Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Marbles

Sistani Not Opposed To Iraq-us Security Deal

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:21:58 GMT

Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Sistani will not oppose a security deal with the US if it is approved by constitutional institutions, Maliki says.

After meeting with Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali al-Sistani in the shrine city of Najaf, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the most influential Iraqi cleric believed the security agreement was the responsibility of 'the Iraqis and the political groups' and that he would not raise any objections to a deal drawn up by official and state Institutions.

"He does not want anything forced or imposed on the Iraqi people. Rather he wants it to be done through the institutions," Maliki said.

"If the government and the parliament approve this, then the Seyyed (al-Sistani) will be convinced that is what the Iraqi people have decided," he underscored.

According to Maliki the Shia Muslim leader insists that 'all the components' of Iraqi people should participate in the decision and in 'resolving this matter through constitutional institutions'.

Meanwhile, Iraqi and US officials are reporting advancements toward an agreement to replace the UN mandate for American forces in Iraq, which expires on December 31.

The long-term security deal, once due to be signed by the end of July, faced vehement opposition from Iraqi politicians and leaders over a number of issues including legal jurisdiction and immunity for US troops.

The opponents to the agreement, also known as SOFA, cited fears that such a pact would undermine the country's sovereignty and propel the nation into slavery.

On Friday, Maliki said the pact is in the final stages and Washington has made 'very big' concessions, including agreeing to pull its forces back to their bases by the end of June and to a full withdrawal of US forces by the end of 2011.

The US negotiating team has not confirmed agreement on a withdrawal schedule, saying they want reductions to depend on security conditions.

Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who enjoys a great popularity and influence among the Iraqi community, earlier urged Iraq's new constitution after the 2003 fall of Saddam Hussein's baath regime be drafted by elected officials and also forced Washington to agree to the first post-invasion elections in January 2005.

SOURCE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope that the Iraqi people do not see this as something of a pope's blessing to support the security deal. I hope that's not what he meant, anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cool..............Perhaps Thats how it needs to be........!!!!!

why?

why not use common sense and judgment to see if it makes sense?

As a US tax payer, I find this agreement between iraqi 'prime minister' and G W's pentagon to be outrageous in every respect. Totally un-representative of the peoples' will on either side. The American people are being ripped off by their military establishment to fund this totally needless occupation, when their own infrastructure is unraveling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

"He does not want anything forced or imposed on the Iraqi people. Rather he wants it to be done through the institutions," Maliki said.

"If the government and the parliament approve this, then the Seyyed (al-Sistani) will be convinced that is what the Iraqi people have decided," he underscored.

According to Maliki the Shia Muslim leader insists that 'all the components' of Iraqi people should participate in the decision and in 'resolving this matter through constitutional institutions'.

I sincerely hope that the Iraqi people do not see this as something of a pope's blessing to support the security deal. I hope that's not what he meant, anyway...

It's obviously not an endorsement, although I wouldn't put it past people to manipulate it into looking like one. From the above statements, it's quite clear that the decision has been left to the political representatives of the Iraqi people.

It is completely within the power of the Shia political parties to kill this deal, both in parliment and cabinet. If they fail to do so, then they are truly idiots.

Indeed, this is an opportunity for them to prove their credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's obviously not an endorsement, although I wouldn't put it past people to manipulate it into looking like one. From the above statements, it's quite clear that the decision has been left to the political representatives of the Iraqi people.

so if tomorrow the US bribes Iraqi lawmakers into acceptance, it will become OK?

secondly, isn't this assembly near its end? Shouldn't such matters be left to an assembly with a fresh mandate? or better yet, a referendum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is completely within the power of the Shia political parties to kill this deal, both in parliment and cabinet. If they fail to do so, then they are truly idiots.

Most of them are not "idiots" many of them are puppets (a subtle but important difference). An "idiot" does not know the reality, a puppet does the bidding of his or her master --- beter to be a idiot than to be a slave of the Americans.

It is unfortunate that this issue will not be voted upon by the Iraqi people, who would have, for sure, rejected the agreement between master and puppet, by a wide wide margin. Iraqis will pay for this in the long run, as their country gets even more deeply colonized.

However, one bright spot is that terrible shape of the US economy (yes that is a bright spot) they may not have the $$$ to continue this project, and be forced to pack up their bags and go home, if their is no food or equipment coming...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ i dont know if the US economy has any bearing on this since their monetary policy can entitle them to create and increase debt without the worry of repaying it back. But i could be wrong.

Edited by knightstemplar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christopher Hitchens, the pseudo liberal who cheer leaded this war is was heard salivating on the prospects of Iraq being able to pay for her own reconstruction last week on msnbc. He was saying 'may be Wolfowitz was right after all'. Obama is often heard howling about the 79 billion surplus for Iraq, and how US taxpayers money should be spent in the US, and not abroad. Both these voices paint a bleak picture: G W and his dad destroyed Iraq, and now Iraqis will foot the bill of this 'reconstruction'. Smart people, not PUPPET (shia) leaders knew it all along - the US is interested in maintaining their *military* occupation, on which they have spent $700 billion already. And there are shameless spineless leaders who want to perpetuate this status quo.

Edited by ShahLatif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really embarrassing to use Ayt. Sistani's remarks whenever you find it suitable for political deals.

Why they bring him in between to back up such issues? Iraqi government is not running by religion at all! Such, unofficial statements will only leave a negative impact on Ayt.'s reputation.

What if tomorrow Sistani calls for an Islamic government? Are they still going to listen? What if he calls on foreign forces to leave Iraq-?-will Al-Maliki come to the microphone and quote him in that too?

This current political movements in charge using Sistani to get "public support" for their survival, since he is a respected marjeh in the society and within the Shia world.

Ayt. Sistani must be really careful, he should either to get involved and take the lead or just stay away of this fAseq/puppet Baathist government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^ i dont know if the US economy has any bearing on this since their monetary policy can entitle them to create and increase debt without the worry of repaying it back. But i could be wrong.

That is true, and as shah latif said also, Obama wants the Iraqis to pay the US with their surplus --- a typical colonial set up... I am wondering though, if the US does not have anyone to buy its debt --- i.e. loan it money, how that would impact the situation. Because this is a worldwide phenomena/recession, the biggest loaners to the US - China, and others are also not going to have the $$$$ to loan out to the US (i.e. buy US bonds) ... things are still unfolding...

It is really embarrassing to use Ayt. Sistani's remarks whenever you find it suitable for political deals.

Ayt. Sistani must be really careful, he should either to get involved and take the lead or just stay away of this fAseq/puppet Baathist government.

I agree, and will add that Ayat. Sistani is not as popular in Iraq, as he once was... he may still have a plurality of support, but some of the others who are more clearly against the US - have gained considerable support within Iraq. Unfortunately that means more divisions and more factionalism amongst the Shi'a of Iraq, but then that is what imperial-neo-colonial powers do, divide and rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

I hate when he's called 'our Ayatullah' in the US.

There's a tacit understanding in the US that as long as Ayat Sistani is not openly hostile to the occupation, it can continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is true, and as shah latif said also, Obama wants the Iraqis to pay the US with their surplus --- a typical colonial set up... I am wondering though, if the US does not have anyone to buy its debt --- i.e. loan it money, how that would impact the situation. Because this is a worldwide phenomena/recession, the biggest loaners to the US - China, and others are also not going to have the $$$$ to loan out to the US (i.e. buy US bonds) ... things are still unfolding...

yeah interesting conundrum. Well for starters they may have to drill holes in Alaska against the will of the educated mind. Or they can take over the ME and its oil-wells and hold their citizens to slavery.

Barring which, the future does look bleak if you factor this recently published report on World Net Daily in relation to the China etc equation:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=77687

But i am still under impression that if the US has to be defeated, it can only come thru natural disasters or war. I dont think the economic crisis can crush their imperial will just yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atleast he made his point and spoke out for the truth, who knows where he is now maybe consolidating power in order to have one final crack at the occupation and finally expell them from Iraq. One things for sure staying quite is better than openly being involved with the kufaar and their plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am wondering though, if the US does not have anyone to buy its debt --- i.e. loan it money, how that would impact the situation. Because this is a worldwide phenomena/recession, the biggest loaners to the US - China, and others are also not going to have the $$$$ to loan out to the US (i.e. buy US bonds) ... things are still unfolding...

Salaams

In addition to my feeling that the economy may not bring US imperial will to a grinding halt, there is an interesting interview of Noam Chomsky on Press TV on the same matter:

Chomsky: Econ crisis will not end US hegemony

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=71798...ctionid=3510302

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^

I hate when he's called 'our Ayatullah' in the US.

There's a tacit understanding in the US that as long as Ayat Sistani is not openly hostile to the occupation, it can continue.

Who calls him that?

I am still waiting for the reply. WHO calls him "our Ayatullah"?

Agha sistani shoulod have remnaind 'silent' because atleast then we could have made excuses for his true intentions and thinking but its becoming more and more clear that Ayatollah Al Baghdadi was right when he said a 'Deaf, Dumb Shaytan'.

Who did Baghdadi call a "Deaf, Dumb Shaytan"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, may Allah never forgive those who insult Sayyid Seestani and deny them His Mercy. Ameen.

Second, Sayyid Seestani is far more shrewd than Kissinger and other Zionist/American strategists. What Seestani (and other prominent maraje it seems) does is make such statements, which are open to interpretation; but, his representatives and religious organizations close to him and the marja'iyyah all make sermons which speak about his true feelings or desires on the matter. All the mullahs and politicians close to him will and have been speaking against it and so the Shia shall also be against the security agreement, putting a kind of strong yet indirect pressure on the politicians. It is a different method and strategy.

Sayyid Seestani actually did express his true feelings, which is that as long as he is alive he shall not allow such an accord to be enacted or approved. However, if it actually turns out that the majority of Iraqis want such an accord, which is obviously not true, then what can he do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sayyid Seestani actually did express his true feelings, which is that as long as he is alive he shall not allow such an accord to be enacted or approved. However, if it actually turns out that the majority of Iraqis want such an accord, which is obviously not true, then what can he do?

Leaving aside the issue of "strategy" (I question if there really is a strategy) for now. Islam is not based on what the majority believes, if the people are taking a wrong step, that is where the responsibility of the ulema, and especially the marja comes into play --- it is their responsibility to educate the people about the implications, in this context, this so-called "security deal" --- The Friday prayers are just one venue for education, much more important are local/neighborhood meetings etc., which is what Muqtada Sadr's people have been doing since the very early days of the invasion. A second important responsibility of the marja and Islamic scholars are to establish "centers" (such as masajid) where the people can be organized into an effective resistance (not necessarily armed resistance) to any such colonization attempts *even if* the majority were to approve colonization.

What many Shi'as have done is to relegate the important institution of the marja to mere reading of the risala, and a safe place to give over their khums money, which they regard as charity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leaving aside the issue of "strategy" (I question if there really is a strategy) for now. Islam is not based on what the majority believes, if the people are taking a wrong step, that is where the responsibility of the ulema, and especially the marja comes into play --- it is their responsibility to educate the people about the implications, in this context, this so-called "security deal" ---

Then, why did Imam Ali (as) reluctantly agree to 'mediation' at the Battle of Siffeen, even though it was the wrong move? It is their responsibility to guide and no except a liar would claim that Sayyid Seestani, through his various means, has done so. However, he does not cross the line that Imam Ali did not.

The Friday prayers are just one venue for education, much more important are local/neighborhood meetings etc., which is what Muqtada Sadr's people have been doing since the very early days of the invasion. A second important responsibility of the marja and Islamic scholars are to establish "centers" (such as masajid) where the people can be organized into an effective resistance (not necessarily armed resistance) to any such colonization attempts *even if* the majority were to approve colonization.

This is irrelevant. Each group has different ideas. My dispute is with those who criticize Sayyid Seestani because he has been lax or even dare to accuse him of lacking in courage or resolve.

What many Shi'as have done is to relegate the important institution of the marja to mere reading of the risala, and a safe place to give over their khums money, which they regard as charity.

Different maraje I am sure have different ideas on what exactly their roles, or the extent of their mandates are. You have made your claims, but not everyone will follow Ayatollah Khomeini in such matters.

You have a strong tendency to view all matters of religion in terms of "getting things done", and this in itself is not wrong. However, it is wrong if it shall distort your entire core of beliefs. Shi'ism is not about winning or losing in politics essentially. It is more about true belief and action upon that--to prepare, calculate and have faith. We can only use the excuse 'because it works' to a degree. Practicality is important; but, expediency (which is only apparent in any case) alone cannot judge the course of action.

Second, your approach is to say "Let's unite with Sunnis now and then we'll see what happens later"; but, others say we have seen the history and tendencies of the Sunni political groups and we must prepare now. Given the historical data, narrations and common attitudes of the Sunni power centers, the later is a far wiser method.

Sayyid Seestani is a global religious leader who must take into consideration countless matters relating to the future, preservation and strenghening of Shi'ism. He must transcend the mere worldly politics. However, to political fanatics, this kind of thought is incomprehensible.

Edited by Cyan_Garamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, Sayyid Seestani is far more shrewd than Kissinger and other Zionist/American strategists. What Seestani (and other prominent maraje it seems) does is make such statements, which are open to interpretation; but, his representatives and religious organizations close to him and the marja'iyyah all make sermons which speak about his true feelings or desires on the matter. All the mullahs and politicians close to him will and have been speaking against it and so the Shia shall also be against the security agreement, putting a kind of strong yet indirect pressure on the politicians. It is a different method and strategy.

Is the bolded part really a true statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, to political fanatics, this kind of thought is incomprehensible.

I think this is the basic problem with people like yourselves who want to minimize colonization, and the very real slaughter of killings of Muslims by calling it "politics" ---

If you live in this world, there is no such thing as transcending politics, if anyone claims to be "transcending politics" then, depending on who is speaking, they are being totally naive, they are using it as a cover to hide the implications of their actions and/or inaction, or they may (rightly) be using the word in the context of not being involved in the politics of Yazeediyat, but still being involved by following the Sunna of the Prophet (pbuh) and Imam Ali (as).

"Sayyid Seestani is a global religious leader who must take into consideration countless matters relating to the future, preservation and strenghening of Shi'ism."

I assume you don't speak for Ayat. Sistani's views, you only speak for yourself on this forum (unless you are an official representative of Ayat. Sistani).

What you seem to by implying by this statement is that "Shi'ism" is some kind of an academic exercise that are preserved in books, or in academic universities somewhere. Islam is a religion that is rooted in action - Of-course there have been those who have wanted to relegate the religion to the Khanaqah, or worse, the Hawza, in the name of "saving Shi'ism" for future generations (as if "Shi'ism" was some kind of a precious metal that needs to be "saved").

The rest of your stuff, re: Sunni-Shi'a etc., has been responded tons of times by others --- your choice now to remain ignorant.

Edited by skylight1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you seem to by implying by this statement is that "Shi'ism" is some kind of an academic exercise that are preserved in books, or in academic universities somewhere. Islam is a religion that is rooted in action - Of-course there have been those who have wanted to relegate the religion to the Khanaqah, or worse, the Hawza, in the name of "saving Shi'ism" for future generations (as if "Shi'ism" was some kind of a precious metal that you needs to be "saved").

So true.

As much as I respect Ayatollah Sistani - I find it weird that some look to him as some sort of political savant just waiting to unleash some masterplan on the Americans. I haven't seen any evidence that this plan will ever come, and I don't think that we should revert to pre-1979 attitudes of quietly mourning our dead whilst living under oppression.

Edited by Iqra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, may Allah never forgive those who insult Sayyid Seestani and deny them His Mercy. Ameen.

Wannabes like Baghdadi just show their hypocrisy when they insult the Ayatullah. If he is so "gung-ho" about fighting the Americans, then he should be doing something about it, instead of sitting tight and abusing Sistani for lack of action.

People like him just crave their 15 seconds of fame, nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is the basic problem with people like yourselves who want to minimize colonization, and the very real slaughter of killings of Muslims by calling it "politics" ---

If you live in this world, there is no such thing as transcending politics, if anyone claims to be "transcending politics" then, depending on who is speaking, they are being totally naive, they are using it as a cover to hide the implications of their actions and/or inaction, or they may (rightly) be using the word in the context of not being involved in the politics of Yazeediyat, but still being involved by following the Sunna of the Prophet (pbuh) and Imam Ali (as).

Just because you did not understand does not make me naive. By 'transcending politics', I meant looking farther into the future and deeper into the impacts of various actions, decisions and events than the mere power politics and equations. It means to understand that practically speaking things are not black and white. Your sort of politicized pseudo-religious animal can only see 'hussainiyyat' and 'yazeediyyat' while the truth is that most men and matters are a mix of good and bad aspects, whatever their essential root may be, which is the knowledge of Ahle Bait.

The story of Imam Hossain (as) involved a full spectrum of men from 'good' to 'bad', not just those poles. If you cannot see that, I cannot help you.

In the present context, we are at a point in time and place where there is a history of oppression not just from the recent Western powers, but also from a centuries old Sunni Arab mindset that will, many times, prefer to enter into a humiliating alliance with Jews/Zionists rather than Shia/Persians. No one can deny the truth of this and thus it is clearly understandable if a leader of the Shia balances the two threats.

That people like yourself then go on to imply that this great man is weak, shortsighted, useless, or even God forbid a puppet just shows that the same things are actually true for you. I am surprised how the moderators and admins have let such an insult to Sayyid Seestani go unpunished.

Also, you did not answer my question about Imam Ali's role at the battle of Siffeen. I'll give you another chance incase you forgot.

"Sayyid Seestani is a global religious leader who must take into consideration countless matters relating to the future, preservation and strenghening of Shi'ism."

I assume you don't speak for Ayat. Sistani's views, you only speak for yourself on this forum (unless you are an official representative of Ayat. Sistani).

What you seem to by implying by this statement is that "Shi'ism" is some kind of an academic exercise that are preserved in books, or in academic universities somewhere. Islam is a religion that is rooted in action - Of-course there have been those who have wanted to relegate the religion to the Khanaqah, or worse, the Hawza, in the name of "saving Shi'ism" for future generations (as if "Shi'ism" was some kind of a precious metal that needs to be "saved").

I said he was a global religious leader who has to take into consideration matters relating to the future, preservation and strengthening of Shi'ism.. so how does that imply I believe these limited to an academic exercise? You have totally missed the point. That was said in the context of his role and actions in Iraq. Sayyid Seestani is not just the leader of the majority of Shias of Iraq, he has a global following and projects on a global level. He must worry about them also.

The rest of your stuff, re: Sunni-Shi'a etc., has been responded tons of times by others --- your choice now to remain ignorant.

It always brings a smile to my face when your type speaks of ignorance.

Is the bolded part really a true statement?

It always works like this to my understanding and observation. In Iraq, the representatives are sermonizing against the agreement.

Wannabes like Baghdadi just show their hypocrisy when they insult the Ayatullah. If he is so "gung-ho" about fighting the Americans, then he should be doing something about it, instead of sitting tight and abusing Sistani for lack of action.

People like him just crave their 15 seconds of fame, nothing else.

Personally, I don't blame him for having this point of view regarding what should be done regarding the Occupation, but I don't know what he thinks he can accomplish by insulting and slandering Sayyid Seestani. He only exposes his own low character and I suppose attracts people like himself in Iraq, and apparently on this forum too.

Edited by Cyan_Garamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wannabes like Baghdadi just show their hypocrisy when they insult the Ayatullah. If he is so "gung-ho" about fighting the Americans, then he should be doing something about it, instead of sitting tight and abusing Sistani for lack of action.

People like him just crave their 15 seconds of fame, nothing else

He could have been killed for what he said and now most likely he is on the US list of most dangerous scholars in Iraq because of his hardline Islamic views. Think about it now Al Baghdadi is a old man and also a mujtahid so if he just goes out and becomes shaheed who will speak out against the occupation and rally the resistance. If you can't physically do anything then you should speak out against it with your tongue and then you should hate it in your heart. Allah S.W.T knows best what intention evryone has but why would Al Baghdadi spek the truth if he was an attention seeker and why would he put himself in danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He could have been killed for what he said and now most likely he is on the US list of most dangerous scholars in Iraq because of his hardline Islamic views. Think about it now Al Baghdadi is a old man and also a mujtahid so if he just goes out and becomes shaheed who will speak out against the occupation and rally the resistance. If you can't physically do anything then you should speak out against it with your tongue and then you should hate it in your heart. Allah S.W.T knows best what intention evryone has but why would Al Baghdadi spek the truth if he was an attention seeker and why would he put himself in danger.

Whatever. Old age made him forget his akhlaq, maybe

If he has an opinion on how to deal with the crisis, let him express it. What's the need to abuse Sistani?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He could have been killed for what he said and now most likely he is on the US list of most dangerous scholars in Iraq because of his hardline Islamic views. Think about it now Al Baghdadi is a old man and also a mujtahid so if he just goes out and becomes shaheed who will speak out against the occupation and rally the resistance. If you can't physically do anything then you should speak out against it with your tongue and then you should hate it in your heart. Allah S.W.T knows best what intention evryone has but why would Al Baghdadi spek the truth if he was an attention seeker and why would he put himself in danger.

If Baghdadi merely said I disagree with Sayyid Seestani's approach, that would be a completely different matter, wouldn't it? This is another story.

Just to clarify - is this al-Baghdadi character an Ayatollah?

He is a mujtahid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

MP: Ayatollah's SOFA conditions not met

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:12:00 GMT

An Iraqi lawmaker says none of the conditions set by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani for signing the US-Iraq security pact have been met.

"None of these conditions have been met yet because no final draft has been delivered to the Iraqi nation and Parliament. All we have is the amendments proposed by the Iraqi government and we await the US side's agreement with them," Shia parliamentarian Abdul Karim al-Anzi told the Italian news agency AKI.

According to the MP, Ayatollah Sistani, the most revered Shia cleric in Iraq, along with other senior clerics had earlier set four conditions for the endorsement of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), otherwise they would oppose it.

"The transparency of the agreement; national consensus on signing the pact; Parliament's endorsement; and provisions which would guarantee Iraq's sovereignty and independence are the four conditions set by Najaf's senior clerics," al-Anzi said.

According to the Iraqi official, the country's senior Shia clerics would boycott any agreement which did not meet the conditions and in this case the majority of Iraqi political groups would not back "an agreement which is against the country's national interests".

The remarks were made while Sami al-Askari, another MP, said that the US had rejected an amendment to the draft agreement which would change a SOFA clause about the immunity of US citizens from legal prosecution in Iraq.

Washington has been negotiating a security agreement with Baghdad which would grant immunity from legal prosecution to US citizens in the war-torn country. The agreement, however, was met with fierce opposition from Iraqi political and religious leaders.

The Iraqi cabinet had earlier approved a series of amendments to the US-proposed draft agreement in a bid "to safeguard Iraq's sovereignty and national interests."

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=7420...ionid=351020201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...