A Muslim's perspective

Page 29 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
Of course Routan doesn't HAVE to respond to anything. But he started this thread with the idea that he was an actual NYC Muslim willing to discuss the issues as opposed to what is heard on the news. Then when people challenge him he backs down and claims its because OTHERS are not willing to have a real debate. I'm going to call BS on that.

Even from the get go he made it clear how he thinks and argues:



Translation: "I don't care what he said. I'm not even willing to discuss it. He's a good guy. (With no support or evidence or rational arguments to support the statement that he's really a good guy)."

You see pjabber spamming, I see him posting links support for his arguments. I don't see a problem with that and I'm not persuaded by your conclusory allegations that he's spamming. Routan could simply point out how the sources are irrelevant or false. People do that all the time on this forum.

Infohawk, this is quite a stupid translation. You can quote me a "negative" statements by Imam Faisal. I can quote he has been recognized by the US government favorably. You make a personal judgment call on a negative statement released by some media outlet. I can offer you the evidence that he has been recongized by the US Government for his positive efforts. This is clear evidence and support that can be seen by any rational person (unless of course you deem the govenment of the United States also as Islamophile) If you dont see that as a refutation of "facts", this IS a pointless argument.
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I'll let others on this board, who are also familiar with the totality of your postings here, judge your degree of obsession versus that of others. I have given my opinion on that subject.

It's funny that you mention Routon's comments about the Taliban destroying Buddhist statues. Routon first brought up that subject, and condemned the act. He later condemned it again, but this is what he said, in full context:

His point, quite clearly, was that just because someone has the "right" to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. And he's quite correct in both aspects of the analogy. The Taliban did technically have the "right" to do what they did. They were the government there. But, Routon points out repeatedly, it was WRONG for them to do it, and thus completes his analogy.

Was your takeaway from what he wrote a fair one?

[quote[You're welcome. I hope other posters have noted your defense of destruction of historic Bhuddist monuments and badmouthing of websites that you aren't even willing to look at. Don't worry though, Hayabusa Rider is your fan and he holds the keys.

No, I'm afraid you have not taken his statements "at face value." You are, instead, trying to spin his remarks to paint him in the poorest possible light, hoping that others of similar attitude will accept your characterization of him uncritically.

- wolf[/QUOTE]

I like how you attacked my motives and are now slinking away from the issue. Why are you so focused on my motives? You do realize that my motives don't make my arguments more wrong or right, don't you? Are you willing to admit you're wrong on that one?

Your argument about the Bhuddist statues discussion is premised on the idea that the Taliban had the right to destroy the statues. I dispute that. You and routan are saying that they had a right to do that. Again, I take issue with that. And it's wonderful that Routan condemned it but his further downplaying of it weakened his claim to have been outraged by it.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Infohawk, this is quite a stupid translation. You can quote me a "negative" statements by Imam Faisal. I can quote he has been recognized by the US government favorably. You make a personal judgment call on a negative statement released by some media outlet. I can offer you the evidence that he has been recongized by the US Government for his positive efforts. This is clear evidence and support that can be seen by any rational person (unless of course you deem the govenment of the United States also as Islamophile) If you dont see that as a refutation of "facts", this IS a pointless argument.

You don't get it. You just saying "there is clear evidence" isn't evidence and especially not good evidence. That's why pjabber links to sources. That's why I link to websites. A meaningful discussion actually involves looking at the evidence and discussing it. I haven't really seen you do that. That's the point of me bringing that up.

You're also demonstrating more fallacious reasoning by suggesting that because the US government does or says something, then it must be true. Guess what? The US government has been wrong on tons of issues.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
I like how you attacked my motives and are now slinking away from the issue. Why are you so focused on my motives? You do realize that my motives don't make my arguments more wrong or right, don't you? Are you willing to admit you're wrong on that one?

Your argument about the Bhuddist statues discussion is premised on the idea that the Taliban had the right to destroy the statues. I dispute that. You and routan are saying that they had a right to do that. Again, I take issue with that. And it's wonderful that Routan condemned it but his further downplaying of it weakened his claim to have been outraged by it.

You said he "defended" the destruction of those statues. In fact, he condemned it as morally wrong.

You can dispute whether the Taliban had the legal right all you want. The basis of your disputation has not been made clear, unless you are conflating the immorality of the act with its legality. In any event, either way, it doesn't change the fact that you inverted what he said because he did not, in fact, "defend" the act but condemned it. It's like saying, if you support the Nazis right of free speech, you must agree with what they say.

- wolf
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I respect your opinion, but I've read the thread pretty closely. I don't agree with Routon on every point. In fact, I disagree with him almost half the time, and I think he rationalizes some bad conduct among Muslims. I also think he's answered lots of questions posed to him by people who disagree, but the people who disagree don't like the answers and are trying to paint him as intolerant. No, he hasn't answered every single question. He's been asked a lot of questions, especially by pjabber.

Infohawk has been dogging him since early in the thread, has straw manned him, and has trying to paint him as intolerant since about page 3. Infohawk is on a mission to denigrate Islam for reasons I think only he fully understands.

I personally think its useful to have Muslim's perspective on issues and I don't really expect that I'm going to agree with everything he says.

And bear in mind, I speak as someone who is not terribly pro-Islam. I am half Jewish, pro-Israel, and very critical of Islamic extremists and jihadists, and also an atheist not terribly fond of religion in general. But that is my take on Infohawk.

- wolf

For sure wolfe9999, I understand bro I'm just stating I do believe routan has avoided "harder" questions posed to him though. Though I do see where you're coming from.
 

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
You don't get it. You just saying "there is clear evidence" isn't evidence and especially not good evidence. That's why pjabber links to sources. That's why I link to websites. A meaningful discussion actually involves looking at the evidence and discussing it. I haven't really seen you do that. That's the point of me bringing that up.

You're also demonstrating more fallacious reasoning by suggesting that because the US government does or says something, then it must be true. Guess what? The US government has been wrong on tons of issues.

Infohawk, your posts are full of faulty logic. Just because it exists on some random links is NOT evidence.

On the contrary, the US Government IS a reputable source. Else we should not believe that Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11?
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Infohawk, your posts are full of faulty logic. Just because it exists on some random links is NOT evidence.

On the contrary, the US Government IS a reputable source. Else we should not believe that Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11?

Al-Qaeda said they did it.... not exactly the same thing. All he is asking is when you say "evidence" you actually produce it.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
LAHDEEDAH!

Lahdeedah, routan.

We all come to conclusions as to a person's character by his words and by his actions.

Deflecting and dissimulating, for example, are the words that best describe you. Thus far. All because of endless streams of non-answers and then call after call to accept the non-answers of other posters as some kind of affirmation that you have responded.

There is still time to redeem yourself.

Hint: stop calling your critics all kinds of unkind names and address directly those questions that are posed. The vast majority of posters here, including myself, would like honest and direct answers as we are here to learn as well as advocate.

Your attempt at proselytizing has been pathetic as it assumes that each of us is already a believer or an un-believer, when, in fact, many here just don't know enough to say.

If you don't care to answer questions on your personal faith, that is OK by me. Just say so. Don't claim that you are here to do so and then don't.

Don't know the answers to specific questions on sharia, the Koran, Sira and Hadith? Hey, just say so. We can look them up in third party sources easily, but we thought you might be able to provide a perspective to explain how these quasi-religious political texts are being taken after all these years as a call to war, once again, against kafirs, meaning all the rest of us.

Don't know enough about the political and financial issues with your Cordoba Mosque to respond intelligently, then just say so. Though, as they have been in the news for quite a while now, I certainly would have asked for updates from the mosque leadership if I belonged there.

Add to all of this the underlying concern that taquiyya is at play in all of your comments and you should fully realize that you have an even greater burden to tell the truth to overcome what many here see as a predisposition to avoid the truth at best.
 
Last edited:

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
Al-Qaeda said they did it.... not exactly the same thing. All he is asking is when you say "evidence" you actually produce it.

bfdd, a "claim" is again not evidence. I would think every reasonable person on this forum would not belief the US Government over Al-Qaeda on every possible issue. But this conversation point is digressing.

The original point was about Imam Faisal as per Infohawk saying I do not provide evidence or rational arguments. If you dont think the US Government is a rational source of evidence, then the discussion has no merit.
 

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
For sure wolfe9999, I understand bro I'm just stating I do believe routan has avoided "harder" questions posed to him though. Though I do see where you're coming from.

bfdd, I have answered almost every question you have thrown at me, and you have definitely not come across as a person with reasonable intent. To see you claim I have "avoided" any question is a sad and incorrect representation of the truth.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
bfdd, I have answered almost every question you have thrown at me, and you have definitely not come across as a person with reasonable intent. To see you claim I have "avoided" any question is a sad and incorrect representation of the truth.
I wasn't talking about me, I was referring to Infohawk and Wolfe9999 who were having a conversation about you answering questions. You HAVE avoided answering other questions from other posters in this thread or you've gave "answers" that weren't prudent to what was asked.
bfdd, a "claim" is again not evidence. I would think every reasonable person on this forum would not belief the US Government over Al-Qaeda on every possible issue. But this conversation point is digressing.

The original point was about Imam Faisal as per Infohawk saying I do not provide evidence or rational arguments. If you dont think the US Government is a rational source of evidence, then the discussion has no merit.
I didn't say Al-Qaeda claiming it was evidence, I said it's different because they did. BTW I haven't even looked at every page in this thread so again I was just replying TO the conversation, not really ADDING anything. There seemed to be a misunderstanding between you and Infohawk about "presenting evidence" so I was making it clear as to what he was saying. You have said "evidence" on this page alone and not actually provided any. Just an FYI.
 

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
I wasn't talking about me, I was referring to Infohawk and Wolfe9999 who were having a conversation about you answering questions. You HAVE avoided answering other questions from other posters in this thread or you've gave "answers" that weren't prudent to what was asked.

I didn't say Al-Qaeda claiming it was evidence, I said it's different because they did. BTW I haven't even looked at every page in this thread so again I was just replying TO the conversation, not really ADDING anything. There seemed to be a misunderstanding between you and Infohawk about "presenting evidence" so I was making it clear as to what he was saying. You have said "evidence" on this page alone and not actually provided any. Just an FYI.

bfdd, I dont understand how my answers have not been "prudent". This is an entirely subjective viewpoint. Because I have not been able to sway your opinion one way or the other is not a valid criticism of my responses. I have clearly provided rational arguments against what I thought was an incorrect portrayal, have agreed with sentiments and opinions where I believed the poster was right, and have provided sound evidence to where it was deserving.

You are siding with Infohawk at my being "weaslish", where in my conversations with you, I have provided detailed responses, repeatedly. So it is a sad and incorrect representation of the truth. This is further apparent by you siding with Infohawk despite him making a "claim" that he "disputes the right of the Taliban to destroy statues" without ANY rationale whatsoever, makes false accusations against me, and then YOU further accuse ME of not providing evidence.

Go figure
 
Last edited:

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
This has nothing to do with my opinion of you and everything to do with what I've seen in this thread. I've seen questions posed and no answer. If you don't want to answer them or don't have an answer I don't really care, just say so. I was commenting on Wolfe9999 disagreeing with Infohawk. We've had our back and fourths and I appreciate you doing so even if at times I may have come off wrong. The evidence thing was just me commenting on what I perceived to be miscommunication.
 

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
This has nothing to do with my opinion of you and everything to do with what I've seen in this thread. I've seen questions posed and no answer. If you don't want to answer them or don't have an answer I don't really care, just say so. I was commenting on Wolfe9999 disagreeing with Infohawk. The evidence thing was just me commenting on what I perceived to be miscommunication.

bfdd, please provide YOUR questions where you have not seen an answer, and I will address them. I cannot believe that some posters would "attack" me in this manner. I mean, really, your bias against me, based on my being Muslim can be SO partial that you would stoop to attack my number of responses?

YOU have accused me of not providing evidence, and being weaslish. If you are having that opinion, then give me a rationale reason. Just saying it, and then ALSO calling ME weaslish is not in any possible way answerable.

There are HUNDREDS of posts/questions/opinions I have replied to. This is a bullshit assertion. I am not bound to answer EVERY single person, and it is entirely up to my wishes not to respond to simply an idiotic post. Yet, I have been utmost tolerant of everyone, including those ridiculously Islamophobic.

With baseless assertions like these, normal people should realize that it is not only the Muslims who have fanatics, but fanatics exist within America itself.
 
Last edited:

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
I also would be interested in seeing Routan's answers to PJabber's questions, although I would take them with the grain of salt demanded of a religion that specifically allows and even encourages its adherents to lie to "infidels". (Sorry, Routan, nothing personal and no intended slight to your honor, but I do not fully trust Muslims I don't know simply because of this. I'd still be interested in your answers.) I'd post my own, but my positions are pretty clear so that would add nothing.

werepossum, where have you learned of this? Can you please explain where in Islam is it specifically allowed and even encouraged for Muslims to lie to "infidels"?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
You said he "defended" the destruction of those statues. In fact, he condemned it as morally wrong.

You can dispute whether the Taliban had the legal right all you want. The basis of your disputation has not been made clear, unless you are conflating the immorality of the act with its legality. In any event, either way, it doesn't change the fact that you inverted what he said because he did not, in fact, "defend" the act but condemned it. It's like saying, if you support the Nazis right of free speech, you must agree with what they say.

- wolf

Not at all. It's more like saying that if you defend the legal right of Nazis to kill Jews within their own country you must agree. But that's not really what I said either. This was my initial response to his comment: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30441245&postcount=69 The free speech issue is totally different. Hopefully you can see the difference.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I also mentioned the Taliban destroying the Buddha Statues. They had EVERY right to do so in their country. That does NOT make it right.

Routan, are you sure I'm the liar? You asked me where you defended their right to blow up the statues. I posted where and now I'm bolding it. We can each bold different parts but ultimately you feel that they have a right to do it. I don't. It's just one example of your trying to downplay crimes made in the name of Islam.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Infohawk, your posts are full of faulty logic. Just because it exists on some random links is NOT evidence.

On the contrary, the US Government IS a reputable source. Else we should not believe that Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11?

Routan, since you and Wolfe have such a connection I'd like to ask him to help you understand the basics out. He can start by helping you see where you went wrong in this post.

I'm not saying the contents of random links are necessarily true. But when they are statistics or translations of the Quran, they are evidence. You are free to dispute that evidence, but you have to actually point out what's wrong with the evidence. I really hope you can start to see the difference.

Your 100% trust of the US government is probably a reflection of your blind faith in your religion. The US government has done a lot right but also a lot wrong. Have you ever heard of the Tuskegee experiments? Do you remember what the US said about WMDs in Iraq? Get it now? The US government's official position is wrong a lot of the time.

Bfdd did a good job of simplifying my point for you, too. Not sure how there is still any ambiguity for you.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,695
4,204
136
bfdd, please provide YOUR questions where you have not seen an answer, and I will address them. I cannot believe that some posters would "attack" me in this manner. I mean, really, your bias against me, based on my being Muslim can be SO partial that you would stoop to attack my number of responses?

YOU have accused me of not providing evidence, and being weaslish. If you are having that opinion, then give me a rationale reason. Just saying it, and then ALSO calling ME weaslish is not in any possible way answerable.

There are HUNDREDS of posts/questions/opinions I have replied to. This is a bullshit assertion. I am not bound to answer EVERY single person, and it is entirely up to my wishes not to respond to simply an idiotic post. Yet, I have been utmost tolerant of everyone, including those ridiculously Islamophobic.

With baseless assertions like these, normal people should realize that it is not only the Muslims who have fanatics, but fanatics exist within America itself.

I think what bfdd is asking is for you to answer pjabbers questions since im sure he has the same ones. Does he need to copy and paste his questions for you for to make it seem like it is offically from bfdd?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Routan, are you sure I'm the liar? You asked me where you defended their right to blow up the statues. I posted where and now I'm bolding it. We can each bold different parts but ultimately you feel that they have a right to do it. I don't. It's just one example of your trying to downplay crimes made in the name of Islam.

Except he wasn't trying to downplay them. You are either misreading his remark or purposefully taking it out of context in order to draw that conclusion. After he had already condemned the act in question, he brought it up a second time in order to draw an analogy with exercising free speech rights, to wit: that one should not do an immoral thing just because one has the legal right to do it. Diminishing the immorality of that act quite clearly was not his point. I think if you disagree with the analogy because you think that the Taliban did not have the legal right, it's fair to point it out then as a poor analogy to make his point. But apologia for the act is a 404 not found here.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
bfdd,... YOU have accused me of not providing evidence, and being weaslish. If you are having that opinion, then give me a rationale reason. Just saying it, and then ALSO calling ME weaslish is not in any possible way answerable.


This post is a good example of your debating style:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30503138&postcount=32

You make a baseless claim without any evidence and then once someone else offers evidence to the contrary you bail.
 

FTM0305

Member
Aug 19, 2010
142
0
0
Dont mean to be a grammar nazi, but the bolded part above sort of went towards my last comment.

Because you spent plenty of time in the Middle East does not make you an expert in the culture, and it definitely does not make you an expert in the religion. Please note that I was born into the religion, and into the culture.

As you can clearly see, I am writing words on a forum. I am not threatening anyone, or running wildly around with a bomb strapped. SOME people (who are psychopaths and not Muslims) act in the manner you describe to intimidate people.

I dont know what preferential treatment you mean. I do ask Americans to be decent humans. If that is too much to ask for, it is a sad loss for mankind.



This kind of reminds me of Christianity in America. Where one group says that they are Christians and bash on all other Christians, but if a third party threatens them or if there is political advantage they come together and together denounce the "evils" of the day. (Kind of like soup of the day)


I'm a mormon. here's my perspective. Back in the 1800's Mormons and their leaders were tarred, feathered, and driven from their homes. The state of Missouri had a standing law to exterminate Mormons, which only in the last decade the state officially denounced and apologized for. What is going on with Muslims today in the US is nothing compared to the crap that Mormons had in the past.

Recently, a mass grave of Irish Immigrants was found. These Irishmen were hired to work on the expanding railroad system in the 1800s and after they finished their work were killed and buried in an unmarked grave.

Native Americans had their land stolen and were taken advantage of because of their looks and culture. They were utterly destroyed besides a few groups that now run cheap Casinos.


So, boooo wooo. Enough of this " Waa waa Muslim's have it rough in the US. Why can't we have our Gym next to ground Zero?" Do you think it's easy for my church to build those Temples of ours around the world? Hell no, but we just recently secured a plot of land in Vatican City. Do you think that was easy? NO, it took years of relationship building and mutual tolerance between Mormons and Catholic church leaders.

Mormons were the most despised religious group for years in the US and has spread world wide. We have missionaries sharing our beliefs around the world. However, we don't proselyte in most middle eastern countries because of the risk to the lives of new members. (though mormon members belonging to the military have received permission to baptize converts in Iraq and Afghanistan).

If the Muslim world in the middle east is so backwards why doesn't the Muslim community (practicing correct Islamic principle) send their version of missionaries to those parts of the world and teach a more peaceful version of Islam.


We have the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible counted as our holy scriptures, if anyone were to destroy one of these books you wouldn't see us starting fires, rioting, or whatever anywhere in the world.

I can understand having groups claiming to be Muslim and really are far from the practices of mainstream Islam. Mormonism has splinter groups as well. Just like the polygamist in southern Utah. We publicly dissociate from them completely. The Mormon church has active and vocal leadership.

The thing that probably scares people about Islam is that when they try to think of who leads the religion they think of guys like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iranian President). At least Christianity has paintings of Jesus, whether he's drawn to be white, middle eastern, black, Asian, Velociraptor, or whatever, and people can associate him as the head of Christianity. Islam forbids any sort of depiction of Muhammad and if you try someone in the middle east gets butt hurt and cuts someone's head off in protest.

See how Islam is a pretty scarey religion? We don't care about the moderate Muslims here in the US. Its the crazy pricks over seas that scare us.

People don't want a mosque anywhere near ground Zero, not because of intolerance towards Muslims here, but because the crazy "muslims" over there will think its their victory. Not yours.

The US is at war with a group of people using Islam as their face to the world, but it doesn't seem that alot of Muslim's here are as vocal about it as a lot of us think they should be. If someone was claiming to be Mormon and blowing up places you would hear an outcry from the Mormon community world wide saying f that guy! (they wouldn't say F most likely... only cool mormons still swear, they'd say gee wilikers and make a note to pray that God would help the world see that this guy did not represent them. As well as the massive media blitz the church would most likely make to make sure the rest of the world got the memo).

That Army Major that converted to Islam is still fresh in our minds too! He was one of our own for Christ's sake! And he shot up a base on american soil in the name of Islam.

Islam needs to take some PR points from the Mormons because the world may be annoyed with us at times because of the guys on bike's that knock on their door during dinner, but they are not afraid we're going to kill them.

Ever heard of the Mountin Meadow Massacre? Back in the day, like late 1800s. After the expulsion from Missiouri, Mormons went west and settled in what is now Utah. A few years later, People heading west from Missouri were passing through the southern part of Utah near a mormon colony. The bishop, who was the defacto mayor of sorts at the time, ordered that this group be engaged in fear that if left alone would attack the colony far away from the main group of mormons farther north in Utah. This lead to the massacre of innocent people by the hands of Mormon pioneers. You know what happened after that? Most people stop the story their as publish it as anti mormon literature. After that, the mormon church (the defacto government of the not even a territory region of Utah) put that Bishop on trial for murder and instigating the whole event. He was found guilty and executed according to the laws that were set up at the time. Justice was served for the senseless slaughter of innocence.

Is Islam making itself accountable for these extremist?

Many of us here in the US are afraid that while Muslims give us winks and smiles here that many of the larger organizations are sending money overseas that is then being laundered into terrorist activities (knowingly or unknowingly).

There is no sense of leadership, no sense of definable doctrine, and extemely different signals being sent out from people claiming to represent Islam.

I want to see some moderate Islam reps denouncing the extreme sects as not being Islamic before I can really say, "want to build something near ground zero? cool."
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Except he wasn't trying to downplay them. ... I think if you disagree with the analogy because you think that the Taliban did not have the legal right, it's fair to point it out then as a poor analogy to make his point.

- wolf

Really? What was the purpose of defending the legality of the act then? I called it a crime against humanity. Then he said it wasn't. You don't see a pattern of him trying to downplay it?

Which is the convincing condemnation and which is the half-assed one that downplays it? Which category does Routan fall into.

A) I deplore the murder of civilians by the Nazis but they ABSOLUTLEY had the right to do it. And it wasn't as bad as some other crimes.

B) The murder of civilians by the Nazis was deplorable and inexcusable.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |