Wednesday, November 07, 2007

The Rising...

The first few days of the emergency were punctuated by a deafening silence by the civil society of Pakistan - or so it seemed. 4 days into this unjust army rule (for those who doubted that the army was in control for the past 8 years!) and people are starting to come to terms with what has happened to them.

For any civil disobedience or movement to be successful, it is imperative for the youth of the nation to come out in demonstrations. Demonstrations don't necessarily have to be violent, but with article 144 of the consitution in effect (hmmm, when the constitution is in abeyance how can article 144 be applicable?) protestors can expect baton-wielding police officers and plain-clothed agents to charge at them. This will obviously result in the peaceful demonstrators fighting back.

LUMS - one of the best management schools in Pakistan, if not the best - is holding daily processions within their campus even with the police warning them against it. Following suit are all other major universities and educational institutions such as FAST, GIK, UET et al. The police have cordoned off these institutes and are stopping the media from covering these ever-growing protests.

Since the media has been banned all across Pakistan, these students are taking their struggle online. LUMS is maintaining a blog pakistanmartiallaw. where they update news on protests being held in various universities. I am noticing this effort become increasingly organized with collaboration from members and student councils of other univerisities. This is great news and is exactly what is needed to make these demonstrations meaningful.

Imran Khan

Imran has been able to slip through police custody (no mean achievement in Pakistan!) and is now in hiding. He has also taken his struggle over the internet (on youtube and his website) where he is issuing short videos to mobilize the youth against this emergency. His speeches are available both in Urdu and English on his website.

Imran Khan was giving a speech in LUMS when the state of emergency was declared. I think his speech to the 'luminite.s' was instrumental in reviving the student organizations across Pakistan to finally break their silence.

All power to Imran! I think he is the only political leader who truly represents the aspirations of the youth in Pakistan. I have already commented before on how leaders like him are hard to find who really have a feel on the pulse of the nation.

Mullah Blitzkrieg

The Jamatis are back! Click here to see their brilliant idea of what I call "guerilla demonstration"! This is hilarious and cool at the same time!


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree-Imran is the only one who seems honest in this fray. At least on the surface and its cool how he staged an escape :P

The JI demo was novel-though it serves no purpose whatsoever.

If the people of Pakiland awake-they better know what ails them and how to put it right-or they just delay another emergency under another military dictator in yet another decade...

Dont react-look at the root of your problems - old al-republican knows what I be a talkin about.

In 2 words: Mohammed Asad.


November 08, 2007 1:04 AM  
Blogger Debbie does Dubai said...

i vote for imran khan.

November 08, 2007 3:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the jamat idea was cool and maybe not so useless. At least in this approach people have less risk of getting a beating by our brutal "thullas"

Two thumbs up for LUMS and FAST students.

November 08, 2007 8:50 AM  
Blogger Ghazala Khan said...

Hello ,
I hope you are fine and carrying on the great work you have been doing for the Pakistani side of WWW. I am Ghazala Khan from The Paksitani Spectator (TPS), We at TPS throw a candid look on everything happening in and for Pakistan. We are trying to contribute our humble share in the blogistan.

We at TPS are carrying out a new series of interviews with the notable Pakistani bloggers. In that regard, we would like to interview you, if you dont mind. Please send me your approval for your interview at pak.spectator at, so that I could send you the questions. We would be extremely grateful. We have done many interviews with many bloggers from Pakistan like Dr. Awab, Kashif Aziz, Fahd Mirza and host of others.


Ghazala Khan
The Pakistani Spectator

November 08, 2007 10:18 AM  
Blogger i*maginate said...

I just thought I'd let you know that the first thing we don't have in common is your Pakistan political views. Isn't that ironic! ;-)

November 14, 2007 11:45 AM  
Blogger al-republican said...


I think we have more uncommon things actually. For example, you don't rate X5 too high when it's my dream car! And then there is your love life and your frequent crushes - I am nowhere CLOSE to that stuff!

But, why do you support Musharraf? Is it because you think he is a good leader or that he is the lesser of the evils? I don't believe in compromise solutions. I am an idealist and I personally don't like to be in a position where I have to pick amongst 'devils'. I'd rather go for someone/something whom I completely trust in.

I think democracy is a wonderful thing and unfortunately Arabs are not too aware of it. You don't have much choice in who your leader is so a lot of times a very worthy person is wasted and the inept continue to govern.

We have a similar position in Pakistan where there is a ruling elite and there really isn't much "choice". But, mercifully, we have a system of electioneering (no matter how flawed it is). So we can choose our leader and with the passage of time we will eventually get it right.

We, as Pakistanis, are not willing to let one guy sit on the top and become a de facto ruler and dictate to us our interests. No, we can determine our own future and we refuse to be marrionettes in the hands of any particular person or family.

I am not for Arab-style rulership and neither am I for power-mongering dictators. We Muslims need to realize that we need to stop compromising our future and start taking charge of our affairs.

Why should governance be the right of one family or person? That is not what Islam teaches us. Following anything other than that will lead us to anarchy as it already has.

November 14, 2007 11:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i*maginate you stick to your similarities with EMARAT JABAL SHAMMAR. You seem to have plenty with him.

November 15, 2007 12:13 PM  
Blogger rosh said...

Holy Al - all that for a casual comment? I *really* really hope to share a few thoughts - but you are just so scary right going to sit out for while and circle back with my two fils,ok.

November 15, 2007 5:19 PM  
Blogger rosh said...

OK am back : )

If you have not already, please read this post @UAECB. MM, quite honestly expressed most thoughts quite well.

November 16, 2007 6:38 AM  
Blogger al-republican said...


That link didn't come out properly. Can you please e-mail me that link?

November 16, 2007 7:31 AM  
Blogger rosh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 16, 2007 7:46 AM  
Blogger al-republican said...

By the way, Rosh, I wasn't talking to i*maginate in a condescending manner. She has been sharing her thoughts with me on these topics. She has also left some comments on some other threads on this blog.

This is actually a continuation of a dialogue we had previously. I think I needed to highlight this point to her because she views Musharraf as the good guy in Pakistani politics.

I simply tried to highlight why this opinion of Musharraf being a savior (which many outside Pakistan have) is born out of a mentality that is becoming inherently Muslim. That mentality is essentially that Muslim masses do not understand or cannot look after their interests. There has to be a baton-wielding person (such as Musharraf) who has to "herd" the masses and dictate goals.

It is a very important discourse for any serious Muslim today and who are looking to find solutions to our teething problems. All her lovey shenanigans aside, I feel imaginate is good at heart and sincerely does want Muslim politics to go towards the right direction.

November 16, 2007 7:49 AM  
Blogger rosh said...

I've emailed it to you, and re-pasted it below, for anyone else interested. hope it links well

November 16, 2007 7:49 AM  
Blogger rosh said...

Sure, thanks Al.

Personally, I do not support Musharraf, that said - any system can be flawed (to an extent) given the "powers that be" people elect or support in good faith.

Short note: just compared to most democratic south asian nations nations like UAE & Singapore have had much stability given the leadership.

Though I agree democracy has a lot more options for common man, it perhaps is not always the best fit for all nations - and Movie mania's post at UAECB sort of expresses these quite well.

November 16, 2007 8:07 AM  
Blogger al-republican said...


Thanks a lot! I went through it and as you might vouch, Moviemania seems to be echoing the same point I am making in my comment to i*maginate.

The only area where I would disagree with him (her?) is that democracy is NOT a Western concept. OK, if you take the word "democracy" to mean US-styled governance then perhaps that could be a reason to put off Muslims from all 'evil' American things.

But, the truth of the matter is that Islamic governance is rooted in the principle of SHURA (mutual consultation). It is the bedrock of our civilization alongwith Justice. So, Muslims were practicing "democracy" 1400+ years ago! So we shouldn't be viewing our right to elect a leader as a foreign idea in the first place.

Moviemania is absolutely right about how people in the Muslim world (khaleejis mostly) are in a comfort zone. Why change when everything is fine and dandy, right? But, you know distinguishes a good company/system/person from a bad one? THEIR WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE WHEN THINGS ARE GOING JUST FINE.

Why wait for our bubble to burst? Look at it this way, Rosh, if Emaratis tomorrow had to face a backlash because of a US-Iran war, they wouldn't have the luxuries they enjoy today. And then where would they go to voice their political opinions?? I think "terrorism" would be their only solution (which is what is going on even today - terrorism is a by-product of political deprivation, period).

Serious and controversial topic, eh? hehe. But, we need to speak about these things rather than burying our heads in the sand. :)

November 16, 2007 8:08 AM  
Blogger rosh said...

Whilst walking back home from work, I realized democracy has it's flaws - some bollywood clown "could" become president!

*shock/horror* - think again Al, be careful what we wish for :)

OK, bad jokes and horror aside - Yes, true, you've got some excellent points for democracy. Concur with most of 'em. Would like to add -given the Psyche/culture/flawed religious practices, perceptions and a whole other load of issues - planting democracy may not be the best idea at the moment. It's going to take time to plant the concept, to "educate & bring awareness" to the common folk, who eventually make or break the concept of democracy.

You know what, after living here in the city for so long - perhaps much freedom is not necessarily a good thing. S'pore: it's not a democracy in it's truest form, however, is a successful city state.

I think, UAE shall bring about this concept, perhaps just about towards the end of our lifetime, and perhaps for the first time in life, I shall vote.

November 16, 2007 5:42 PM  
Blogger nick said...


of course deomcracy is a western concept. last time I checked it wasn't started in Jeddah or Jakarta.

You mention 'shura' in much the same context as moviemania mentions egalitarian Islamic law. I have replioed to this on the UAE blog.

For crying out loud, this is not choice!
It's choice, as long as it's green.
The consultation you refer to applies only to consultatrion within the community of Muslims.

Democracy is consultation within a state of all its citizens, be they Muslim, Jew, Christian, straight or queer or green or blue and Atheist and god forbid, even Tom Cruise.

November 17, 2007 12:01 AM  
Blogger al-republican said...


That's precisely why I dont talk of Western democracy! We are striving for our own kind of democracy, which is actually in abeyance for quite a while now. So we dont need to re-invent the wheel- we only have to start using it again.

Please try to understand that we are NOT striving for Western-styled democracy.

November 17, 2007 1:53 AM  
Blogger rosh said...

Al - what is the fundamental/primary difference between Western style democracy and Islamic governance rooted in the principle of shura?

November 17, 2007 10:39 AM  
Blogger nick said...

I have the same question as Rosh.
And please whilst you lay it out for us could you address the issue of how non Muslims in your kind of democracy will be treated?

November 17, 2007 10:26 PM  
Blogger al-republican said...


The fundamental difference is that an Islamic system of governance (just like any other Islamic field such as Islamic banking) would recognize God as the Supreme judge on a matter.

For example, in Islamic banking usury is forbidden (incidentally, Jewish, Christian and Hindu law bans usury too). Therefore, interest and usury is not acceptable as a mode of financial transactions.

Similarly, Islamic governance would recognize that there are stipulation set by God Almighty on certain aspects. Islamic law is very intricate and we have detailed laws on inheritance, marriage, justice etc. Therefore the state is to uphold these Islamic injunctions and work under these parameters. Western demcracy places a lot of emphasis on what human beings desire whereas the Islamic system of governance would require us to keep God's Will over our own wills and desires. Such is the relationship of God and man.

No matter how many people in the World approve man-man and woman-woman marriages, but such a union is unacceptable to God. There is a reason why this is banned as per God's law which we can discuss later.


Minorities do have rights and I want you to understand that there is nothing set in stone as to how much or how less their rights should be in Islam. This is one place where we have real flexibility in promulgating laws. There is absolutely no harm in overhauling previous laws in regards to minorities.

There would be some places though where it wouldn't be practical to have non-Muslim participation. For example, if we have an Islamic constitution and you apply as a judge, would you be willing to swear in as a judge who would uphold Islamic laws, values and morals?

In the West, people swear their allegiances to the consitution of the land and regardless of their personal inclinations they are expected to subscribe to the law of the land. Now if you are willing to live as a Christian in an Islamic country with Islamic laws and want to be a judge and have no problems in giving judgements as per Islamic law (as that would be our constitution) then sure you can apply for the job!

I have a feeling though you might not be interested one bit :P

November 18, 2007 10:57 PM  
Blogger nick said...

thanks for explaining your ideas.

Unfortunately what you are talking about is not democracy at all, but theocracy by implication of God's law being supreme.
Being the idealist you are you might consider this to be a fair and just system, but it is theocracy nonetheless and imcompatible with pluralism of thought and equitable jurisdiction for all citizens regardless of their faiths.

To begin with, interpretation of islam and application / implementation of these interpretations through shar'ia is 'varied' to say the least. There seems to be no canon of law but merely different views.
This is no base on which to govern a country in today's global world.
In IT terms, it is a partly incompatible system.
You need clear constitutional parameta, and theocracy fails on the first count, which is the acceptance of moral and legal euqivalence of any belief or non-belief.

We are not talking about 'infidels' wanting to move to an Islamic country, but those already existant there like Hindus in Pakistan, Christians in the Levant and Egypt or Jews in Yemen or the Maghreb - who were there long before Islam came about.

Btw., I am not Christian or anything else for that matter and I am loath to be judged by means of religion. Western democracy assures me of this.
I am a guest here and I am not planning to settle as a citizen, so I can accept the temporary restrictions imposed on me, much in the way I abide by a non smoking policy in public places (which doesn't mean I like it..)

November 20, 2007 1:06 AM  
Blogger rosh said...

Al, thanks for that. I sort of agree with most of what Nick has to say.

I do not believe religion can govern people's lives, especially in today's day & age. People shall always evolve, so shall their ways of life/thinking.

All said- religion may not be as readily accepted as previous generations. People want more answers, but religion is not about answers, it's about faith.

Religion is more of a guide than an actual instruction manual. You can take what you want from it. All the major religions are based on the same basic concepts love, peace and equality - sadly, that "objective" is often overlooked.

Instead Ignorance has taken over most people in arguing over whose religion is right, be it the radical Muslims (read Osama's) or the Evangelical Christians (read GWB :) or the the radical Hindu's.

Segregating in the name of religion is actually the biggest insult to one's faith, which clearly opposes violence & discrimination.

Do you actually believe a baby born into a Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Jewish home/mother is not created by the same heavenly creator? We are all from the same creator, born into different cultures, homes & parents. If only more people understood that.

November 20, 2007 8:26 PM  
Blogger the real nick said...

Yes, Rosh, that's the problem I personally have with organized religions and Christianity and Islam in particular. These consider themselves 'reform' religions and are by definition exclusive and claim sole ownership of the 'truth'.

November 20, 2007 10:10 PM  
Blogger al-republican said...


But, 21st century democracy has evolved into a theocracy of its own! There is no religion associated to it, but like it or not, secularism has become a religion of its own. It has its own sets of laws and philosophy.

You can already see how man-made laws that are supposed to be humanist are easily exploited by governments. All animals are not equal even in a functioning democracy today. And that is just a fact. Everytime a religious law (any religion) clashes with the consitution of the land (read religion?) then the State has to establish its writ. I have already given the exmaple of polygamy before.

Western societies are promulgating laws on homosexuality, but I guess they haven't "evolved" enough to accept polygamists, pedophiles and beastialites? So clearly there is someone defining what is wrong and right.

Moreover, democracy these days has become more violent and belligerent than religion. It has become an intolerant serpent that will eat away everything that refuses to embrace it.

I feel Westerners are confused due to their unfmailiarity with such nomenclature. If anyone could define religion in its proper context you would see that religion IS about governance and not just a personal thing. The West did away with religion because it was found wanting in many spheres of governance. Therefore, moving to another system only made sense. However, Islam and Muslims are not facing such a dilemma. Our religion is not preaching contrary to reason, which was the prime factor that made Europeans phase out of religion and depend on man-made laws. If you keep comparing your experiences with those of the Muslims then you are making a big mistake.

As for you saying that the interpretation of Sharee'ah is 'varied' then that in itself should convince you that there is ROOM for diverging views within Islamic law. How cool is that?

November 20, 2007 10:11 PM  
Blogger the real nick said...


But, 21st century democracy has evolved into a theocracy of its own!

We had this discussion a while ago and I thought the statement is bollocks and I think the same now.
You could say the democracy has become ‘gospel’ in the sense that it is the accepted best possible form of governance – but that’s where any similarity with religion ends.

Further down you say:

So clearly there is someone defining what is wrong and right.

Democracy is not perfect, but it is first and foremost representative of all citizens. Of course there is a moral consensus. Who ever told you to believe that humanism is not moral???!!!
Of course there are laws and regulations, and polygamy for instance is not acceptable because it devalues the equal status of each party in a marriage, get over it. Homosexual partnerships are emulating traditional marriage, what’s wrong with that?
And, Al, get married first and then we can talk about whether polygamy would be acceptable to your wife.
We can have a discussion about polygamy being 'fair' the day it will be allowed for both Muslim men AND Muslim women to take more than one partner.
If you retort that the book doesn't allow this then the book is bollocks.

All animals are not equal even in a functioning democracy today.

You lost me there. Most carnivore people in the West eat ALL animals. It’s you guys who don’t consider all animals equal. Bacon anyone?

Moreover, democracy these days has become more violent and belligerent than religion.

Sure Al.
If you ignore the Taliban, Al Quaeda, Hamas, MB, the bombs in Iraqi streetmarkets that is.

Al, this statement is a blatant lie that belies your intelligence. Murder in the name of religion has been the name of the game for centuries, and the only religion that keeps up that sport is Islam.

The West did away with religion because it was found wanting in many spheres of governance.

Not only but also. Firstly, religion wasn’t done away with as form of governance because it NEVER was the ONLY determining constituent of a state, merely one important defining statute. Religion was put in its place – in private.

As for you saying that the interpretation of Sharee'ah is 'varied' then that in itself should convince you that there is ROOM for diverging views within Islamic law. How cool is that?

It’s seriously uncool. It only proves that the basis on which you want to found an Islamic “democracy” is porous and unstable and can give way at any time to ruptures and schism. As it does, incidentally and very frequently between Sunni and Shia and whathaveyou.

Legal interpretation is not the purpose of Law. It’s an unintended side product!

November 21, 2007 7:33 AM  
Blogger al-republican said...


You can support homosexuality and not polygamy!? What is so "equal" about homosexuality, pray tell us!? No one knows why the West is supporting homosexual marriages - not even yourself.

You totally miss my point on democracy and religion. See, to Muslims (in fact to anyone who can define RELIGION properly), governance is a PART of religion. This confusion arises because the English language is insufficient in definition of these principles.

In GW Bush's words it looks like this: You have a "way of life" - democracy is your system of governance and religion is your personal relationship with God.

Before English even came into existence (1066 AD) religion was defined as "way of life"! It is much clearer in ISlamic nomenclature where Islam is our DEEN (way of life).

Under Islam (our "way of life") we have siyasah as governing branch; fiqh as our branch for jurisprudence etc. By putting your religion in "its place" you actually admit that your religion is only for namesake and nothing but that. So you can call your governing system what you like, but it is crystal clear that that is your way of life. You are willing to die to protect that system and even willing to bomb others to accept it. Anything that you are willing to DIE to protect is your HONOR and your belief system.

Now you tell me if this sounds like "religion" or not! English is such a clownish language, really!

November 21, 2007 8:47 PM  
Blogger the real nick said...


What is so "equal" about homosexuality, pray tell us!? No one knows why the West is supporting homosexual marriages - not even yourself.

I can tell you. It’s a relationship between two equals, not an unequal one between one and four parties.

You totally miss my point on democracy and religion. See, to Muslims (in fact to anyone who can define RELIGION properly), governance is a PART of religion.

Let me make a last effort to explain myself with an analogy.

Democracy is sports. All sports.
Religion is cricket. When you say governance is part of religion then you are talking about twenty or fifty overs and LBWs, or intrinsic vernacular issues– but none of this has relevance to other sports.
But all sports are regulated and have rules. Respect for other players, playing fair and not cheating are lowest common denominators.

In GW Bush's words it looks like this: You have a "way of life" - democracy is your system of governance and religion is your personal relationship with God.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. The man is a genius :)

Before English even came into existence (1066 AD) religion was defined as "way of life"! It is much clearer in ISlamic nomenclature where Islam is our DEEN (way of life).

You may be surprised by this, but even before English came about people had languages, and religion, as word and meaning, was and is defined as relationship between man and god(s), worship, and structured belief system with codes of conduct -as the Latin root religare: restrain indicates - and not simply and only a ‘way of life’ – even if some people want to define it that way.
I am not denying that religion can be one’s way of life, good luck with that.
But, because there are so many ways of life independent from any religious connotations or ties with the supernatural that separation of the two aspects is the only way to coexist with believers of other faiths, and that way of life shouldn’t be usurped as the only description of religion.
Islam may be the way of life for YOU. Homosexuality is the way of life for others. There is no difference between the two as 'ways' of life'.

November 22, 2007 2:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Food for thought:


November 24, 2007 11:26 AM  
Blogger i*maginate said...

omg...interesting comments! Al republican I'm doing my nails after a long day shopping, I'll be BACK! And who-hooo I been watching the nooz very carefully so yeehah I'm gonna be back and tell you wots so special about the man with a pistol.

And btw no offence whatsoever taken. But hmm I thought we had loads more in common! What a grave misjudgement on my part! :p

Dear anonymous loonie wrt to the emarat jabal shammar comment: I'll refrain from profanities on Al republican's blog but if you read EJS' blog, let's pretend I've just greeted you with EJS' standard response to loonies ;-)

November 24, 2007 1:52 PM  
Blogger the real nick said...

No reply. Al has given up.

1:0 for democracy!

November 24, 2007 10:00 PM  
Blogger the real nick said...

Required Reading

November 24, 2007 10:34 PM  
Blogger al-republican said...


Sure, doesn't democracy ALWAYS win?

I didn't actually find anything worth answering in your last comment. You have simply given statements. None more classical than the "Sports" gibberish. I really do not have the foggiest what that was all about! And I thought i*maginate's love stories on "People and Cake" was the only thing that made no sense! So the spin-doctor score stands at Nick 1 - i*maginate 0!

Another good one was the statement "homosexuality is a way of life"! That really made me laugh! Homosexuality is a system of governance?? From that comment alone your confusion is pretty apparent, Nick. I am talking about POLITICAL/GOVERNANCE systems. Democracy, Socialism, Marxism, Communism et al. Since when did "homosexuality" creep into that list?? You are starting to worry me, Nick :P I think I need to talk to your wife!

Lastly, I have pointed out before on SD's blog how a relationship or decision between 2 equals should NOT be taken as an accepted practice. I proved it from the Western system itself that does not recognize extra-marital affairs (which is again a relationship between 2 equals). Also of how 2 consenting adults can break the law, for example, the case of those German whackos who cut their genitals and feasted over it!

The institution of marriage is something that needs to be revisited by the West. Once it is clear what "marriage" is all about and its definition is clear (you guys royally suck with definitions) then we can argue if homosexuality can be part of this institution. If we can start out with this, I am sure you will realize that homosexuality is something alien to this institution and can never be part of it.

You can continue to have homos and you can tolerate them all you want. But, please make some laws for them and a seperate institution for them. We should take up this topic someday - marriage and homosexuality. I might just write about it in my next posting too.

November 25, 2007 5:31 AM  
Blogger the real nick said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 25, 2007 9:50 PM  
Blogger al-republican said...


I will try to get my hands on that book and go through it. From the cover it looks so devilish :P But, as they say, never judge a book by its cover hehe.

I am open to reading such views and always have been. Actually, our generation is not the first generation going through a secular transformation. Secularism has been around for quite a while just as religion and all other ideologies have been.

Genghis Khan and Co. were true seculars. If you read up on India's history you will also see how secularism was introduced in India as far as 800-900 years ago (during the reign of Mughal Emperor Akbar). His secularism was called "deen-e-ilahi" where he replaced and erased all religions in the subcontinent and replaced it with his system of "deen-e-ilahi" (notice the word DEEN, which I mentioned earlier is Arabic/Persian for "way of life").

Towards the end of his reign, Akbar's deen-e-ilahi had come tumbling down (it was eventually wiped out some years after his death) and he is recorded to have repented for his experiment.

As for Genghis Khan and Co, they came, they saw, they conquered. The Mongols spread their rule all over Arabia and the Europeans were pissing in their pants that the Mongols/Tatars next stop was Europe. However, the Mongols embraced Islam even though they had conquered Muslim lands! So they soon saw the flaws in their own secular ways.

Don't be surprised if the "coalition of the willing" go down the same route, in sha Allah :)

November 26, 2007 9:02 AM  
Blogger al-republican said...

Excuse me, make that "800-900 years" as "500-600" years. My subtraction sucks!

November 26, 2007 9:07 AM  
Blogger the real nick said...

I give up.

Al-republican wins: Democracy loses.

Anyway, I knew that result at the outset.

(I am ordering the book as we speak. I shall pass it on to you when I am done, with my explanatory notes scribbled on the margins for your perusal.)

November 28, 2007 12:15 AM  
Blogger rosh said...

What! I demand a recount :)

Al - new post - new post.

November 30, 2007 7:14 AM  
Anonymous Democracy said...

Happy National Day!

December 02, 2007 12:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Вразумительное сообщение [url=]Францева[/url] [url=]Варвара[/url] [url=]Бесподобная тема, мне очень нравится :)[/url]

January 18, 2013 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Никогда не думал, что буду изливать свою душу публично, только очень тяжело и нужно выговориться. Четыре дня вспять меня бросила малолеток, очень родной и смежный человек. Через её подруги я узнал, который моя любимая, встречаясь со мной, 3 месяца обратно влюбилась в другого, и впоследствии того, как она от меня ушла, сразу переехала обитать к нему!!! Я в шоке, это настоящее предательство, мне отроду не делали так больно... [url=]ремонт квартир м[/url]

January 30, 2013 1:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home