, it's taken over several large states and threatens to do so again. Shame on anyone who euphemises this evil, repellent thing.
      lool you joker, Palestine is a MUslim land occupied by the Jews their time will come...as for the stuff you said in the beginning most of it is connected to the US Foreign Policy. Algerian car bombings = target the Algerian stooges (government), Shabab fights AU, Ethiopian troops hmm send by whome exactly? Kidnappings in Mauritania to finance their operations in Algeria. India attacks because India occupies Muslim Kashmir.

      You're a hater but you still cant beat us not with your tanks or f16s loool. You people colonized the world killed millions, yet look for other people to blame, you do it all the time. Difference is most people just 'lost' and gave up, Muslims don't.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by SomaliMan)
      lool you joker, Palestine is a MUslim land occupied by the Jews their time will come...as for the stuff you said in the beginning most of it is connected to the US Foreign Policy. Algerian car bombings = target the Algerian stooges (government), Shabab fights AU, Ethiopian troops hmm send by whome exactly? Kidnappings in Mauritania to finance their operations in Algeria. India attacks because India occupies Muslim Kashmir.

      You're a hater but you still cant beat us not with your tanks or f16s loool. You people colonized the world killed millions, yet look for other people to blame, you do it all the time. Difference is most people just 'lost' and gave up, Muslims don't.
      This doesn't need any comment from me. You've managed to discredit and humiliate yourself without me even trying. Not only is it full of racial bigotry (esp. anti-Semitism), and the condoning of terrorism to that end, but it also designates religion to territory. Sowing the seeds for your future Caliphate.

      Interesting to see that you're Somali. While you're living in comfort wherever you may be, with your readily available internet access and fluency in English, I wish you'd spare a thought for the phenomenal amount of suffering Al Shabab inflicts on your fellow countrymen. You should be thoroughly ashamed of defending them.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Suetonius)
      This doesn't need any comment from me. You've managed to discredit and humiliate yourself without me even trying. Not only is it full of racial bigotry, and the condoning of terrorism to that end, but it also designates religion to territory. Sowing the seeds for your future Caliphate.

      Interesting to see that you're Somali. While you're living in comfort wherever you may be, with your readily available internet access and fluency in English, I wish you'd spare a thought for the phenomenal amount of suffering Al Shabab inflicts on your fellow countrymen. You should be thoroughly ashamed of defending them.
      I know Shabaab better than some white boy, unable to speak ARabic/Somali and gets his news from Crusaders.co.uk

      Should I tell you about the history of SOmalia, 1990/91 = Civil War, 2006 = Islamic Courts (including Shabaab) moderate Islamic group. America could not stand this and forced Ethiopia, yes read Wikileaks, to invade Somalia..some of the ICU fled others joined the extremist Shabaab. The Somali government now consists of warlords and some ICU members who fled when the Ethiopians came, although I'm not even with Shabaab, they are a lot better than the TFG government. And how was my post full of 'racial bigotry'? I have no problem with a future Caliphate, why not? Every people is trying to get as much power as they can, the UN/US/Europe now rule the world, the Russians are playing their games in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, China is also stepping up, Iran is trying to take over the gulf...

      THe only reason why you care is because with a Caliphate the West will be weakened, (all the resources of the MUslims countries dissapearing infront of your eyes).

      Back to Somalia, the ICU would still be ruling today if the Americans didn't get involved and ruin things, now they only made it worse for themselves, by giving Shabaab a platform to run things from :rolleyes:
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by SomaliMan)
      I know Shabaab better than some white boy, unable to speak ARabic/Somali and gets his news from Crusaders.co.uk

      Should I tell you about the history of SOmalia, 1990/91 = Civil War, 2006 = Islamic Courts (including Shabaab) moderate Islamic group. America could not stand this and forced Ethiopia, yes read Wikileaks, to invade Somalia..some of the ICU fled others joined the extremist Shabaab. The Somali government now consists of warlords and some ICU members who fled when the Ethiopians came, although I'm not even with Shabaab, they are a lot better than the TFG government. And how was my post full of 'racial bigotry'? I have no problem with a future Caliphate, why not? Every people is trying to get as much power as they can, the UN/US/Europe now rule the world, the Russians are playing their games in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, China is also stepping up, Iran is trying to take over the gulf...

      THe only reason why you care is because with a Caliphate the West will be weakened, (all the resources of the MUslims countries dissapearing infront of your eyes).

      Back to Somalia, the ICU would still be ruling today if the Americans didn't get involved and ruin things, now they only made it worse for themselves, by giving Shabaab a platform to run things from :rolleyes:
      I shouldn't have to respond to this tripe, so I'm not going to. Debating Islamists (although, in your case, I'm wondering if you're a full-blown jihadi) is not worth anyone's time. Condoning a bin Ladenist/Qutbist/Wahabist empire, controlled by sharia, and the gross infliction of crazed, barbaric, mediaeval, primitive, religious human rights abuses on the already despairing people under its jurisdiction, is too much for me - and should be for anyone. You are a racist. You're an anti-Semite - saying that the Jews' "time will come". And you lumped me together with 19th century imperialists (while claiming that my skin colour affects my knowledge of world affairs in your above post). Don't bother responding and making yourself look more ridiculous than you already do.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Suetonius)
      I shouldn't have to respond to this tripe, so I'm not going to. Debating Islamists (although, in your case, I'm wondering if you're a full-blown jihadi) is not worth anyone's time. Condoning a bin Ladenist/Qutbist/Wahabist empire, controlled by sharia, and the gross infliction of crazed, barbaric, mediaeval, primitive, religious human rights abuses on the already despairing people under its jurisdiction, is too much for me - and should be for anyone. You are a racist. You're an anti-Semite - saying that the Jews' "time will come". And you lumped me together with 19th century imperialists (while claiming that my skin colour affects my knowledge of world affairs in your above post). Don't bother responding and making yourself look more ridiculous than you already do.
      lool at Jihadi, anyone who doesn't agree with the War on Terror is a Jihadi, islamist, al-Qaedaist loool.

      I said Caliphate I didnt say Qutbist, Wahabist or whateverist. You just because you assume its connected to al-Qaeda doesn't mean it is. barbaric, mediaeval, primitive is just your opinion and besides what do you care, its not as if England is part of that Caliphate right?? The same people that bomb countries complain of barbaric this and that...

      If the Taliban gave Bin laden to the uS, they wouldn't care what the Taliban did. Disagree? And the Jews will be kicked out of Palestine, thats my religion just as their religion states that they will have a homeland between the Nile and Tigris or Euphrates. Your skincolour does not matter, but you don't speak neither Arabic or Somali, so what would you know about what happens there? BBC?

      Its like someone that doesn;t know English talking about England.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      There is no war on terror.

      Similarly to WW1 and WW2, this is all about power.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Those bloody Muzzies, they're takin' our jobs DERKA DERB! :fluffy:
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by SomaliMan)
      lool at Jihadi, anyone who doesn't agree with the War on Terror is a Jihadi, islamist, al-Qaedaist loool.
      Oh, no. I didn't say that. I know plenty of reasonable and logical critics of the War on Terror who are clearly not any of those things. Nevertheless, when someone says in explicit terms "I have no problem with a future Caliphate", and that Palestine and Kashmir are "Muslim lands", and shows clear animosity towards Jews, you can't blame me for guessing.

      I said Caliphate I didnt say Qutbist, Wahabist or whateverist.
      Well when I brought up the issue, that's what I meant, because that is the sort of Caliphate Al Qaeda want. If you have a different sort of "Caliphate" in mind then tell me what it is. I'll then take that into account rather than the one genuine jihadists desire, and the one you seemingly claimed to have "no problem with".

      barbaric, mediaeval, primitive is just your opinion
      Of course. Who else's would it be? Although most people would agree that Islamist imposition on unwilling individuals is "barbaric, mediaeval and primitive", I'll happily steer clear from consensus and listen to your reasons for why you do not think it is any of those things.

      and besides what do you care, its not as if England is part of that Caliphate right??
      Well, there are many who would like that, but I don't share the same sort of close-minded identity politics that you do. I am a liberal internationalist. While "England" is obviously freer than the parts of Somalia under the control of Islamic fascists, I'm committed to the global spread of liberal democracy. If England was a fascist dictatorship, I would undoubtedly show hostility to that government to the same extent that I show hostility to Al Shabab, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and other psychotic totalitarians that treats their citizens as chattel.

      If the Taliban gave Bin laden to the uS, they wouldn't care what the Taliban did. Disagree?
      Regardless of any decision taken by the U.S., I am instinctively anti-Taliban and would continue to support any movement that fights against them, and preventing them from inflicting a dictatorial theocracy on the people of Afghanistan. It doesn't matter whether it's the Northern Alliance, the United States (who are, remember, guests of the Afghan government: not an occupying force), or any other group.

      And the Jews will be kicked out of Palestine, thats my religion just as their religion states that they will have a homeland between the Nile and Tigris or Euphrates.
      "thats [sic] my religion" isn't a sufficient argument for me. Especially when it's used to justify inherently disgusting behaviour. And, yes, I hold the same perspective towards the initial formation of the State of Israel, and the current occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. Condoning the destruction of Israel, however, is self-evidently wrong to me. Especially when this is based on the premise that that land is automatically an Islamic waqf. It isn't. Palestine is an issue for Palestinians. Not the Ummah.

      Btw, that whole "Nile-Euphrates" stuff is a crackpot conspiracy theory.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Western Expediency.

      Unfortunately that didn't turn out very well, the last 10 years have been a complete and total f**k up.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Suetonius)
      P.S. The OP's so-called argument is obscenely post hoc ergo propter hoc. There is no direct causation between U.S. sanctions on Iraq (which were intensified to fatal levels by Saddam Hussein's own negligence, and refusal to make goods available to feed his own people while he was building a palace in each of Iraq's eighteen provinces) and the actions of the Saudis and Yemenis who committed that terrible atrocity. None of the 9/11 hijackers had any ancestral or familial relation to Iraq (just as none of the 7/7 bombers had any ancestral or familial relation to Iraq or Afghanistan). Indeed, if you say they felt solidarity with dying Iraqis during that period because of their mutual religious beliefs, then this obviously shows once more that religion is the ubiquitous and overarching problem. As it happens, I don't believe the sanctions had any bearing on the hijackers' motives.
      Very well put... but it's imo it's important to remember the Sanctions were UN imposed and not US imposed though.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Fascistic religious fundamentalist scumbags caused the war on terror. The Americans don't help themselves all the time and I think Iraq was a mistake, but the root cause of this is not American foreign policy.

      For American foreign policy that really was evil, see Chilé.

     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.