# When Muslims Commit Violence



## Big Don (Nov 8, 2009)

*When Muslims Commit Violence*

          08 Nov 2009 09:37 am
Jonah Goldberg The Atlantic EXCERPT:

                                              A consensus seems to have formed here at The Atlantic that the Ft. Hood massacre means not very much at all. Megan McArdle writes that "there is absolutely no political lesson to be learned from this." James Fallows says: "The shootings never mean anything. Forty years later, what did the Charles Whitman massacre 'mean'? A decade later, do we 'know' anything about Columbine?"  And the Atlantic Wire has already investigated the motivation for the shooting, and released its preliminary findings. Of Nidal Malik Hasan, the Wire states: "A 39-year-old Army psychiatrist, he appears to have not been motivated by his Muslim religion, his Palestinian heritage (he is American by nationality), or any related political causes." 

>>>SNIP<<<
Here's a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions.
END EXCERPT


> If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack?


 You better believe it. Had a Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck book been found in his possession...


----------



## Big Don (Nov 8, 2009)

If the attacks of 9-11 didn't trigger massive attacks on Muslims, last week's murders at Fort Hood won't. By that standard, Hasan is a piker.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 8, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Here's a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions.
> END EXCERPT
> You better believe it. Had a Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck book been found in his possession...


Heh. How cheesy. More Christians playing the victim card. 

Who started calling for the regular debriefing of all Christians in the military when McVeigh acted?


----------



## grydth (Nov 8, 2009)

As full of PC compost as the media surely is, I'm not sure what motivated this homicidal maniac at Ft Hood. Maybe we ought to debate this when we do know.

Even if he turns out to have been driven by radical Islam, why take it out on some innocent Arabic guy? He didn't do anything..... Hell, Tim McVeigh was a white Christian Army vet with a medal for service in the Middle East. So am I - - - by the prevailing (ir)rationale I should shoot myself for what he did at Oklahoma City....... well, not just yet thank you.


----------



## Carol (Nov 8, 2009)

McVeigh called himself an agnostic.



> In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. "If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company." His body is to be cremated and his ashes scattered in a secret location.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa4


----------



## Big Don (Nov 8, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> McVeigh called himself an agnostic.


That's OK, it gave someone a chance to blame Christians.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 8, 2009)

People who are members of an organized religion always believe that those who are members of a different organized religion have different experiences and different control systems than their own.

When a Muslim commits a terrorist act, some Christians say:

_"Why didn't his neighbors turn him in?"_

_"If other Muslims are against this sort of thing, why aren't they speaking out?"
_
_"If Islam is a religion of peace, why do Muslims commit these acts?"
_
And so on.

What they never do is ask themselves these questions.

If you are a Christian, and your neighbor is a Christian, would you have any way of knowing if he were planning to shoot an abortion doctor?  Would you know if he made bombs in his basement?  Yet you assume that all Muslims know what their fellow Muslims are doing and simply refuse to inform on them.

When a Christian commits an atrocity, such as shooting an abortion doctor, do you march in the street as concerned Christians to inform the world that you decry his actions and do you write to newspapers to let them know that this is not the sort of thing that Christianity teaches?  Yet you assume that if a Muslim commits an atrocity, his fellow Muslims must rise up by the millions and hurl themselves into the streets, apologizing and weeping with shame, or they must be secretly in favor of what the criminal Muslim did.

When a Christian commits a crime of violence, do you think it marks Christianity as a violent religion, do you think your beliefs are now tainted and unworthy of being called 'peaceful'?  Yet you think that a Muslim who does these things is simply demonstrating that Islam is not a religion of peace.

Most of this is straight out of psychology books.  We identify with our own groups and have innate understanding about them that allow us to disassociate ourselves from any feelings of guilt over what someone else does in the name of our religion, or as a member of our religion.  We do not consider them to be 'of us' or 'representative' of us.  We do not grant other people the same level of understanding, though, if their belief system differs significantly from our own.  

We do not permit others to have similar reactions and innate understandings of their religion as we do of ours.  They are 'the other' and they are 'different' and 'they don't think like us'.

It is human, it is understandable, but it is wrong.  If Islam itself were the problem, we'd have bigger issues than we do.  1.2 billion Muslims live on this planet, and the overwhelming majority of them do so peacefully, harming no one.  The same can be said of the overwhelming majority of Christians.  Same for Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and so on.  Most of us are no threat to anyone else, regardless of our belief systems.  If we were, our lives would be much shorter and much uglier than they are.

Islam is not the problem.  People who use it as an excuse to commit violence are.  Christianity is not the problem.   People who use it as an excuse to commit violence are.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 8, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Islam is not the problem.  People who use it as an excuse to commit violence are.  Christianity is not the problem.   People who use it as an excuse to commit violence are.


Avoiding any criticism of Islam feeds the problem of people who use Islam as an excuse to commit violence. Christianity has been, and will continue to be criticized rightly and wrongly. Why can't Islam do the same? Why is Islam and its adherents seemingly immune from criticism? If it is merely politeness that creates that, then why isn't Christianity likewise immune from criticism? Scientology is widely criticized, Judaism is widely criticized, why is Islam given special treatment?


----------



## Marginal (Nov 9, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> McVeigh called himself an agnostic.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa4



Close enough to Christian for at least 75% of the people in the US who claim to be Christian regardless.


----------



## geezer (Nov 9, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Why is Islam and its adherents seemingly immune from criticism? If it is merely politeness that creates that, then why isn't Christianity likewise immune from criticism? Scientology is widely criticized, Judaism is widely criticized, why is Islam given special treatment?


 
I wasn't aware that Islam was given any special treatment, but it's a fair question. I've heard it criticized a lot, but maybe I just hang with a critical crowd! Is Islam criticized less than other world religions? If so, then why?


----------



## Kajowaraku (Nov 9, 2009)

geezer said:


> I wasn't aware that Islam was given any special treatment, but it's a fair question. I've heard it criticized a lot, but maybe I just hang with a critical crowd! Is Islam criticized less than other world religions? If so, then why?


 
Well... I'd say ask the Jyllands-Posten. They published some cartoons of the prophet and got a variety of reactions, including both praise for speaking up, outrage and (here it comes) threats to blow their offices of the face of Denmark. Being threatened does have that special property of making people careful when choosing their words. Still, it's a minority of radicals doing the threatening and bombing, and as we all know Islam is not the religion of violence some people think is (including both the extremist Muslims and non muslims with an oppinion). 

Still, these radicals do exist. I'm not sure when somebody blew up a building in the name of scientology recently, but i reckon it doesn't happen that often. As for judaism, well... they have a record of blowing their adjacent countries to smithereens, not for terrorism in our backyards. It affects the way people respond, and the liberty they take when responding.

All in all, I find myself in full agreement with Bill on this one. it's not the religion, it's what some people do in the name of that (any) religion that matters.


----------



## KELLYG (Nov 9, 2009)

I think that of all the religions that I can think of in _current times_ the word Jihad is only coming from one religious sect.  This may be the reason that their motives are being examined closer than the others.


----------



## xJOHNx (Nov 9, 2009)

Jihad is a common arabic word, stemming from JHD. Which means to strive. 
The inner jihad is often called the big jihad. Letting go of the ego and such.
The outher jihad (what everyone calls holy war) doesn't mean holy war. It means outward striving. War can be a facet of that.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 9, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> _"If other Muslims are against this sort of thing, why aren't they speaking out?"
> _
> _"If Islam is a religion of peace, why do Muslims commit these acts?"
> _
> ...



Damn straight. My Catholic friends who oppose abortion personally are not obliged to apologize to me or anybody because someone who professes to Christianity blew up a clinic, shot a doctor, or harassed a patient. Those who expect them to have an agenda that goes beyond protecting a woman's right to choose. They're fighting about something else.

Do the 3500 Muslim US armed forces members have to atone as Muslims for the acts of Major Hasan? They are members of the armed forces, and I believe they should be permitted to feel the same outrage as others in uniform.


----------



## Ramirez (Nov 9, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Why is Islam and its adherents seemingly immune from criticism?



  I am not sure why you think Islam is immune from criticism, I don't think the opinions of a couple of writers at The Atlantic means Islam is immune.

  I have read columns by  Muslims being critical of Islam.

eg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irshad_Manji

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Fatah


----------



## Marginal (Nov 9, 2009)

Ramirez said:


> I am not sure why you think Islam is immune from criticism, I don't think the opinions of a couple of writers at The Atlantic means Islam is immune.
> 
> I have read columns by  Muslims being critical of Islam.
> 
> ...


"Criticism" in this case means crying about not being allowed to make wild links between an isolated shooting and an imagined global caliphate trying to destroy 'Merica.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 10, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Avoiding any criticism of Islam feeds the problem of people who use Islam as an excuse to commit violence. Christianity has been, and will continue to be criticized rightly and wrongly. Why can't Islam do the same? Why is Islam and its adherents seemingly immune from criticism? If it is merely politeness that creates that, then why isn't Christianity likewise immune from criticism? Scientology is widely criticized, Judaism is widely criticized, why is Islam given special treatment?


 
Don, this is the reason that few board members, if any, take your posts seriously, especially on this alleged immunity of Islam. All of Bill's post, all of the points he raised about group psychology and double standards, and you choose to zero in on the one line that lets you stick to your Christian-victim agenda, ignoring everything else. Honestly, I'm impressed that your response was more than one sentence. 

The reason we shouldn't blame Islam for the tragedy at Ft. Hood, or even for the catastrophe of 9-11, is the same reason that Christianity and Catholicism shouldn't be blamed for Oklahoma City or the various abortion clinic bombings. Any religion can be hijacked as justification for atrocity. As Bill was trying to argue, any distinction or immunity for Islam is really just based on your own perception.

Allow me to apologize ahead of time to the rest of the board members for the vitriol in this post, but it needed saying.


----------



## Nolerama (Nov 10, 2009)

Once all this is said and done, and it's found that the shooter was simply out of his mind and not motivated by race or religion...

It's still going to be painted as a Muslim committing violence.

Because that's the double standard American media upholds... Mainly to sustain sensationalism and boost ratings. 

(I'm making this assumption, but it's certainly valid...) Many people are more likely to maintain interest in a story when they feel like they are affected (as Americans) and certainly more interested in said story when the shooter is of Middle Eastern descent and perceived to be a practicing Muslim.

Those easily affected by the media can view the shooter not as a troubled human being, but as a Jihadist terrorist, removed from humanity in the eyes of the general public.

It's the same double standard that a crime committed by a white person is less sensational as that of that same crime committed by a black person in the US.

It's sad. But some countries are run by dictators. Others are run by a singular ethnic group that totally craps on minority groups. Yet still, others are far more openly corrupt than other countries...

And Americans are stuck with the kind of media that operates more like a dowsing rod, than an information medium.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 10, 2009)

Nowhere have I blamed Islam, however, there is a certain segment of Islam that flies planes into buildings, blows themselves up in discos, car bombed a Marine barracks, blew up embassies, nearly sank the USS Cole, beheads journalists. Immediately after Dr Tiller was murdered we heard, on every channel and in every newspaper and news magazine, about how his killer was a Christian, and that is OBVIOUSLY and SELF-EVIDENTLY why he killed the abortionist. However, when a Muslim man shoots more than forty people at Fort Hood, his religion has absolutely nothing to do with it and any suggestion that his attempted calls to Al Qaeda, his frequenting a mosque where 9-11 terrorists also worshiped, saying that suicide bombers were as heroic as a soldier throwing himself on a grenade, all that has NOTHING to do with his crimes. But, there is no double standard, I'm just a Christian, who, by the way, has never identified my religion on any website, playing the victim card?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 10, 2009)

Major Hasan's presentation on Islam: Via The Washington Post


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 10, 2009)

What's your point, Don?


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 10, 2009)

no movie producers, authors or cartoonists seem to fear Christian backlashes but outright say that they wouldn't portray a Mosque being destroyed out of FEAR.

If some director made a controversial movie about Mohammed (something like the Da Vinci Code) what do you think would happen?

I think that's where he is going.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 10, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> What's your point, Don?


Christians, even agnostics (who aren't Christians) are blamed loudly, and widely for everything but, the fall of Rome, oh wait, there was a thread about that...
Muslims commit atrocities and no one wants to blame the man, the religion, anything. Dr Tiller is murdered :"Why are Christians killing people?" 13 dead and 30 wounded:"It isn't about Hasan being a Muslim, how dare you, you bigot"...


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 10, 2009)

He has a point. 

I think there are quite a number of threads here bemoaning the Inquisition, Crusades, Right Wing Christian beliefs and how they are the bane of education (evolution etc.).

How long would such a conversation about Islam and its association with current events last?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 10, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> no movie producers, authors or cartoonists seem to fear Christian backlashes but outright say that they wouldn't portray a Mosque being destroyed out of FEAR.
> 
> If some director made a controversial movie about Mohammed (something like the Da Vinci Code) what do you think would happen?
> 
> I think that's where he is going.


*That wasn't always the plan, however. Emmerich explained to SCI FI WireKaaba, one of the holiest sites in the Islamic religion, would join the visual wrath of 2012, but that his co-screenwriter Harald Kloser talked him out of it:

"Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit ... but my co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right. ... We have to all ... in the Western world ... think about this. You can actually ... let ... Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it's just something which I kind of didn't [think] was [an] important element anyway in the film, so I kind of left it out."*
Not because it wasn't artistic, not because they wanted to be respectful, because they were afraid Muslims would freak out and possibly kill them!
You know like Theo Van Gogh...


----------



## Big Don (Nov 10, 2009)

Some Christians say they don't like homosexuality, and they are useless, morons.
Does the same standard get applied to Muslims?
Hell no. 
IRAN, not the US, not the Roman Catholic Church, NOT, the Southern Baptists has in recent years EXECUTED people for merely being gay. 
Is there massive outcry against Islam for this? Of course not


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 10, 2009)

Is it because we are so PC?

Is it because we are scared?

What makes one topic open for debate while another is declared bigotry before it even gets started?


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 10, 2009)

Han Solo: Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee. 

C-3PO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid. 

Han Solo: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that. 

Chewbacca: Grrf. 

C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2: let the Wookiee win.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 10, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> What makes one topic open for debate while another is declared bigotry before it even gets started?


In this case, people knew nothing except the guy's last name when the news first broke. 

That's not enough info to go running around screaming about terrorists etc.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 10, 2009)

Marginal said:


> In this case, people knew nothing except the guy's last name when the news first broke.
> 
> That's not enough info to go running around screaming about terrorists etc.



Theres a LOT more known now and more to come Im sure.


----------



## Carol (Nov 10, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Is it because we are so PC?
> 
> Is it because we are scared?
> 
> What makes one topic open for debate while another is declared bigotry before it even gets started?




A few factors that I can see.

Christianity is a lot more familiar to us as a people, than Islam.  The cultures of Christians around the world are more similar. Aspects to many Eastern cultures look strange to us, even if they are not patently offensive (think Cassius Clay becoming Muhammad Ali).

The threat of Islamo-fascism (for lack of a better word) is very real.  And unfortunately that threat has spawned outward expressions of ignorance that result in indifference or outright hatred towards the Muslim faith as a whole, or even to people of Arabic heritage whether they are Muslim or not.

In addition, the existence of Islamo-fascism has made people afraid. Anyone want to live under police protection as Salman Rusdie has?  Or receive death threats that push you in to hiding as the Jyllands-Posten cartoonists have?   

It is a very complex issue.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 10, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Theres a LOT more known now and more to come Im sure.


None of it supports some kind of islamofacist (such a laughable marketing term) plot.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 10, 2009)

Marginal said:


> None of it supports some kind of islamofacist (such a laughable marketing term) plot.


But, everything about Tiller (the baby killer)'s murder was supported by some nefarious Christian plot? 
Right.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 10, 2009)

The civil rights organizations (NOW, NAACP, PFLAG etc) that are so quick to jump all over any Christian or conservative who dares step a toe out of line are pretty damn quiet when Iran hangs gays, or, other Muslim groups or nations subjugates women, etc, these groups stand SILENT.
That isn't a double standard?


----------



## Marginal (Nov 10, 2009)

Big Don said:


> But, everything about Tiller (the baby killer)'s murder was supported by some nefarious Christian plot?
> Right.


That's what you're arguing for basically. You want to assign a global terrorist plot to the act on one person based largely on his last name and religion. 

IIRC, you weren't willing to call Tiller's shooter a terrorist. Even though his crime was far more politically motivated.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 11, 2009)

xJOHNx said:


> Jihad is a common arabic word, stemming from JHD. Which means to strive.
> The inner jihad is often called the big jihad. Letting go of the ego and such.
> The outher jihad (what everyone calls holy war) doesn't mean holy war. It means outward striving. War can be a facet of that.


 
Perhaps a better understanding would be that of takfiri.  Although in its original meaning it is used against other Muslims who are considered to be impure, the tactics and rules that apply to them are very similar to the current tactics of the modern day terrorist.


----------



## Ramirez (Nov 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> He has a point.
> 
> I think there are quite a number of threads here bemoaning the Inquisition, Crusades, Right Wing Christian beliefs and how they are the bane of education (evolution etc.).
> 
> How long would such a conversation about Islam and its association with current events last?



 Well Islam is the favorite case in point for atheists like Dawkins,  Hitchens and Harris on why they dislike religion,  Harris even begins one of his books with an Islamic suicide bomber as an example.

 So once again, I don't see how Islam is "immune".


----------



## Kajowaraku (Nov 11, 2009)

Whoah. I see alot of confusion and people mixing up the causality of things here.

Firstly: Islam was possibly a factor in the decisionmaking or justifications that lead the shooter to commit his heinous crime.

secondly: that does not automatically extrapolate to: Islam causes people to commit heinous crimes. 

One can't simply generalise these things. That's another effect of fear. We fear islamic response (which means the reaction of a small, but visible minority of violent extremists) so we extrapolate our fears to the entire group. It's human, but also wrong. ANY religion is liable to abuse by madmen. When GWB called for a crusade against terrorism many people back here gasped for breath in fear of what he could be evoking (outright religious war). Luckily it didn't come to that. Fear of the muslim is rooted deep in our western minds, and goes back over 500 years, when the Ottoman empire was at the gates of Vienna. And the horrorstories told by the returning crusaders before that. Americans inherited that imagery from their European ancestors, rooted deep in the collective memory. And here we get stuck: the human mind often prefers to verify it's fears and prejudice, rather than falsify it. On a collective scale it's even harder to change such mental imagery. Arab culture produced the fundamentals of mathematics, great poetry, and science. Still, what do people know Islam for? Crusades and other wars, violence involving knives, people kneeling and speaking in tongues and more recently: brutal terrorism. 

Ironically, these negative tropes equally apply to a number of other groups if you use the same scale of representation. We're probably looking at far less than 0.1 percent of all muslims being involved in such things (well, except the kneeling in prayer obviously). That seems to pretty much correspond to non-muslim domestic violence, and people of any other ethnicity doing bad things. Islam does get more media coverage, and is at this point probably the most acute motivation for violence in the media (and they often seem to seek media coverage). 

What i'm saying is: It's not because a person commits murder in the name of Islam that it would be fair to blame Islam. In fact it would be silly. "Islam" never told him to do anything. Perhaps people that chose to interpret the teachings in a certain way motivated or "inspired" him, but still: that is not Islam. 

I could go on about this for a while, and i'd probably need to write an entire essay to make my point more coherent and evidence driven, but I'm kind of hoping you see what i'm getting at. Ultimatly it's irrelevant whether the madman commited his crime because of islamic inspirations or others. I mean, what are you going to do except seeing your collective bogeyman confirmed? Ban Islam? We all know that would be ridiculous and completely besides the point.


----------



## cdunn (Nov 11, 2009)

Big Don said:


> The civil rights organizations (NOW, NAACP, PFLAG etc) that are so quick to jump all over any Christian or conservative who dares step a toe out of line are pretty damn quiet when Iran hangs gays, or, other Muslim groups or nations subjugates women, etc, these groups stand SILENT.
> That isn't a double standard?


 
No. It's prioritizing. The abhorrent theocracies over there are over there. The abhorrent wanna-be theocrats here are here. The only difference is immediacy of the problem. Those groups are performing their exact purpose - Ensuring that all of us _here_, in America, have the rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 11, 2009)

Big Don said:


> But, everything about Tiller (the baby killer)'s murder was supported by some nefarious Christian plot?
> Right.



Wasn't he part of a group? If the major was part of Al-Qaeda, then it'd be yet another reason to assail that group.



Kajowaraku said:


> ANY religion is liable to abuse by madmen.



Heck, it's their main reason for existing.

(Wait, are there Buddhist terrorists?)


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 11, 2009)

Do a little research on the Sohei of feudal Japan.


----------



## blindsage (Nov 11, 2009)

Big Don said:


> The civil rights organizations (NOW, NAACP, PFLAG etc) that are so quick to jump all over any Christian or conservative who dares step a toe out of line are pretty damn quiet when Iran hangs gays, or, other Muslim groups or nations subjugates women, etc, these groups stand SILENT.
> That isn't a double standard?


LOL, you strategically pick NATIONAL organization to criticize for their lack of international engagement.  Pick some INTERNATIONAL organizations that harp on American issues and you will find they harp on countries like Iran as well.  Nice use of cherry picking, though.


----------



## xJOHNx (Nov 11, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Heck, it's their main reason for existing.
> 
> (Wait, are there Buddhist terrorists?)


Yes there are. A couple of years ago, some Buddhist subsect used terrorist kind of actions to gain control over a piece of land that they considered sacred. They have to make some flee from their houses.

So yeah, it does exist.


----------



## crushing (Nov 11, 2009)

As an understanding of Nidal Hasan comes to light, it is looking like he may have as much or more in common with George Sodini than Mohamed Atta.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120317524


----------

