fayfreethinkers.com

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:16 pm**

Doug wrote:A list of genocides is not evidence that gun control "contributes" to them.

Which tells me you didn't look at the list, since it also shows the contributing gun control laws.

Doug wrote:I have cited several examples of genocides in the 20th century where both sides were armed. You have been refuted.

Hmmm. If my claim was being armed always prevents genocide, then that would be a fine refutation. But my claim is gun control contributes to genocide. Your examples seem totally irrelevant to my claim. Either you are being totally illogical, or there is some "hidden" premise you are making which I don't see. I am not claiming that gun control laws are perfectly enforced; obviously some people hide guns and ammo. I am not claiming that all gun control laws disarm potential victims equally, either. Well, I have better things to do than guess what your hidden premise might be.

Barbara wrote:Yes, it is true that a person with a gun can shoot a person without a gun. That person can also shoot a person with a gun. And a person without a gun has been known to overcome a person with a gun.

Yes, true. How about:

A. OTBE people with self-defense tools have a better chance of defending themselves against aggression that people without self-defense tools.

B. OTBE aggressors would prefer to attack unarmed people than armed people.

These obvious praxeologic claims would seem to support the contention that gun control contributes to genocide.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:20 am**

Hogeye wrote:Doug wrote:
"A list of genocides is not evidence that gun control "contributes" to them."

HOG
Which tells me you didn't look at the list, since it also shows the contributing gun control laws.

DAR
Yeah Doug. There is a list of genocides, and a list of gun control laws, can't you see this "shows" they "contributed"? QED. In Ozarkia, when you have two lists like this (and they are right beside each other!) this known as "a really good argument."

D.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:54 am**

A list of all known 20th century lung cancer patients, along with evidence showing virtually all smoked, is good Ozarkia evidence that smoking contributes to lung cancer. Don't you agree, Darrel?

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:09 am**

This is beginning to remind me of a debate I shot down on another forum. One side wanted to debate that Thing A and Thing B are "related." I advised the other side to reject the resolution, because "related" was so vague as to render the resolution completely useless.

Likewise, this "contributes to" fiasco needs to be cleared up.

The fact that I'm alive today "contributes to" the fact that I'm posting today. I could not post if I were not alive. However, there are 6.5 billion people alive, and not nearly that many post here. Clearly, there is something significantly more "contributory" than the fact that I'm alive, so much so that the "contributing" factor of my being alive is vanishingly small by comparison.

The fact that I woke up this morning "contributes to" the fact that I'm posting today. Had I not woken up, I clearly could not have posted; but I equally well could have posted had I gotten up in the afternoon. And, as above, billions of other people woke up this morning, yet here they are not posting.

The fact that I had breakfast this morning "contributes to" the fact that I'm posting today, because it was one in a series of events that led to my posting. However, it could be the case that had I not eaten breakfast, I would still post. Additionally, billions of other people ate breakfast...

It is not a necessary condition that a person is/was a smoker if he or she has lung cancer, nor is it necessarily true that all smokers get lung cancer. We could say that smoking "contributes to" lung cancer, but it would be a lot more precise to say that smoking statistically increases the chances that one gets lung cancer.

Hogeye, perhaps you should find a phrasing more precise than those you have chosen.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:34 am**

Savonarola wrote:This is beginning to remind me of a debate I shot down on another forum. One side wanted to debate that Thing A and Thing B are "related." I advised the other side to reject the resolution, because "related" was so vague as to render the resolution completely useless.

Likewise, this "contributes to" fiasco needs to be cleared up.

DOUG
Right. I have already told Hogeye that he needs to do more than simply show that nations that had genocide had gun control laws. Most nations have gun control laws, yet few have genocide. And some nations with genocide have inflicted this genocide on armed victims.

So Hogeye must show that genocide is MORE LIKELY with stringent gun control laws than without them. He has done nothing to show this so far.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:53 pm**

Doug wrote:Most nations have gun control laws, yet few have genocide. And some nations with genocide have inflicted this genocide on armed victims.

To paraphrase: Many people smoke cigarettes, but few get lung cancer. And some people that get lung cancer have never smoked.

Doug still doesn't get it. Sav does, and gives a good example of critical thinking. (He agrees with me.

) The claim that gun control contributes to genocide is rather trivial and rather broad. The meaning of "contributes" could be anything from the weak eating breakfast contributes to posting on FayFreethinkers forum to something as strong as cigarette smoking contributes to lung cancer. Disagreeing with the claim is both illogical and sheer obstinance. Sav takes the logical approach and admits my (JPFO's) claim is true, and says basically "so what?".

Sav, I would like to go on to more substantive claims (pehaps your suggestion of "statistically increases the chances"), but there seems little reason to do so as long as people reject such obvious truisms as the current formulation. Let's finish the easy question, and try to elicit some minimum level of objectivity, before we move on to something else.

BTW Sav, some researchers at Washington university posed the question in a way similar to what you suggest, using "contributes to the probability." To wit:

The question of genocide is one of manifest importance in the closing years of a century that has been extraordinary for the quality and quantity of its bloodshed. As Elie Wiesel has rightly pointed out, "This century is the most violent in recorded history. Never have so many people participated in the killing of so many people." Recent events in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and many other parts of the world make it clear that the book has not yet been closed on the evil of official mass murder. Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society’s weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered–one does not usually lead to the other–but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed. - Of Holocausts and Gun Control

(Emphasis mine.) Note that the veracity of last sentence depends on how "principal genocides" is defined. The article is well worth reading, making some of the same points we've made here. E.g. They give what I've called the praxeological argument:

When victims have guns, the overwhelming advantage otherwise enjoyed by physically superior or more numerous aggressors is diminished. One (usually unintended) consequence of an effective ban on citizen firearms ownership is to weaken the weak and strengthen the strong relative to one another. It is not embellishment to call this effect a "cause" of genocide, because it foreseeably expedites this outcome by lowering the costs of predation. In practical effect, moreover, the matter is even more stark, because gun bans are never universal. By definition they do not operate on people whom government illegally supplies with guns such as government officials.[8]

To summarize: from the point of view of any aggressor, it is desirable if not essential that intended victims not possess weapons, especially firearms. This principle holds true whether the subject is a gangster premeditating a crime or a government planning a genocide. This is an inherently dangerous incentive structure. It seems to us indefensible to fail to acknowledge its potential for mischief even if at the end of the day one decides that "tyranny" is too remote an evil, and an armed citizenry as a means of avoiding this evil too feeble, to repay its cost in accidental or unjustifiable bloodshed. We discuss these questions presently, but we turn first to a threshold question.

It also has a whole section about the practicality of self-defense against governments. An excerpt:

What can a man with a gun do against a formation of tanks? How could irregulars, even if armed with modern repeating rifles, confront the rockets and Gatling guns of helicopter gunships? Does anyone seriously believe that had the German Jews only been armed, they might have successfully resisted the troops who crushed the largest armies in Europe between 1939 and 1941? ...

But depicting the problem in this way trivializes an important point and is seriously misleading. An armed citizenry is not an insuperable bar to genocide any more than an armed policeman is an insuperable bar to crime or a strong army an insuperable bar to aggression. The real question is whether a generally armed citizenry is capable of raising the expected cost of genocide (or for that matter ordinary crime) to a potential predator enough to make such disasters less likely to occur than would otherwise be the case, or if the disaster should befall, to make possible the escape of some victims and the resistance of others.

In grappling with these questions, one probably should not consider the Holocaust as the prototype, for it is probably best thought of as an aberrant example in which it might not have made much difference had the victim population been armed. The Holocaust is atypical because Jews were only one half percent or so of an indifferent and sometimes actively hostile continental population. ...

Nevertheless, virtually all the other recent examples point quite in the other direction. For example, had the Cambodian civilians of the 1970s been as well-armed as American civilians are, it is far from obvious that the Khmer Rouges, whose army numbered less than one hundred thousand troops, could have murdered as many of them as they did. Indeed, the Khmer Rouges behaved as though they agreed with this assessment. The Cambodian people were already largely disarmed because guns had been prohibited from the time of the French occupation. Even so, the Khmer Rouge leadership wanted to make sure and took the extraordinary precaution of a nationwide house-to-house, hut-to-hut search to confirm that the country was indeed defenseless. Once it was sure, the army clubbed and bayoneted to death two or more million people, which amounted to almost a third of the country's population. ...

Consider the story that some Armenians lived to tell about the Turkish genocide of the early 1900s. Having systematically disarmed Armenians through a series of decrees over a twenty-five year period, the Turkish army and police were able to round up and kill over one million Armenians by a combination of overt murders and forced marches over hundreds of miles without food or water. However, thousands of Armenians from Aleppo province (modern Syria), who had secreted guns, took to the hills. Having defeated the first Turkish army units sent against them, they retreated from stronger forces in good order, until they reached the sea where the British, who were at war with the Turks, evacuated them. ...

Or consider Indonesia, where a half-million suspected Communists were slaughtered in the mid-1960s by fellow civilians armed, among other ways, with firearms lent to them for the express purpose by the Indonesian government.[113] The entire undertaking would have been complicated beyond calculation, and perhaps would have been if not abandoned at least carried out on a more modest scale, had the population been more heavily armed.

The cases of Uganda and Indonesia also show that the alternative to genocide may be civil war if a genocide target is sufficiently well-armed to fight back. One might well consider such an outcome equally as unappealing as genocide (although probably not if one were a member of the victim group). But civil war is not necessarily the result. The first Turkish atrocities against the Armenians occurred in the 1890s and largely involved civilian proxies specially armed by the government to kill Armenians, who were slaughtered by the tens of thousands. Where Armenians were armed they fought back, and in fact were quite successful not only against civilian irregulars but against regular army troops as well. Perhaps out of fear that civil war or prolonged disorders might provoke foreign intervention, the army recalled the arms from its proxies and ended the attacks (though the government also confiscated the Armenians' arms, facilitating the second genocide twenty years later). Something similar seems to have occurred in the American South during the early 1960s. Southern police officers were in many cases content to see blacks and civil rights workers brutalized, and in a few cases even killed, so long as the violence was one-sided. However, when blacks displayed arms for self-defense, the police intervened to halt KKK outrages lest they lead to gun battles in the streets and other disorders.

Anyway, excellent article. Billy Bob sez check it out.

Posted: **Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:13 am**

Hogeye wrote:A list of all known 20th century lung cancer patients, along with evidence showing virtually all smoked, is good Ozarkia evidence that smoking contributes to lung cancer. Don't you agree, Darrel?

DAR
I don't doubt that it is good Ozarkia evidence but that has no value since who knows what the word "evidence" means in Ozarkia? And who cares?

Here is why you example doesn't work. To stay with your lung cancer analogy, two reasons:

1) instead of having all known lung cancer patients in the 20th century, you have nine instances. Too small to be statistically significant, even by laughable Ozarkia standards.

2) that "virtually all smoked" accomplishes nothing since, in this analogy about 90%+ of the population dies of lung cancer anyway. (that is, countries that have gun control). So it is useless.

HOG
"The claim that gun control contributes to genocide is rather trivial and rather broad."

So surprise surprise, you aren't going to back up your claim, and with good reason. Thus your little gun loving propaganda bumpersticker claim has just been a waste of time:

"People killed in the 20th century by their own governments after being disarmed by gun control laws: 170 million."

Course what the gun fallator's want to imply with this little goat berry is: Gun control killed 170 million.

You started with "facillitated" went to "greatly contributed" down to "contributed" and now must admit it is "trivial and rather broad."

I guess as long as your idiotic claims are so chased down and neutered that they become meaningless, or as SAV put it: "so vague as to render the resolution completely useless", I am a happy man. You may want to consider the utility of wasting time with asserting and trying to defend pro-gun claims that at best reduce to "completely useless."

D.

Posted: **Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:55 pm**

It is true that there are more smokers than States with gun control laws, but that doesn't mean we cannot draw inferences. Your second point is confused - the analog to gun control is smoking, not genocide. The analog to lung cancer is genocide. So I suppose you meant to write '90% of the population smokes' (analogous to 90% of the States have gun control). Yet if the smoking (gun control) population has a higher rate of lung cancer (genocide), we can indeed draw the conclusion that the former contributes to the latter. We could even make the stronger statement, that the former is correlated with the latter.

Darrel wrote:So surprise surprise, you aren't going to back up your claim...

I've backed up my claim "gun control contributes to genocide" by 1) showing that virtually all major genocides in the 20th century were preceeded by gun control laws, and 2) giving a praxeological explanation for the process. The truth of the claim is rather obvious and trivial - Sav and I have both pointed out how the "contributes to" formulation requires a rather low standard of support since it claims so little. As soon as you get over your stubborness and agree to it, we can go on to more precise claims like places with gun control laws have a greater risk of genocide than places without gun control laws, or per Sav, gun control statistically increases the chances of genocide.

Posted: **Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:33 pm**

Hogeye wrote:As soon as you get over your stubborness and agree to it, we can go on to more precise claims like places with gun control laws have a greater risk of genocide than places without gun control laws, or per Sav, gun control statistically increases the chances of genocide.

DOUG
You have been given the opportunity to support any or all of these claims, yet you have been unable to do so.

Posted: **Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:04 pm**

I'm waiting to get agreement on the simple, obvious, claim before I go to a more advanced level. The current debate is about whether gun control contributes to genocide.

Posted: **Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:58 pm**

Hogeye wrote: I've backed up my claim "gun control contributes to genocide" by 1) showing that virtually all major genocides in the 20th century were preceeded by gun control laws,

DAR
Again, virtually all major NON-genocides in the 20th century were preceeded by gun control laws... and you have nine supposedly "positive" examples which is not statistically significant considering we would expect about 8.5 of them to show a positive correlation. Oh, and the two I actually did investigate a little, Nazis and Rwanda, were untenable/bogus at best and rife with assumptions and problems.

Two points:

1) Avoid wasting time with assertions and knee jerk pro-gun claims that at best reduce to "completely useless."

2) If there were a kernal of truth at the bottom of this claim, somewhere, it would be lost in the hyperbole, exaggeration and lunacy of drawing a "contributing" line between 170 million deaths, and gun control. This is a consistent problem with constantly overstating your case with lunatic fringe rhetoric.

D.

Posted: **Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:17 pm**

Hogeye wrote:I'm waiting to get agreement on the simple, obvious, claim before I go to a more advanced level. The current debate is about whether gun control contributes to genocide.

As previously explained, "contributes" can mean anything from "is necessarily/causally interconnected" to "is irrelevant yet linked by happenstance."

Does six times nine equals forty-two?
You don't think it does? Well you're wrong, because you've assumed that I'm using the standard decimal system when I'm really using base 13. (Bonus points to s/he who knows where these numbers came from.)

Would you sign a contract that is ridiculously vague, or lacking important information?
You know what we call people who push others to sign such contracts? Scam artists.

You want acknowledgement of your unspecified claim, yet the acknowledgement that you think is reasonable is admittedly tainted as "trivial and rather broad" when a standard reading of it implies otherwise. In casual conversation, when lacking explanation, we make certain assumptions, just like you assume I'm working with base 10.
In the debate challenge thread that I mentioned earlier, the word "atheism" was used in the proposed resolutions. One debator has a history of using "atheist" as meaning anywhere from "person who wants to deny everybody of religious beliefs" through the standard "one who doesn't believe in a deity" all the way to "self-professed Christian whose beliefs are just slightly different from [the debator's own fundamentalism]." (In other words, to him, the Pope and all Catholics are atheists.) When I advised that the parties agree on a definition for "atheism" before the debate started, he went ballistic, because he knew he couldn't win a fair fight.

He is the laughingstock of the entire board, and -- what with the purposely vague claims and the avoidance of clarification -- your actions here bear striking resemblance. Frankly, that would bother me if I were you.

Pick a meaningful claim and continue. If I'm just going to see you guys go around and around between "they won't admit 'contribution' even though it means nothing" and "I won't acknowledge 'contribution' because it doesn't mean anything," I'll play the role of the practical mod and lock the thread.

Posted: **Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:04 pm**

Sav, I don't think anyone interprets "contributes" to mean "is irrelevant yet linked by happenstance." What I mean by it is "causally interconnected," as is clear from the analogy with smoking. I would enjoy discussing gun control increased the probability of genocide in the 20th century. But if a simple statement like "gun control contributes to genocide" is denied out of sheer stubborness despite the evidence, historical and praxeological, then how can I expect people to agree on the definitions and conventions required for a more formal formulation? (Also, I see no compelling reason to use formulations that evade or ignore praxeological considerations. If someone won't even admit that OTBE, aggressors prefer not to get shot at, or that aggression is deterred by risk of great bodily harm, then I see little point in debating - it is clear that the opponent is being unreasonable, and wants to reject basic laws of human action.

To determine whether gun control increased the probability of genocide in the 20th century, we would have to agree on an operational definition of genocide. Do we interpret it strictly as only ethnic mass-murders, or do we include democide and politicide, killing political enemies, too? I think of genocide in the broader terms, otherwise, e.g. Pol Pot's mass murders wouldn't count since he killed the educated/travelled and not an ethic group. We would need to agree on how many dead in what length of time constitutes a genocide. Then we could list the genocides of the 20th century.

We would have to agree on operational definitions for e.g. little or no gun control, moderate gun control, and heavy gun control. We would have to agree on what is an event since States change policies and time periods must be comparable (maybe State-years.) Then we could look at (a) % of State-years with little or no gun control that led to genocide, (b) % of State-years with moderate gun control that led to genocide, and (c)% of State-years with heavy gun control that led to genocide. We would have to agree that if a < c then the claim is supported, and if a < b < c the claim is strongly supported. If someone is so obstinate they won't even admit that OTBE an aggressor who intends to commit genocide would prefer his victims be disarmed and won't admit that's what happened historically (which implies that gun control contributes to genocide), then I doubt we can agree on all these details to test the increased probability forumulation.

Darrel wrote:Oh, and the two I actually did investigate a little, Nazis and Rwanda, were untenable/bogus at best and rife with assumptions and problems.

You batted down some strawmen, but never challenged the relevant points. Do you deny Nazi Germany and Rwanda had gun control laws? No. Do you deny they had genocide? No. All the rest is knocking over your made-up strawmen, as I pointed out last time you trotted this out.

Posted: **Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:38 pm**

Hogeye wrote:Sav, I don't think anyone interprets "contributes" to mean "is irrelevant yet linked by happenstance." What I mean by it is "causally interconnected," as is clear from the analogy with smoking.

Then come out and say it, clearly and concisely, then defend it.

Hogeye wrote:But if a simple statement like "gun control contributes to genocide" is denied out of sheer stubborness despite the evidence, historical and praxeological, then how can I expect people to agree on the definitions and conventions required for a more formal formulation?

How can you expect anyone to agree with you when you choose your terminology to be so vague? Intelligent, educated people object to no less than your word choice, which even you admit that it is vague, so change it.

Hogeye wrote:... it is clear that the opponent is being unreasonable ...

I could say, should say, and have said the same regarding he who avoids clarification. For the last time, make a claim that means something, even if it's not as strong as you'd prefer.

Regarding definitions for "genocide," "gun control," and anything else, you'll have to take that up with the active participants.

Posted: **Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:40 pm**

Hogeye wrote:
Darrel wrote:Oh, and the two I actually did investigate a little, Nazis and Rwanda, were untenable/bogus at best and rife with assumptions and problems.
You batted down some strawmen, but never challenged the relevant points.

DAR
You mean relevant points like whether Jews would have, could have, should have resisted the Nazi's with little guns and that such resistance very likely would hasten and confirm their death? You mean the point that the Rwanda event was multiple militia scraping rather than "the government" as your thesis claimed (and guns cooda killed more people, faster, since you can run from a knife, as many did). You mean the rather important point that your "relevant point" devolves to "completely useless"? These and the other "untenable/bogus at best and rife with assumptions and problems" that I pointed out were completely ignored by you.

Do you deny Nazi Germany and Rwanda had gun control laws? No. Do you deny they had genocide? No.

DAR
This is a clue that the problem is with the conclusion you are attempting to derive from the above simple, trivial, truths. Nor do I deny that most residents of both countries had a bowel movement each day. See the correlation? Pooping clearly clearly "contributes" to genocide. Note also how this is "causally interconnected" with your argument. Both involve a lot of poop.

D.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:04 am**

Hogeye> You batted down some strawmen, but never challenged the relevant points.

Darrel> You mean relevant points like whether Jews would have, could have, should have resisted the Nazi's with little guns and that such resistance very likely would hasten and confirm their death?

Good example. That has no bearing on whether Nazi Germany had gun control laws, or whether disarming Jews contributed to the genocide. You didn't read my excerpt from Of Holocausts and Gun Control, did you? Let me repeat a paragraph:

But depicting the problem in this way trivializes an important point and is seriously misleading. An armed citizenry is not an insuperable bar to genocide any more than an armed policeman is an insuperable bar to crime or a strong army an insuperable bar to aggression. The real question is whether a generally armed citizenry is capable of raising the expected cost of genocide (or for that matter ordinary crime) to a potential predator enough to make such disasters less likely to occur than would otherwise be the case, or if the disaster should befall, to make possible the escape of some victims and the resistance of others.

Are you really claiming that not a single solitary Jew escaped or offered any resistence reducing the genocide one iota? I don't think so; that would be unreasonable.

Darrel wrote:You mean the point that the Rwanda event was multiple militia scraping rather than "the government" as your thesis claimed?

You keep "forgetting" my thesis: Gun control contributes to genocide. No part of my claim specifies that only governments commit genocide. Please address my thesis rather than making up strawmen. In fact, governments often get "informals" to do their killings. We've seen that in places from Indonesia to Guatemala to Rwanda. As you note, disarmed people are subject to violence from both government and non-government ("rebel") forces. This supports (rather than detracts from) my thesis.

Doug wrote:... "completely useless"?

You may interpret "contributes" to mean "causally connected" if you think that's more useful. All my arguments still hold. And it pleases Sav. Let my formulation be:

Gun control is causally connected with genocide.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:07 am**

Hogeye wrote: Gun control is causally connected with genocide.

DOUG
OK, now attempt to show this.

Note: It is not a sufficient condition to show the truth of your conclusion to simply show that all countries with genocide had gun control laws.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:35 am**

Doug wrote:It is not a sufficient condition to show the truth of your conclusion to simply show that all countries with genocide had gun control laws.

Right, but it is good evidence for the proposition, especially in conjunction with the fact that countries without gun control (and with minor gun control) did not have genocides. The third point of evidence is the praxeological argument, showing cause. So we have:

1) Virtually* all States which had genocides in the last century had effective gun control. (*In fact, all we know of at this time.)

2) Virtually* no States without effective gun control had a genocide. (*In fact, none we know of at this time.)

3) The praxeological argument gives a process/explanation of causation for 1 and 2.

These three points, I contend, are ample to show that the proposition is almost certainly true.

Now, why do you think it's not true?

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:42 pm**

I'm waiting to get agreement on the simple, obvious, claim before I go to a more advanced level.

DAR
That's a good idea. So I will also wait for an agreement with the important point (and quite informative, in serious way):

Most residents of countries experiencing genocide, had a bowel movement each day, thus, having bowel movements contributes to genocide.

Afterall, it's harder to go out and genocide someone when you really have to go potty. It may be trivially true, but these little details are important.

No part of my claim specifies that only governments commit genocide.

Then you should now admit your original claim was misleading and inaccurate:

"People killed in the 20th century by their own governments after being disarmed by gun control laws: 170 million."

D.
-------------------
A huge and obvious problem lurking behind this genocide/gun silliness:

It's a safe bet that a majority, even a vast majority, of people killed in genocide, are killed by guns.

Talk about something "contributing" to genocide.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:50 pm**

Hogeye wrote:...the fact that countries without gun control (and with minor gun control) did not have genocides.

DAR
What countries do not have, or have not had, have gun control? List them.

Somalia might be one....

Heh, heh.

D.

fayfreethinkers.com

More Macaca Caca