Auteur Topic: De NWO-zionistische-schaduwregering-gelovende Nitwit of Stranger Than Fiction?  (gelezen 37870 keer)

« Reactie #120 Gepost op: 28/02/2010 om 20:13:37 »
Hey,Amazigh/rebel?  Billy the Kid,ben je echt 15 jaar?
Geloof het of niet maar het is zo.

« Reactie #121 Gepost op: 28/02/2010 om 20:14:20 »
IK ben ook tegen zionisme.

Chatt zie arif

« Reactie #122 Gepost op: 28/02/2010 om 20:16:18 »
[
« Laatst bewerkt op: 20/03/2011 om 00:19:31 door Itfu »

« Reactie #123 Gepost op: 28/02/2010 om 20:18:39 »

PS: ik heb me aangemeld op deze site omdat ik meer over amazigh zaken wou weten niet om prectiege strijdjes met jou uit te vechten.
Ps. Wil je daar achter komen over wat voor anti-zionistische literatuur ik het heb?

Sorry, sorry dat ik je in de verleiding bracht want dat was compleet niet mijn bedoeling. Ik ga er lierver boven opstaan dan dat ik er tegen in ga.

« Reactie #124 Gepost op: 28/02/2010 om 20:19:55 »
Waarom zou ik je niet geloven,mijn zoon gaat nooit geloven dat ik berichtjes uitwissel met een jongen die jonger is hij :-0
Dat is sarcastisch bedoelt ofzo is de bedoeling dat ik nu ga laggen?

Chatt zie arif

« Reactie #125 Gepost op: 28/02/2010 om 20:24:34 »
[
« Laatst bewerkt op: 20/03/2011 om 00:19:45 door Itfu »

« Reactie #126 Gepost op: 28/02/2010 om 22:01:49 »
UNIVERSELE VERKLARING VAN DE RECHTEN VAN DE MENS

Artikel 19

Een ieder heeft recht op vrijheid van mening en meningsuiting. Dit recht omvat de vrijheid om zonder inmenging een mening te koesteren en om door alle middelen en ongeacht grenzen inlichtingen en denkbeelden op te sporen, te ontvangen en door te geven.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/dut.pdf


« Reactie #127 Gepost op: 28/02/2010 om 22:02:45 »
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on November 10, 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), "determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". The resolution is often referenced in debates of Zionism and racism. The resolution was revoked by Resolution 46/86 on December 16, 1991. In the history of the UN, this is the only resolution that has ever been revoked.

Background

The UN recommended a portion of the former British Mandate for Palestine to be allotted to the Jewish population at the time in the 1947 UN Partition Plan. During the 1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine, the UN Security Council passed Resolutions 42 (5 March 1948), 43 (1 Apr), 44 (1 Apr) and 46 (17 Apr), which recommended both sides of the conflict to "[r]efrain, pending the future government of Palestine ... from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community".

Throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s, the Security Council passed resolutions that condemned Israel. After the Six-Day War, the Security Council passed several resolutions condemning Israel for treating Jerusalem as its capital. Also, virtually every major Israeli military action after 1967 was condemned in various resolutions after 1967.

Paul Johnson and other historians argue that November 10, 1975 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 that equated Zionism with racism was initiated by the USSR, even though opponents of the USSR on the Council did not oppose the resolution. It was rescinded by the Resolution 4686 in December 1991, which coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The resolution of 1975

The full text of Resolution 3379:

3379 (XXX). Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous" and its expression of alarm at "the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures",

Recalling also that, in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism,

Taking note of the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace 1975, proclaimed by the World Conference of the International Women's Year, held at Mexico City from 19 June to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that "international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination",

Taking note also of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session, held at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered "that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being",

Taking note also of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries, adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperialist ideology,

Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.

The Israeli response

In his address to the United Nations General Assembly the same day, 10. November 1975, Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog stated:

"I can point with pride to the Arab ministers who have served in my government; to the Arab deputy speaker of my Parliament; to Arab officers and men serving of their own volition in our border and police defense forces, frequently commanding Jewish troops; to the hundreds of thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East crowding the cities of Israel every year; to the thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East coming for medical treatment to Israel; to the peaceful coexistence which has developed; to the fact that Arabic is an official language in Israel on a par with Hebrew; to the fact that it is as natural for an Arab to serve in public office in Israel as it is incongruous to think of a Jew serving in any public office in an Arab country, indeed being admitted to many of them. Is that racism? It is not! That... is Zionism."
In his response he also said that the resolution was:

"another manifestation of the bitter anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish hatred which animates Arab society. Who would have believed that in this year, 1975, the malicious falsehoods of the 'Elders of Zion' would be distributed officially by Arab governments? Who would have believed that we would today contemplate an Arab society which teaches the vilest anti-Jewish hate in the kindergartens?... We are being attacked by a society which is motivated by the most extreme form of racism known in the world today... expressed so succinctly in the words of the leader of the PLO, Yassir Arafat, in his opening address at a symposium in Tripoli, Libya: "There will be no presence in the region other than the Arab presence..."
Herzog ended his statement, while holding a document of the resolution, with these words:

"For us, the Jewish people, this resolution based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance, is devoid of any moral or legal value. For us, the Jewish people, this is no more than a piece of paper and we shall treat it as such."
As he concluded his speech, Herzog tore the document in half.

Voting record



Sponsored by: (25) Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates.

Voted yes: (72) The 25 sponsoring nations above, and additionally 47 nations: Albania, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia (formally known as Democratic Kampuchea), Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, People's Republic of China, Congo, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Laos, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Voted no: (35) Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay.

Abstaining: (32) Argentina, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Burma, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritius, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Zaire, Zambia.

Aftermath

Israel made revocation of resolution 3379 a condition of its participation in the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991.[1] Resolution 3379 was revoked in 1991 by UN General Assembly Resolution 4686.

In Campbell, California, in the United States, a group of high school students attempted to solicit signatures on the premises of a local shopping center for a petition against Resolution 3379. The result was the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379
« Laatst bewerkt op: 28/02/2010 om 22:11:33 door incognito »

« Reactie #128 Gepost op: 28/02/2010 om 22:59:27 »
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86 passed on December 16, 1991, revoked Resolution 3379 with a vote of 111 to 25, with 13 abstentions.

Israel made revocation of resolution 3379 a condition of its participation in the Madrid Peace Conference, in progress in the last quarter of 1991. Under pressure from the administration of President George H.W. Bush in the United States, the UN passed the resolution. The text of the revocation was simply:

"The general assembly decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975."
This formed resolution 46/86, which is one of the shortest in UN history. During this session, President Bush told the General Assembly:

"...to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history."
The motion was co-sponsored by 90 nations and supported by 111 including 72 of the 76 nations ranked as "free" by the US-government funded Freedom House. Of the 4 free nations who did not vote in favour: Vanuatu was absent, Mauritius and Trinidad and Tobago abstained, only Bangladesh opposed.[1]

Voting record



Sponsored by: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federal States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

In favour: (111) The sponsoring nations listed above, and additionally: Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Fiji, Gabon, Haiti, India, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Philippines, São Tomé and Príncipe, Seychelles, Thailand, Togo.

Against: (25) Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Yemen.

Abstaining: (13) Angola, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Maldives, Mauritius, Myanmar, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe.

Absent: (15) Bahrain, Chad, People's Republic of China, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kuwait, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Senegal, Tunisia, Vanuatu.

Statement of revocation
George H. W. Bush personally introduced the motion to revoke 3379 with these words:

And now, for the first time, we have a real chance to fulfill the U.N. Charter's ambition of working "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and nations large and small to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. Those are the words from the charter. We will not revive these ideals if we fail to acknowledge the challenge that the renewal of history presents.
....No one here can promise that today's borders will remain fixed for all time. But we must strive to ensure the peaceful, negotiated settlement of border disputes. We also must promote the cause of international harmony by addressing old feuds. We should take seriously the charter's pledge "to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors."
UNGA Resolution 3379, the so-called "Zionism is racism" resolution, mocks this pledge and the principles upon which the United Nations was founded. And I call now for its repeal. Zionism is not a policy; it is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people, to the State of Israel. And to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and, indeed, throughout history. To equate Zionism with racism is to reject Israel itself, a member of good standing of the United Nations.
This body cannot claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel's right to exist. By repealing this resolution unconditionally, the United Nations will enhance its credibility and serve the cause of peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_46/86
« Laatst bewerkt op: 28/02/2010 om 23:01:41 door incognito »

« Reactie #129 Gepost op: 01/03/2010 om 00:19:40 »
Let op de rol van James Baker en Marokko. Deze 2 zouden elkaar later in het Westelijke Sahara conflict nog elkaars rug meerdere malen krabben...>



Madrid Conference of 1991

The Madrid Conference was hosted by the government of Spain and co-sponsored by the USA and the USSR. It convened on October 30, 1991 and lasted for three days. It was an early attempt by the international community to start a peace process through negotiations involving Israel and the Palestinians as well as Arab countries including Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. In the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, US President George H.W. Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker formulated the framework of objectives, and together with the Soviet Union extended a letter of invitation, dated October 30, 1991 to Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Palestinians.

The conference

The Palestinian team, because of Israeli objections, was initially formally a part of a joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation and consisted of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza without open PLO associations like Saeb Erekat and Haidar Abdel-Shafi, the head of the delegation. However, the delegation was in constant communication with the PLO leadership in Tunis. Over Israeli objections, the PLO dispatched an unofficial "advisory delegation," headed by Faisal Husseini to act as a liaison.[1]

The purpose of the conference was to serve as an opening forum for the participants and had no power to impose solutions or veto agreements. It inaugurated negotiations on both bilateral and multilateral tracks that also involved the international community. The Syrian and Lebanese negotiators agreed on a common strategy.

The first-ever public bilateral talks between Israel and its neighbors (except Egypt) were aimed at achieving peace treaties between the 3 Arab states and Israel, while the talks with the Palestinians were based on a 2-stage formula, the first consisting of negotiating interim self-government arrangements, to be followed by permanent status negotiations. (This formula was essentially followed in the later Oslo Accords.) They opened immediately following the conference on November 3, 1991 in Madrid, and were followed by over a dozen formal rounds in Washington, DC from December 9, 1991 to January 24, 1994[2][3]

The multilateral negotiations, which opened in Moscow on January 28, 1992, were held in 5 separate forums each focused on a major issue - water, environment, arms control, refugees and economic development, and were later held, until November 1993 throughout the world including European capitals and the Middle East. At first, Israel refused to take part in the refugee and economic meetings as Palestinians from outside the West Bank and Gaza were present. Syria and Lebanon refused to take part in multilateral meetings as long as there was no concrete progress on the bilateral level.

Formal talks in the multilateral track, which had been frozen for several years, resumed on January 31, 2000 with a meeting of the Steering Committee in Moscow, to be followed by meetings of the working groups.[4]

The Israeli-Jordan negotiations eventually led to a peace treaty signed in 1994, while the Israeli-Syrian ones led to several series of negotiations, which came quite close on some reports, but did not result in a peace treaty.

The bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were upstaged and eventually replaced by initially secret and illegal (according to Israeli law at the time) negotiations that finally led to the exchange of letters of 9 and 10 September 1993 and the subsequent 13 September 1993 signing on the lawn of the White House of the Declaration of Principles, which however were essentially based on terms which the Madrid round Palestinian negotiators had earlier rejected.

The Impact of the Madrid Peace Conference

Israel cites as a major benefit of the conference and the process, the greatly increased number of countries which recognize and have some degree of diplomatic relations with it - nearly doubling - in particular citing the major powers of China and India and some even in the Arab world, like Oman, Qatar, Tunisia, Morocco and Mauritania, along with the decline of the Arab boycott and economic relations with some of the Arab countries.[5]

In The Palestine-Israel Conflict: A Basic Introduction, Gregory Harms and Todd Ferry argue that ‘the symbolic significance of the Madrid conference far outweighed its accomplishments, which were thin indeed.’ [6] Nevertheless, an example had been made and a future model had been laid down. Moreover, the Madrid conference represents the first time all these countries had been gathered “face-to-face”. [6] Indeed, ‘from Rhodes in 1949 to Madrid in 1991’[7] attempts to bring about peace in the region had failed. However, although the conference led to few practical and legal solutions, the Madrid peace conference of 1991 still signifies a remarkable “twist in events”[8] as the Palestine question was at long last dealt with. Yet because the Madrid Conference was based on the idea of ‘abandoning the dynamics of confrontation’[9], but more importantly because what ensued, through the Oslo Accords were isolated arrangements on disorganised technicalities such as crossings, borders, security, prisoners and so on, numerous of people are nowadays still ‘opposed to that ground- breaking leap’[9] which the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991 represents to many. On the other hand, in 2002 the German foreign minister Joschka Fischer, while voicing his opinion on a proposed future action of Israeli withdrawal from recently occupied towns followed by a declaration of a Palestinian state, argued:

"The idea is not to go backwards but to return to the basic formula that was established in Madrid: the exchange of land for peace,"[10]

At the end of the Madrid conference all participating countries appeared hopeful that the conference had resulted in a future road-map for reconciliation. The closing remarks presented below illustrate this hopeful sentiment:

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir , 1 November 1991
“With an open heart, we call on the Arab leaders to take the courageous step and respond to our outstretched hand in peace” [11]

Head of the Palestinian Delegation, Haydar Abd al-Shafi, 1 November 1991
“To the cosponsors and to the international community that seeks the achievement of a just peace in the Middle East, you have given us a fair hearing. You cared enough to listen and for that we thank you. Thank you.” [12]

American Secretary of State, James Baker seemed to have accomplished what he had initially wished for: peace negotiations which would lead to closer cooperation and reconciliation between the countries of the Middle East. However, Middle East scholar Louise Fawcett argues that by 1993 when Clinton came to office ‘the initial momentum of Madrid had flagged, and the subsequent bilateral talks in Washington between Israel and its neighbours had got bogged down.'[13] Thus, the Madrid conference was not to be the conference which would create peace in the Middle East, albeit the first step towards greater understanding and better communication among Middle Eastern countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Conference_of_1991
« Laatst bewerkt op: 01/03/2010 om 00:24:03 door incognito »

« Reactie #130 Gepost op: 04/03/2010 om 21:02:37 »
wat de joodse raad betreft heb ik veel over gelezen, hadden ze een keus onder het terreurbewind? dacht het niet, degenen die werden verkozen voor die job werden regelrecht geexecuteerd of door gestuurd naar vernietigingskampen als ze weigerden, hoe dan ook, je zou meer moeten lezen ipv je gelijk alsmaar halen via kopieren/plakken all the time
wat ben je doorzichtig

Ik mag dan volgens jou wel doorzichtig en voorspelbaar zijn, maar schijnheiligheid laat ik aan jou over. En om die schijnheiligheid aan te tonen wil ik je nogmaals vragen om je eerdere uitspraken over de joodse raad te herzien: ze3ma joden die fout zijn geweest in de oorlog hebben volgens jou geen andere keus gehad. Maar hoe zit het dan met niet-joden die ook fout zijn geweest in de oorlog. Vind je dan dat oud-SS'er Heinrich Boere ook geen andere keus had? 




Levenslang geëist tegen SS'er Boere

Rotterdam, 2 maart. In het proces tegen de Nederlandse SS’er Heinrich Boere heeft de officier van justitie dinsdagochtend een levenslange gevangenisstraf geëist. Boere (88) staat in Aken terecht voor drie moorden die hij pleegde in 1944. Hij was toen lid van een SS-commando dat meer dan vijftig onschuldige Nederlandse burgers vermoordde als represaille voor aanslagen van het verzet.

Boere heeft in december bekend dat hij heeft deelgenomen aan de liquidatie van Frits Bicknese, Teun de Groot en Frans Kusters. Volgens zijn advocaat had hij geen andere keus dan de orders op te volgen die hij kreeg. Als hij dat niet had gedaan, had zijn eigen leven gevaar gelopen, aldus de verdediging. Officier van justitie Ulrich Maass is er niet van overtuigd dat er sprake was van zo’n Befehlsnotstand. Daarom eiste hij vanochtend de maximale straf voor Boere.

Boere werd in Nederland in 1949 bij verstek ter dood veroordeeld voor zijn aandeel aan de zogenoemde Silbertanne-moorden. Hij ontsnapte naar Duitsland en wist uitlevering aan Nederland te voorkomen, omdat hij ook het Duitse staatsburgerschap bezit. De afgelopen weken heeft zijn verdediging de nodige tegenslagen moeten incasseren. Zo moest Boere toegeven dat hij lid was geweest van de NSB, terwijl hij dat lidmaatschap eerder had ontkend. Daarnaast werd door de advocaten van Boeres slachtoffers, de Nebenkläger, bewijs aangedragen voor Boeres deelname aan het verraad van onderduikhelpers in het Limburgse dorp Helden-Panningen. Zeven van hen overleefden het concentratiekamp niet.

2 Maart 2010

NRC Handelsblad

http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2495315.ece/Levenslang_geeist_tegen_SSer_Boere


Ps. Zeg nou eens eerlijk matou, wat betreft 2 Wereldoorlog wordt er overduidelijk met 2 maten gemeten tussen joden en niet-joden. Of is dit weer een te doorzichtige uitspraak van mij?
« Laatst bewerkt op: 04/03/2010 om 21:04:12 door incognito »

« Reactie #131 Gepost op: 04/03/2010 om 22:36:50 »
je weet ook v geen ophouden he   en je gaat maar door en door..word je er zelf niet een beetje moe van incognietje?

« Reactie #132 Gepost op: 04/03/2010 om 22:49:28 »
je weet ook v geen ophouden he   en je gaat maar door en door..word je er zelf niet een beetje moe van incognietje?

En jij kan erg goed de schone schijn hoog houden...;)


Ps. Bedankt nog voor het compliment en bedankt voor de bevestiging van mijn standpunt.

« Reactie #133 Gepost op: 04/03/2010 om 22:57:11 »
welke schone schijn bedoel je. snap ik even niet

« Reactie #134 Gepost op: 05/03/2010 om 01:11:13 »
welke schone schijn bedoel je. snap ik even niet

Om het beter te snappen zul je eerst je huiswerk moeten maken.


Ps. Maak je niet druk a mattie, als je wilt kan ik je daarbij helpen. Dan kunnen jij en ik huiswerkmatties worden ofso...