Friday, November 17, 2006

Dutch Cabinet Backs Burqa Ban

Er... Wow!
The Dutch cabinet has backed a proposal by the country's immigration minister to ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places.

The burqa, a full body covering that also obscures the face, would be banned by law in the street, and in trains, schools, buses and the law courts.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good for the Dutch - the land of Pym Fortuyn, Hirsi Ali and Jan Wilders! Why does Britain not have a single voice from the right that has political power and clout? Peter Hitchens, who argues the side of conservatism, but not Conservativeses, adroitly, is not an elected representative and therefore wields the power of words, but not the power of legislationl.

Good for the Dutch for bouncing the obscene sight of burqa-clad women out of the public eye.

5:05 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, this is getting a bit weird. I have a hard time understanding why it should not be legal to wear a blue sack.

And I don't get behind the notion that people need to be protected from the "obscene sight" of burqa-clad women. I'm in the States, and we've had too much of a history of people deciding that they need to be protected from the "obscene sight" of same-sex couples or of inter-racial couples. I was visiting elderly relatives in Ohio and was told that a beautiful woman in a sari was an "obscene sight". Screw all that.

6:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fritz - If someone in Ohio doesn't recognise a national costume from country that is around 5,000 years older than the United States, that is their loss.

OTOH, a woman clad in a burqa or niqab is repulsive from several points of view, not least of which is, it is against the law in Britain to walk around with your face covered and your identity hidden. Therefore, they are breaking the law. The police and the socialist government know this, but they are frightened of the consequences of telling these women to stop playing silly buggers.

Second, if they really believe that it prescribes a costume of clothing in the koran, they are ignorant of their own religion.

Why do they believe this? Because their controlling imam told them. Why do they believe the controlling imams? Because they cannot read the koran for themselves because it's only supposed to be read in Arabic ...

So this ignorant slapper is walking around the streets of a civilised country wearing the dress the Saharan nomads have worn for thousands of years. A dress sensibly designed to keep the sands from blowing into their mouths and noses and for shielding their eyes against the blazing, unrelenting sun. (As a point of interest, male Bedouin also wear this outfit, with their keffiyahs tied tight round their faces and only their eyes exposed. This outfit predates islam by thousands of years.)

It's not mentioned in the koran. Mohammad just instructed women to dress modestly. He also gave the same instruction to men,BTW.

Finally, if these women - mainly young women, by the way; their mothers didn't wear veils and veils aren't much worn even in Pakistan - are aware that it's not a religious requirement, then they are delivering an insulting message to their host country: "I hate you. I want you to see that I totally reject your values and I want you to know that I am imposing my own values in your face, in your country, and if you try to do anything about it, I'll accuse you of racism, whitey. So get out of my way." It's a power thing.

Finally, if you don't believe anything I've written, because you are also ignorant and you believe the propaganda they dribble, then you believe that women are wearing these stupid outfits because they are so commanded to by their brothers and fathers as a means of control.

Do you not think that a woman having to submit to male demands about what she wears when she leaves the house is obscene?

8:24 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Verity -- first, is it possible we could have a conversation without insult? If it would make things go more smoothly, I could insert random insults, but I really don't feel like bothering unless it is required.

No, I'm not in favor of women wearing blue sacks outside. I just said that I thought it should be legal (outside of clear security issues like banks, court buildings, things like that). There are lots of people who think that two guys holding hands in public is "obscene" and "imposing their values in others' faces". But that should also not be made illegal. A free society has to have a goodly amount of leeway for people declaring their cultural difference, as long as those differences do not include violence, fraud, theft, etc..

I am not keen on replacing "male relatives telling women what to wear" with "the government telling women what to wear". That doesn't seem like a particularly large stride forward in individual liberty.

8:40 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fritz, can you stop bringing homosexuality into this post? We are discussing the right of people to go out on the public highway with their faces concealed. Capice?

It is against the law. Capice?

Given the tenor of your off topic responses, no, I don't care whether things "go more smoothly" or not. You are wilfully misunderstanding the issue - or, worse, you honestly don't understand it.

These islamic slappers are breaking the law. If they want people to respect their religion/cult, they will need to behave as though they are in civilisation, not trudging across the Saharan sands gazing dully at the horizon.

Fact: these young women are attention-seekers. This is not part of their religion. They're either lying or ignorant. Either way, they are not in control of our streets and public places and they are breaking the law. This needs to be stopped.

Fritz - try to follow the argument. You write: I am not keen on replacing "male relatives telling women what to wear" with "the government telling women what to wear".

Where does the government tell them, or anyone else, except the military, what to wear? Certain things are proscribed by law - in other words, laws passed in Parliament tell people certain things they may not do. They may not go out in public with their identity hidden by covering their faces. If a man walked down the street with a stocking pulled over his face, Plod would pull him up pretty sharp.

Covering the face, hiding one's identity in this way, is an act of aggression. Their immigrant mothers did not wear veils. In many islamic countries, women do not go around dressed like zombies. This is a desert habit.

9:31 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Verity, you brought up, in your first post, the notion of "obscene sights". Go back and read what you wrote. I just connected that to other behaviors that people in the US at least have in the passed banned because they considered them to be obscese sights. If you really did not want to defend the legal bans on the grounds of "obscene sights" perhaps you should not have brought the topic up.

Does Britain actually have a national law requiring people to keep their faces exposed at all times when out in public? I realize the Gulf Stream keeps the southern part of your island warmish, but I was under the impression that Scotland, at least, has winter. Where I grew up, in northern Ohio, people who kept their faces uncovered outside in winter tended to have some frostbite issues. That seems like a pretty harsh law you have.

9:44 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That seems to be pretty harsh laws you have." Well, fortunately you don't live here so you do not have to abide by them.

I sensed from the naiveté of your posts that you were American and weren't really clear on what you were talking about. Before I go any further, let me say that I love the United States, admire it, in the main, and I like Americans, I like George Bush, I like Condoleezza Rice, I thought Donald Rumsfeld was a babe, I like Cheyney. I respect America's history and think they are an all-round stand-up nation.

That said, many of you are ill-informed about Britain and Europe. (Many British are ill-informed about Ohio and no doubt intend to stay that way, but just to save you making the point.)

Holland is probably the most liberal country on earth. One thing that upsets the Islamics about Holland is, the Dutch aren't bothered by homosexual displays of affection in public. When rightist Pym Fortuyn - who was a politician noted for his flamboyantly homosexual lifestyle and boyfriends of many hues - was murdered, his funeral in Rotterdam drew crowds larger than Princess Diana's funeral in Britain.

Holland's most famous Member of Parliament was, until she left to work in a US think tank, a beautiful Somalian asylum seeker years previously.

If the Dutch Parliament has looked into the wearing of desert facial gear in public, and has determined it is not a religious requirement, and that it is against Holland's interest to allow it, it was a rational, not an emotional decision.

And yes, women going overboard on "modesty" (meaning "look at me! Aren't I interesting?) either because they're attention seekers or because the male members of their families have imposed this dress upon them, is an obscenity in an advanced democracy.

10:04 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Verity, you seem to be irony-challenged. Which is a shame, since the British Islands have produced splendid masters of the form.

It is true -- I am American (which I actually mentioned in my first post). I tend to view laws in terms of "what rights is this intended to protect" rather than "will this promote the government's interests". It's that libertarian streak we (still, although much ignored) have over here. Which might be part of why I legally can (and do) own a safe full of guns and teach my children to shoot whereas the Brits call the cops when a single .22 short cartridge is found in a shop doorway.

I think Rumsfeld should have been fired an hour after he stated that looting was part of "freedom is messy". That firing would have likely saved the Republicans some heartache this year. I think George Bush should have listened a bit to his father on why it was unwise to knock over the counterweight to Iran. I am also well aware of Pym Fortuyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh.

Anyway, I think it is unfortunate that Holland, France and potentially Britain are deciding to concentrate on non-violent actions of Muslim community members. And primarily concentrating on the appearance of women, whereas the violence is overwhelmingly coming from young men.

12:54 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the lesson in irony. Americans are famously good at it.

When I lived in Texas, I had a gun and I believe in guns with all my heart. One reason I scarpered from Britain was the lunacy - or control freakery - of Blair taking guns away from the law-abiding (ie, having licenses to own a gun) to extend his personal power over the lives of citizens.

Bush, Snr should have finished the job in Desert Storm and we wouldn't have had this mess. He didn't have the will. I don't know why not, but probably because the insistent high-pitched whine of the left made his ears hurt.

"And primarily concentrating on the appearance of women, whereas the violence is overwhelmingly coming from young men".

You get it, do you, you nation of sophisticated ironists?

Thin end of the wedge. Women are their fifth column. Get our ridiculous garb accepted as normal on the streets of Britain, get drivers' licenses and passports for black blobs - she's only a helpless girl! Why are you bullying her! She's pious and chaste! - and insinuate their vile cause into British consciousness as part of the normal British landscape.

No! No! And no! It's part of the jihad.

Use women, so pious, so obedient ... bullshit. These ambulatory shrouds are among the most aggressive women I have ever encountered anywhere in the world. Nay, the most aggressive anywhere. When you can't be identified, you can do anything.

They elbow normal women in the ribs when they pass us on the street, or try to knock us off the kerb. Why not? No one could charge them with assault because no one could identify them. (If we did the same to them, they could identify us, of course.) They will push in front of normal women to get through a door first ... after all, the dhimmis are supposed to give way to garbage bag clad islamics.

The Dutch get it. Tony Blair may or may not get it, but he is using the muslims as a tool to control the British. How many muslims and their wives, daughters, girlfriends clad in bin liners attend dinner parties at Chequers? Can I guess - none? How many women dressed in black pillowcases have dined at the homes of Patricia Hewitt? Tessa Jowell? Harriet Harmon? Patricia Hodge? John Reid? David Blunkett (not that he'd notice)? Alan Johnson? Even John Prescott, who'll take anything?

They're being used as a tool by the stupid moslem jihadis for one reason and a tool by the British left for another reason. Of course, who cares? I have no interest in their welfare - I don't care if they all blow themselves up in remote places, as long as no human beings or animals or other superior intelligence is hurt, but I care about the welfare of my country.

The Dutch have said, "Here is the line. Don't go over it."

1:47 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Muslims are assuming such prominence here in the UK that we indigenous Brits are regularly described by the media as non-muslim.

No wonder that a growing number of the population are choosing to describe themselves as anti-muslim.


8:40 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"inter-racial couples"


It is interesting that you should make this analogy. Viewed from another angle, however, the veil is also a form of segregation.

Many conservative imams insist that the veil should be worn in public in line with the requirements of Islamic law. Consequently, there is a strong element of coercion involved. Men who snog in public do so voluntarily; women who take the veil may not being doing so out of choice.

Indeed, even women who 'choose' to wear the veil are consenting to a form of 'voluntary' segregation. But one wonders how many of these women are doing so because they feel compelled to do out of religious duty.

In other words, while the points you make are admirably libertarian in intent, the political and social pressures behind the wearing of the veil warrant closer scrutiny.

12:30 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr Sanity says it best.

When women (and men for that matter) are free to choose or not to choose Islam; free to discard the restrictive clothing; free to move about independently and without fear of reprisals for their choice; free to achieve their own individual dreams and aspirations--then it will not be any of my concern that some women appear to enjoy subjugation and humiliation; or that some express sympathy for that oppression.

When woman in the west voluntarily wear the veil, they show solidarity with a despotic political ideology. Verity is quite right - religion is incidental. In Britain in the past we have banned blackshirt clothing at a time when British Fascists seemed to be gaining ground. There is a precedent for clothing restrictions in the west. Moreover, we would not be doing anything that Arab countries have not already done.

1:05 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good post, as always, Clematis. And you, too, ROP, but I don't agree with the quote. It is based on some notional idea of islam that has been put about by the islamics themselves for purposes of manipulation and doesn't connect with reality.

The veil is not a religious requirement. People seem to be completely ignorning this point and going along with the accepted wisdom in the face of the reality they can see with their own eyes.

Yes, in Saudi Arabia, the only way children being met by their mothers outside the school gate can identify their own mother is by her shoes. This is, of course, insane.

But look at Jordan. Few women wear the veil. They're more interested in looking stylish and appealing. I was standing in a queue waiting for the bank to open in Amman once, and the woman next to me asked me, in English, "Did you get that jacket here? Did it come in other colours?" Needless to say, she herself was dressed stylishly and looked good. Look at beautiful Queen Rania, with her lovely hairstyles, make-up and haute couture. And she belongs to the ambulance corps and drives an ambulance herself (in a nifty little uniform).But she and King Abdullah are devout Muslims.

In the south of France, which has a lot of Muslims from the Magreb - and bear in mind, their landscape and climate is, in some parts, much like Saudi Arabia, and I saw about two women in black shrouds. Most women don't cover their heads at all and they seem to have a prediliction for dying their hair a vivid red. Yet they all go to the mosque.

These young Pakistani women in Britain are not even from a culture where they wore the veil - Saudi Arabia. Their mothers didn't wear veils. It is a statement of hostility, that is all. As I said above, it's an in-yer-face rejection of the values, history and civil codes of the host country, and I say the hell with them. If you don't like our values and traditions, get out. If you have problems raising the fare, I know a national whip-round would produce an avalanche of contributions.

I think Queen Rania is considerably better advised by Arab scholars than some imam with his head up his arse at some hole-in-the-wall mosque in Luton.

As I wrote on another blog, Turkey has a something like 98% Muslim population. The Turks, and I am assuming the legislators are literate people, have outlawed the burqa and the niqab. Women can still wear headscarves in public, although they're frowned upon. In Tunisia, which is an official Islamic republic, they have just outlawed the burqa and the niqab as well. Neither country allows them to be worn in public. Tunisia, too, does permit the headscarf, although it is frowned upon and a woman trying to enter a public (government) building like, say, a post office or a school, will be turned away. They won't tolerate it on public property at all.

So what does this tell you about the shrouded slappers in Britain?

2:41 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Verity - Although the willingness of the Dutch to get to grips with the Burka is laudable, I wouldn't get to carried away with the latest announcement. The current cabinet is at the end of its current life, a general election is being held on the 22nd. of this month. The three-party coalition - with 78 seats, three more than required for a majority in parliament - is currently predicted by the polls to lose 12 seats. This inevitably means the following cabinet will have a socialist element in it of about 35 seats, which will mean a change of policy towards the multi-culti side of things. What is particularly striking is that the minister who says the burka can be forbidden is Rita Verdonk (VVD), who clashed with Ayaan Hirsi Ali earlier this year. Verdonk's party is now said to have less support at the polling booths than the Socialistische Partij (SP)The SP is led by Jan Marijnissen, a member of the Maoist faction of the former Dutch Communist Party (CPN). Marijnissen described the British government in the recent past on his Dutch-language blog as a "Nazi regime", but not for the reasons that most well-balanced British citizens, or you and I, would. So all-in-all this latest news is a curious affair that might well have no consequences. What can be said however, is that Rita Verdonk's chosen tactic of announcing the desire to ban the Burka is not necessarily the general opinion of the Dutch public and their political parties. It is true to say that it is already illegal to be incognito in public with a ski-mask, for example, and that a Burks is in principle already illegal in that sense. I feel the BBC have obfuscated the issue here, they claim that the "decision comes days ahead of elections which the ruling centre-right coalition is expected to win". The ruling coalition is not expected to win, as stated above.

3:49 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

William - thank you. Very curious indeed that they announced such a measure a few days before the election. Hoping to pick up votes, do you think, or something else? For sure, it wasn't a mistake. It was done for a purpose.

I am not sure that Verdonk actually clashed with Hirsi Ali - although she certainly wrong-footed herself. Frankly, I always thought there was more to that than met the eye. For example, Hirsi Ali, who I admire, even though she told very large lies on her application for asylum and she was, in effect, an illegal immigrant, by coincidence was offered a top job at a prestigious think tank in the US at around the same time. Hmmmmm ... There was always something about this incident that didn't hang together in my mind. Some coincidence, eh? What do you think?

But back to Britain, I want to reinforce what I wrote earlier for the benefit of all the men here earnestly discussing something that doesn't exist: a requirement that islamic women wear a burqa or niqab - or, actually, even a headscarf. Bald statement of fact: There is no such injunction in the koran or the hadiths.

This is being used as a political tool to change the landscape of Britain and make desert nomadic gear look like a normal part of our country, which it is not. It is to accustom the eye to an islamic presence - and gives them recognition beyond that merited by their relatively low percentage of the population.

This is an intentional tactic and is the sly, oily politics of the souk. Not for them robust, rational debate aired in public. Rather, slipping around in shady back alleys, dark alliances, plotting, plotting, plotting.

4:15 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want to reinforce what I wrote earlier for the benefit of all the men here earnestly discussing something that doesn't exist: a requirement that islamic women wear a burqa or niqab - or, actually, even a headscarf. Bald statement of fact: There is no such injunction in the koran or the hadiths.

Whether true or not (and I accept it is true), this is ultimately not a very compelling argument coming from the mouth of a non-Muslim.

Picture the scene as our advocate debates with two Muslims, one extreme and one uncommitted. Our argument is rejected by the extremist by appealing "who is going to know Islam better or have it's best interests at heart, a Muslim or a non-believer". I agree that it's perfectly plausible for an non-Muslim to know the rules of the club better than most members, but that person, by the fact of being an outsider, has set themselves an uphill task to persuade the club members to listen to what they see as interference.

In this case, it doesn't really matter whether many Muslims do not wear the niqab. The "devout" claim that Islam is no longer the dominant culture because Muslims have left the "one true way". They claim that Islam has been corrupted by the West. In this context, a western non-believer arguing that they know Islam better than a believer is probably going to be counter-productive.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't argue that point anyway. If it has no purchase on Muslims it certainly does on non-Muslims.

I quite liked Dr Sanity's comment because to me, it takes away the religion. There is no dispute that many woman are forced to wear the niqab or burka. Any woman in the west in the west who shows solidarity with that oppression should be criticised for it. And that's an argument that non-Muslims as well as reformist Muslims might make.

Incidentally I don't know if you followed the link to Dr Sanity but I found the following very revealing:

"Among those who observed Donna, wearing a niqab to see what is was like ... , were some Muslims, Arabs, and even some Saudis. The Saudis were upset by what they saw and told Donna so. When she asked why, they explained that she was using the abaya in an invalid way. She then became curious to find out what they considered a valid way to use it. They explained to her that she must walk slowly, must look down when walking and keep her eyes more or less in front of her - no glancing from side to side, in other words. She must not talk to anyone or laugh loudly and certainly must not address any remarks to anyone lest they misunderstand her purpose in doing so.

"To say the least, Donna was astounded by their remarks and realized that they were not simply talking about a garment to be worn but about their perceptions of what an abaya symbolized. They seemed determined to deny that a normal human being was under the black material. The truth is that those Saudi men articulated something that the Saudi lifestyle and customs have created. The abaya indeed covers a typically weak and frightened character (a woman of course), who views herself as a sexual entity confined in a well-defined space she can never escape from. This is why the whole culture of the abaya imposes so many restraints upon women...

I think that speaks volumes about women's freedom in Saudi.

1:25 pm  
Blogger AntiCitizenOne said...

A government big enough to stop you wearing a burka is big enough to make you wear one.

2:05 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rop - I enjoyed your post but,with respect, you did not make one valid point.

Your closing point first: I think that speaks volumes about women's freedom in Saudi. It's a point not worth making. We all know about "women's rights" in Saudi Arabia. I mentioned in my first post here (or maybe it was the second) that the only way schoolchildren could tell their own mother waiting outside the school gates was by her shoes. That already makes the point.

You are correct that I'm not a muslim, but I know more about certain aspects of the religion than most islamics do. That is because they believe everything told to them by pig (sic) ignorant imams, who undergo no particular religious training, unlike priests, vicars and rabbis. They preach myths.

All one has to do to make the point that the burqa is desert nomadic tribal wear that predates islam by thousands of years is, ask where in the q'ran Mo mentions it. He doesn't. He merely says women should dress modestly. That is the beginning and end of his pronouncement on the subject of women's dress. He also said that men should dress modestly. In other words, he was arguing for a well-ordered society.

Many muslim men are deeply ignorant of their own religion. Equally, many know that the veil isn't mentioned at all in the q'ran or the hadiths, but use it as a method of controlling women - of whom they appear to be rather frightened.

As I have mentioned, the niqab and the burqa are banned in Turkey, whose legislators and religious advisors are, I am certain, better schooled in islam than the dimwit, raving little imams. Even the headscarf, which Turkish law grudgingly allows, is frowned upon.

Tunisia is an official islamic republic. It too has banned the burqa and the niqab. They too made a concession to continue to allow the headscarf, although a woman trying to enter a public (taxpayer funded) building wearing one will be turned away.

Finally, I will make the other key point once again: veils aren't much worn in Pakistan, whence these women historically hail. Their mothers didn't wear the veil in Britain, either. That so many have suddenly started wearing it is an in yer face statement that they reject British/Western values and hate our culture. As far as I'm concerned this is fair does, as I hate theirs more.

This is all part of a campaign to change the landscape of Britain. It is deliberate and aggressive. Argue for it if you will, but you are arguing for the conquest of your own country.

I we allow people to go around with their faces hidden, currently against British law, then we have to allow people to walk around in ski masks and with stockings pulled over their faces. There cannot be a law for one group. (Another reason halal and kosher butchery should also be disallowed.)

3:07 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Argue for it if you will

I can't understand why you think I am arguing for!

My intention was to examine which arguments are likely to prove more effective against.

6:30 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rop - I take your point. But, with respect, I think your arguments are weak and ineffective. You are arguing as though with other people with an advanced Western point of view.

This doesn't work with islamics. They are sly. They are plotters. They pretend outrage because they know that Westerners will usually try to accommodate outrage and find a way round it. When they pretend outrage that we contemplate outlawing the burqa and the niqab in public places, we should not speak softly and try to explain reasonably. This gives them one more inch to push forward.

We should say that covering the face is against the law in Britain. The law applies equally. They are free to wear fancy dress costumes on the street if they wish to make a display of themselves (that's a good dig, because islamic females are supposed to be modest, they are free to do so, but they must not cover their faces.

You have to rub it in that they are alien and will have to accommodate themselves to us. No give. No take. An unyielding stance is what these people understand.

Rational arguments only give them an opportunity to practice taqqya and kitman and frankly, yawn, yawn, yawn, I don't want to listen to it. Covering one's face in public is against the law. End of story. You don't like it - go elsewhere.

With islamics, you cannot give one inch. Not one sixteenth of an inch. Otherwise you hand them tiny triumph after tiny triumph and they build on it.

And frankly, even if it were a "religious requirement" - WHICH IT IS NOT - so what? Expecting advanced peoples to accommodate themselves to desert nomad rules is lunacy. And the people promoting it are well aware that it's nothing to do with religion.

8:46 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So this ignorant slapper is walking around the streets of a civilised country wearing the dress the Saharan nomads have worn for thousands of years."

Verity, 'ignorant' I can understand, 'coerced', 'repressed" etc, I can understand, but why slapper? Would you care to elaborate on why you feel the need to equate these women with prostitutes?

7:43 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NIKE 运动鞋
PUMA 运动鞋
adidas Smith 情侣鞋
adidas adicolor 情侣鞋
adidas 35周年鞋
adidas 新款皇冠女鞋
adidas 城市系列
NIKE 复古板鞋
Nike Air Force One
NIKE AF1 25周年
Nike Air MAX 2003系列跑鞋

8:04 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I enjoyed your post,. I have been wondering about this topic,so thanks for posting. I’ll likely be coming back to your blog.
Video AC Milan|Video Sepak Bola|How To Make a Kite|How to make a origami|Tips for lossing weight|How to six pack abs

3:34 pm  
Blogger hasnain raza said...

Lols Gag is the the Best Lol Network Ever, where you can every thing is lol and Funny, Troll Images, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, funny planet, funny facts, funny cartoons, funny movies pics, iphone funny, funny jokes, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited.

8:45 pm  
Blogger Sagheer said...

Online Jobs of Data Entry, Copy Pasting, Add Posting, Clicking, Web Surfing, Website Visiting, Article Sharing, Data Sharing, Google Business Plans, Investment Plans, Genuine earnings from home.

5:50 am  
Blogger Unknown said...

The Best Lol n Troll Network with the Name of Lols Gag... Troll Images, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, funny planet, funny facts, funny cartoons, funny movies pics, iphone funny, funny jokes, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited.

11:38 pm  
Blogger Geetha said...

This blog provides useful information about new techniques and concepts.very impressive lines are given which is very attractive.
java training in chennai

1:09 pm  
Blogger Unknown said...

Good and nice information, thanks for sharing your views and ideas.. keep rocks and updating

Java Training in chennai

6:55 pm  
Blogger Priya B said...

I enjoyed your post,. I have been wondering about this topic,so thanks for posting. I’ll likely be coming back to your blog.
Video AC Milan|Video Sepak Bola|H

Android Training Institute in Chennai

1:18 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home