A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Asia
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bangkok No Fun any more



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old March 21st, 2006, 10:20 AM posted to soc.culture.thai,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.singapore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bangkok No Fun any more

Dave Baker wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:09:19 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:33:47 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:07:27 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:34:54 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On 17 Mar 2006 04:53:13 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:

Whoever is telling the truth I still stand by my position that there is
a democratic process in place in Thailand and that any use of street
violence and thuggery to change the leadership of the country is wrong.
But street violence & thuggery are ok when ordered by Thaksin? Seems to be
what you are saying.

Dave
Thaksin's supporters did not block the roads or buildings. Only the
opposition ruffians are blocking the roads ignoring the inconvenience of
the Thai people for their own selfish cause.
Thaksin's "supporters" killed 2000 people without any charges, let along
convictions!

Drug pest kill more people and also made money from them. Their own law,
their own court and their own convictions.
So, what you are admitting is that Thaksin is no better than the drug pests?
His campaign did not abide by the law, had no courts, and certainly no
convictions. On top of which they even admitted that innocents were killed.

More innocent will be killed by drug pest if he did not do it.
Doesn't answer my question.

Your question has no answer, only effect of the operation is important.


Seeing you are being so obtuse, I'll summarize for you.

It appears that you don't give a damn that:

a) innocent people got killed
b) The operation was a failure
c) It was extra-judicial.

Thanks for clarifying your complete lack of morality.


It depends on how many people killed by the drug pest and how many
killed in operations.
  #62  
Old March 21st, 2006, 10:47 AM posted to soc.culture.thai,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.singapore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bangkok No Fun any more

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:20:05 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

It appears that you don't give a damn that:

a) innocent people got killed
b) The operation was a failure
c) It was extra-judicial.


Thanks for clarifying your complete lack of morality.


It depends on how many people killed by the drug pest and how many
killed in operations.


Just to clarify - these are innocent people you are talking about?

And if it's 1 less, then it's ok with you?

How about if it's your Mum & Dad? Or your baby?

Dave
  #63  
Old March 21st, 2006, 11:48 PM posted to soc.culture.thai,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.singapore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bangkok No Fun any more

Dave Baker wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:20:05 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

It appears that you don't give a damn that:

a) innocent people got killed
b) The operation was a failure
c) It was extra-judicial.


Thanks for clarifying your complete lack of morality.


It depends on how many people killed by the drug pest and how many
killed in operations.


Just to clarify - these are innocent people you are talking about?

And if it's 1 less, then it's ok with you?

How about if it's your Mum & Dad? Or your baby?

What can you do when they happen to be there?
  #64  
Old March 22nd, 2006, 03:55 AM posted to soc.culture.thai,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.singapore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bangkok No Fun any more



Dave Baker wrote:


Just to clarify - these are innocent people you are talking about?

And if it's 1 less, then it's ok with you?

How about if it's your Mum & Dad? Or your baby?

Dave


The opposition parties have been trying for ages to make an issue out of
the 2000 alleged drug dealers [I assume this is what you guys are
talking about?]. Calling it summarary executions.

But the fact is that Thaksin remains hugely popular regardles. Because
the majority of people in thailand believe that the these killings/
executions/ whatever you wanna call it, is justified/ long overdue/
vengeance/ whatever. More Thai people belong in the camp of 'we believe
that if Thaksin hadnt done it these drug dealers will have destroyed
countless lives' than people who belong in the camp of 'What is the 1
out of the 2000 killed was actually innocent and what if that 1 innocent
guy was your relative'. Hence if there was elections today, Thaksin
would win.
  #65  
Old March 22nd, 2006, 08:02 AM posted to soc.culture.thai,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.singapore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bangkok No Fun any more

� wrote:


Dave Baker wrote:


Just to clarify - these are innocent people you are talking about?
And if it's 1 less, then it's ok with you?

How about if it's your Mum & Dad? Or your baby?

Dave


The opposition parties have been trying for ages to make an issue out of
the 2000 alleged drug dealers [I assume this is what you guys are
talking about?]. Calling it summarary executions.

But the fact is that Thaksin remains hugely popular regardles. Because
the majority of people in thailand believe that the these killings/
executions/ whatever you wanna call it, is justified/ long overdue/
vengeance/ whatever. More Thai people belong in the camp of 'we believe
that if Thaksin hadnt done it these drug dealers will have destroyed
countless lives' than people who belong in the camp of 'What is the 1
out of the 2000 killed was actually innocent and what if that 1 innocent
guy was your relative'. Hence if there was elections today, Thaksin
would win.


Someone suggested to arrest these drug pest, release them on bail, get
witnesses and collect evidents then charge them in court. Engage lawyers
to fight their case. In the meantime, all witnesses are killed by these
drug pest or paid or threaten to disappear. Finally, the drug pest are
found not guilty and carry on their business as usual.
  #66  
Old March 22nd, 2006, 12:42 PM posted to soc.culture.thai,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.singapore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bangkok No Fun any more



Dave Baker wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:55:04 +0800, alex® wrote:


'What is the 1 out of the 2000 killed was actually innocent



Well, if you believe in "innocent until proven guilty", then they were ALL
innocent.

If you don't, then there isn't much to separate us from savages.

Dave


I don't agree with the above statement. In real life things are seldom
as clear cut. When I was younger, we played D&D [dungeons and
dragons]and there were several alignments to choose from:- neutral,
good, chaotic good and lawful good amongst others.

If I am not mistaken, your above statement belongs to the lawful good
alignment. You shall take no action whatsoever against evil, perceived
evil and blatant evil if it's not against the laws of men.


But that contradicts with your opinions of Thaksin and his actions
whilst in office. He follows/ bends the law to avoid paying taxes. He is
innocent under the law, yet you seem to have already judged him guilty.
Someone of chaotic good alignment would do that and 'take him out',
using whatever means possible
  #67  
Old March 22nd, 2006, 12:54 PM posted to soc.culture.thai,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.singapore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bangkok No Fun any more

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:42:30 +0800, alex® wrote:

I don't agree with the above statement. In real life things are seldom
as clear cut.


So, the solution is to shoot anything that moves? As I said...."savages"

If I am not mistaken, your above statement belongs to the lawful good
alignment. You shall take no action whatsoever against evil, perceived
evil and blatant evil if it's not against the laws of men.


Where ever do I state that no action should be taken? I've repeatedly said
that they should have been given a trial. Obviously they should be caught &
charged for that to occur. And of found guilty they can then be tried.
Executed if that is the law of the land, though I personally disagree with
it.

But that contradicts with your opinions of Thaksin and his actions
whilst in office. He follows/ bends the law to avoid paying taxes.


People who are in charge of the laws should be even more closely scrutinized
to ensure that they can't change them to suit their own ends - in an ideal
situation there should be no way for him to be able to do so.

Therefore, I don't see the contradiction - those who do wrong should feel the
weight of the law - not pop them off because it's easier!

Someone of chaotic good alignment would do that and 'take him out',
using whatever means possible


Where have I ever condoned that?


I see no contradiction at all. The only way you can find contradiction is by
putting words into my mouth that weren't the

I have never been for "no action" against criminals, just legal action.

I have also disagreed that Thaksin has followed the laws - he is powerful
enough for investigations to be diverted - in the case of shares being given
to his maid, and more recently where his son took the fall instead. Even the
uneducated don't believe that his maid was worth a couple of billion in
shares for going a good job of getting the sheets clean.

Dave
  #68  
Old March 23rd, 2006, 01:30 AM posted to soc.culture.thai,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.singapore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bangkok No Fun any more



Dave Baker wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:42:30 +0800, alex® wrote:


I don't agree with the above statement. In real life things are seldom
as clear cut.



So, the solution is to shoot anything that moves? As I said...."savages"


As I said, things are seldom so clear cut. Why are people being killed
before trials and yet the Thai people seem to be okay with it? Are the
majority of thai people who support Thaksin 'savages' then? The reason
they do and still do not consider themselves as 'savages' is because
they have no faith in the judicial system. They know these people will
be let off if they go to court, hence they believe that in the name of
good, shooting 2000 of these 'suspected dealers' was on the whole the
right thing to do. Things in the real world are seldom black and white.
Sometimes there are shades of grey.


If I am not mistaken, your above statement belongs to the lawful good
alignment. You shall take no action whatsoever against evil, perceived
evil and blatant evil if it's not against the laws of men.



Where ever do I state that no action should be taken? I've repeatedly said
that they should have been given a trial. Obviously they should be caught &
charged for that to occur. And of found guilty they can then be tried.
Executed if that is the law of the land, though I personally disagree with
it.


Obviously the 'right and good' thing to do. However it's been done for
ages yet there has been no results. The judicial system is flawed and
maybe Thaksin knows he has an uphill task in reforming and changing it.
Hence he took the faster solution and allowed other methods.


But that contradicts with your opinions of Thaksin and his actions
whilst in office. He follows/ bends the law to avoid paying taxes.



People who are in charge of the laws should be even more closely scrutinized
to ensure that they can't change them to suit their own ends - in an ideal
situation there should be no way for him to be able to do so.


But 'you' feel he is changing the laws to suit his own ends. Maybe the
Thai people should be the ones who decide that. The majority of them
disagrees with you.

Therefore, I don't see the contradiction - those who do wrong should feel the
weight of the law - not pop them off because it's easier!


Correct, so no action via the law should be taken against Thaksin, if
that's how you feel.


Someone of chaotic good alignment would do that and 'take him out',
using whatever means possible



Where have I ever condoned that?


I didnt say you. Just given an example of what someone with that
alignment would do. They have already judged him according to their
standards and already form their opinion about whether he should stay in
that post or not. They will condone illegal moves to oust him. Will they
take part? Some of the nuttier ones would.


I see no contradiction at all. The only way you can find contradiction is by
putting words into my mouth that weren't the


1. The Thai majority 'feels' the 2000 killed were drug dealers so they
felt that the extrajudicial killings were ok. That is not right
according to you because 1-2 might have been innocent and the law has
been ignored. You want to follow the law here.

2. You 'feel' that Thaksin is guilty of financial irregularities so you
feel that Thaksin is not a good president. But what if he's innocent?
The law says he is. You dont agree with the law here.

I have never been for "no action" against criminals, just legal action.


Yet you don't agree with the actions [or inaction] against Thaksin,
eventhough they were legal.

I have also disagreed that Thaksin has followed the laws - he is powerful
enough for investigations to be diverted - in the case of shares being given
to his maid, and more recently where his son took the fall instead. Even the
uneducated don't believe that his maid was worth a couple of billion in
shares for going a good job of getting the sheets clean.

Dave

  #69  
Old March 23rd, 2006, 02:21 AM posted to soc.culture.thai,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.singapore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bangkok No Fun any more

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:30:08 +0800, alex® wrote:

I don't agree with the above statement. In real life things are seldom
as clear cut.


So, the solution is to shoot anything that moves? As I said...."savages"


As I said, things are seldom so clear cut.


Irrelevant - one should have ideals & standards, and not lose them because
the water gets murky.

Why are people being killed
before trials and yet the Thai people seem to be okay with it?


I'm sure none of the 2000, nor maybe another 100,000 of their families are
"ok with it". And even if they were, is that any reason for you or I to be
"ok with it". As I have said repeatedly, a system of justice is what stands
us apart from savages.

The reason
they do and still do not consider themselves as 'savages' is because
they have no faith in the judicial system.


Gee, I wonder why not - maybe something to do with politicians like Thaksin
screwing it up?

If one doesn't have faith in a necessary system of governance, then the
solution is to fix the system, not bypass it.

Things in the real world are seldom black and white.
Sometimes there are shades of grey.


And your solution is to keep mixing.

Where ever do I state that no action should be taken? I've repeatedly said
that they should have been given a trial. Obviously they should be caught &
charged for that to occur. And of found guilty they can then be tried.
Executed if that is the law of the land, though I personally disagree with
it.


Obviously the 'right and good' thing to do.


At least you still have morals.

However it's been done for ages yet there has been no results.


a) Where has as much zeal been put into doing it properly as has been done
playing cowboy for 3 months & shooting anything in sight?

b) Apart from anecdotes by barflies like Tchiowa, where is any evidence that
this campaign did ANY good apart from putting a spike in coffin sales for a
few months?

The judicial system is flawed and
maybe Thaksin knows he has an uphill task in reforming and changing it.
Hence he took the faster solution and allowed other methods.


I'm sure he did, but the question is - did he do the morally correct thing or
the easiest thing? And he certainly didn't do the 'good & right' thing - you
and I both agree above what should have been done.

If Thaksin put as much effort into the repair of the judiciary as he has in
skimming off the cream from the top, it would be fixed by now. The fact is
that he doesn't want a strong, uncorrupted & independent judiciary because it
would screw him in other areas - like his financial mishandling.

People who are in charge of the laws should be even more closely scrutinized
to ensure that they can't change them to suit their own ends - in an ideal
situation there should be no way for him to be able to do so.


But 'you' feel he is changing the laws to suit his own ends.


Of course he is - you have the same information that I do. There have been
numerous findings by the court, as well as his son taking the fall, and his
maid becoming an overnight billionaire. Is this the sort of man that you
would want running your company?

Maybe the Thai people should be the ones who decide that.


I have never questioned the legitimacy of them deciding. However, you
shouldn't question my right to have an opinion. I run a business there & have
a vested interest in seeing the country progress.

The majority of them disagrees with you.


Actually most of the headlines these days are talking about the Thai people
being "split" - the numbers might be closer than you think. Of course I have
every faith that Thaksin will bribe enough people to fix it, should elections
come.

Therefore, I don't see the contradiction - those who do wrong should feel the
weight of the law - not pop them off because it's easier!


Correct, so no action via the law should be taken against Thaksin, if
that's how you feel.


Where did you get that idea? I've been saying all along that "action" should
be taken against him - LEGAL action that is.

Someone of chaotic good alignment would do that and 'take him out',
using whatever means possible


Where have I ever condoned that?


I didnt say you. Just given an example of what someone with that
alignment would do.


Well, there are nutters all over the world and not all of them are
anti-government. However, it's much more likely that Opposition leaders will
be the ones taken out, and not by a nutter - you just need to look South a
bit to see that happening already.

I see no contradiction at all. The only way you can find contradiction is by
putting words into my mouth that weren't the


1. The Thai majority 'feels' the 2000 killed were drug dealers so they
felt that the extrajudicial killings were ok.


That is not right
according to you because 1-2 might have been innocent and the law has
been ignored. You want to follow the law here.


Which law says they can go out & kill 2000 people without trial?
Google on "Thailand extra-judicial killings" and you will find 168000 hits on
the subject, from the United Nations downwards. The fact is that the law is
being manipulated by the man at the top. Even Malaysia kept a lot of refugees
here because they were afraid they would be bumped off (until politics got in
the way).

2. You 'feel' that Thaksin is guilty of financial irregularities so you
feel that Thaksin is not a good president.


Would you let him run your family company? From your above statement you do
appear to have some feelings as to wrong & right, just not when they are
applied to people that you have no connection to. Or maybe corruption is ok
in your family company?

I have never been for "no action" against criminals, just legal action.


Yet you don't agree with the actions [or inaction] against Thaksin,
eventhough they were legal.


As I've repeatedly said, and which you ignore all the time, is that people
who are in a position to uphold the law, as well as to manipulate it, need to
be held to a higher standard. The criminals need to have legal action taken
against them, and those who hold the reins of law need to have them taken
away and THEN have legal action taken against them.

You appear to think that Thaksin manipulated the laws - I'm sure you will
agree that the maid didn't get a few billion slipped to her for getting the
sheets extra-white, and I'm sure you'll agree with the notion that Daddy let
the son take the fall for him more recently - his son isn't the brightest -
he got caught cheating in a Uni exam until Daddy came & bailed him out.

So, you now want to be set free on a technicality - i.e. that because he
manipulated the law BEFORE so that it wouldn't be broken, it's ok.

Sorry, I'll stick with my ideals, if that's the case.

Dave
  #70  
Old March 23rd, 2006, 09:19 AM posted to soc.culture.thai,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.singapore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bangkok No Fun any more



Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:30:08 +0800, alex® wrote:


However it's been done for ages yet there has been no results.



a) Where has as much zeal been put into doing it properly as has been done
playing cowboy for 3 months & shooting anything in sight?

b) Apart from anecdotes by barflies like Tchiowa, where is any evidence that
this campaign did ANY good apart from putting a spike in coffin sales for a
few months?


Well I agree with most of the things Tchiowa says and I tend to agree
with his side of things. That is not to say that you are wrong. Most of
the things you say are right and the morally right path. However there
are many situations in the world where the morally right path is not the
best path to take. I tend to be on the side of those who recognise this
and know that sometimes rules have to bent a little and allowances given
to get things done. Does that mean we are savages or morally bankrupt? A
nicer name would be 'realists'. Similarly people label you an elitist
pig or an idealist. I'm sure you prefer to call yourself an upright man.

Still the point I want to make is there are all kinds of people in this
world. We should all try and do the decent thing and use the 'nicer' way
of describing people who disagree with us.


The judicial system is flawed and
maybe Thaksin knows he has an uphill task in reforming and changing it.
Hence he took the faster solution and allowed other methods.



I'm sure he did, but the question is - did he do the morally correct thing or
the easiest thing? And he certainly didn't do the 'good & right' thing - you
and I both agree above what should have been done.

If Thaksin put as much effort into the repair of the judiciary as he has in
skimming off the cream from the top, it would be fixed by now. The fact is
that he doesn't want a strong, uncorrupted & independent judiciary because it
would screw him in other areas - like his financial mishandling.


People who are in charge of the laws should be even more closely scrutinized
to ensure that they can't change them to suit their own ends - in an ideal
situation there should be no way for him to be able to do so.



But 'you' feel he is changing the laws to suit his own ends.



Of course he is - you have the same information that I do. There have been
numerous findings by the court, as well as his son taking the fall, and his
maid becoming an overnight billionaire. Is this the sort of man that you
would want running your company?


Maybe the Thai people should be the ones who decide that.



I have never questioned the legitimacy of them deciding. However, you
shouldn't question my right to have an opinion. I run a business there & have
a vested interest in seeing the country progress.


The majority of them disagrees with you.



Actually most of the headlines these days are talking about the Thai people
being "split" - the numbers might be closer than you think. Of course I have
every faith that Thaksin will bribe enough people to fix it, should elections
come.


Therefore, I don't see the contradiction - those who do wrong should feel the
weight of the law - not pop them off because it's easier!



Correct, so no action via the law should be taken against Thaksin, if
that's how you feel.



Where did you get that idea? I've been saying all along that "action" should
be taken against him - LEGAL action that is.


And the point that most of us have been saying is that, yes! legal Thai
action has been taken and they decided he's not guilty! LEgally that is.


Someone of chaotic good alignment would do that and 'take him out',
using whatever means possible




Where have I ever condoned that?



I didnt say you. Just given an example of what someone with that
alignment would do.



Well, there are nutters all over the world and not all of them are
anti-government. However, it's much more likely that Opposition leaders will
be the ones taken out, and not by a nutter - you just need to look South a
bit to see that happening already.


I see no contradiction at all. The only way you can find contradiction is by
putting words into my mouth that weren't the



1. The Thai majority 'feels' the 2000 killed were drug dealers so they
felt that the extrajudicial killings were ok.



That is not right
according to you because 1-2 might have been innocent and the law has
been ignored. You want to follow the law here.



Which law says they can go out & kill 2000 people without trial?
Google on "Thailand extra-judicial killings" and you will find 168000 hits on
the subject, from the United Nations downwards. The fact is that the law is
being manipulated by the man at the top. Even Malaysia kept a lot of refugees
here because they were afraid they would be bumped off (until politics got in
the way).


Correct. That is why I said that the law has been ignored. So you want
the law to be followed here, have them tried, etc. etc. And the point I
want to make is that whereas in the above case you want the law to be
applied, but in Thaksin's case you disagree with the law applied and
want him out! Contradiction.


2. You 'feel' that Thaksin is guilty of financial irregularities so you
feel that Thaksin is not a good president.



Would you let him run your family company? From your above statement you do
appear to have some feelings as to wrong & right, just not when they are
applied to people that you have no connection to. Or maybe corruption is ok
in your family company?


I would love to have him as a manager in any company I have. He's shown
to be an astute businessmen. He'll make tons of money for me.

To Thaksin and his supporters the 2000 shot and killed were already
'convicted of drug dealings' in their minds and hence deserved to be
shot. You are no different from them, in your mind Thaksin is already
guilty of corruption.



I have never been for "no action" against criminals, just legal action.



Yet you don't agree with the actions [or inaction] against Thaksin,
eventhough they were legal.



As I've repeatedly said, and which you ignore all the time, is that people
who are in a position to uphold the law, as well as to manipulate it, need to
be held to a higher standard. The criminals need to have legal action taken
against them, and those who hold the reins of law need to have them taken
away and THEN have legal action taken against them.


So who decides all this things?

You appear to think that Thaksin manipulated the laws - I'm sure you will
agree that the maid didn't get a few billion slipped to her for getting the
sheets extra-white, and I'm sure you'll agree with the notion that Daddy let
the son take the fall for him more recently - his son isn't the brightest -
he got caught cheating in a Uni exam until Daddy came & bailed him out.


All this is pretty obvious. You can see it, I can see it, can millions
of thais see it? Bet your ass they do. So why do u think they still vote
him in in landslide victories?


So, you now want to be set free on a technicality - i.e. that because he
manipulated the law BEFORE so that it wouldn't be broken, it's ok.

Sorry, I'll stick with my ideals, if that's the case.


And I'll stick to being realistic, if you don't mind

Dave

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Engine trouble at Bangkok Airport six-toes Asia 9 December 3rd, 2004 12:16 PM
PHHOM PENH to BANGKOK FOR $10.50 ONE WAY!! George Moore Asia 14 April 10th, 2004 11:45 AM
Closing early in Bangkok OrangeMan Asia 42 March 8th, 2004 05:19 AM
Bangkok - Mandalay - Inle Lake - Bagan - Bangkok Asia 0 December 3rd, 2003 04:58 AM
Bangkok - Bagan - Bangkok Asia 0 November 13th, 2003 04:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.