|
DelilahFlowers posted:This sank my heart down. How debased from morality do you have to be to dig up the dead and remove them. Utterly vile and disgusting. Israel must cease. Israel built a "museum of tolerance" / convention center over a historically important Muslim cemetery.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Are you under the impression that Biden has a magical spell that he can employ to stop piracy? The whole point of the coalition is to degrade their capabilities and make the cost/benefit ratio of engaging in these kinds of actions skew.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
...when would Hamas have had time to bury the bodies of hostages in cemeteries?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 23:15
|
|
|
Randalor posted:...when would Hamas have had time to bury the bodies of hostages in cemeteries? the important part is giving a wording that the racist Zionists can use to justify the attrocities it's just talking points, literally nobody cares if it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 23:50
|
|
|
Randalor posted:...when would Hamas have had time to bury the bodies of hostages in cemeteries? They just know that the Palestinians treat the living and the dead with more dignity than they do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 00:15
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:the important part is giving a wording that the racist Zionists can use to justify the attrocities Yeah, it’s this and than in a about a year Zionists will be going “If Palestinians really have been on this land for so long, where are all the cemeteries?  ” because western media will bury this news and anyone stating true fact the IDF dug them up and destroyed them will be called a blood libeling anti-Semite for suggesting such a thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
rscott posted:https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1748074595792429224?t=4HmnYEH9lw9tzPCFQ6h1ng&s=19 Apparently they found the bodies of 21 hostages, which might mean something if Hamas hadn’t already reported hostages were killed in air strikes and their bodies were underneath rubble. I mean there is no reason to believe any of them died at the hands of anyone other than Israel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
What is the rubble of a recently destroyed building, if not a type of cemetery?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
Unity Government starting to unravel. https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-challenge-to-pm-eisenkot-says-talk-of-absolute-defeat-of-hamas-a-tall-tale/
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Apparently they found the bodies of 21 hostages, which might mean something if Hamas hadn’t already reported hostages were killed in air strikes and their bodies were underneath rubble. There has been no official report or confirmation of hostage bodies being found, and even the pro-IDF accounts that were posting that have deleted their posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:There has been no official report or confirmation of hostage bodies being found, and even the pro-IDF accounts that were posting that have deleted their posts. Well, the impression they wanted has been made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
Esran posted:I agree that analogizing to individuals is pointless as you say, but I'm not seeing people claiming Israeli civilians morally deserve to be killed either (I'm excluding settlers here, those aren't civilians). Settlers would be considered civilians by the standard definition, which is a person who is not a member of the armed forces or police force. Esran posted:Okay, then let me clarify what I meant. I meant that the blame lies with Israel's current and past governments, and all the people who decided a fascist ethnostate was a cool project. I'm responding to your assertion that people in this thread are arguing "in defense of the murder of civilians on October 7th" on the grounds that those civilians were deserving of death in some personal moral sense, and that " It's popular to believe that every Israeli on October 7th had it coming for paying taxes to the IDF". To be clear, it is possible to argue that Hamas was justified in killing civilians without arguing that the civilians deserved to die. There was a UN resolution that colonized peoples have the "inherent right to struggle by all necessary means at their disposal against Colonial powers". https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f1c955.html The only question would be whether those means were necessary. Stringent posted:I've said it before, but I think it bears reiteration. Israel had the right to defend itself on Oct. 7th. It failed to do so. What's happened since has been in no way defensive. Nobody in Israel is safer because of the actions taken by the IDF since Oct. 7th. Quite the opposite. That would indeed be the correct distinction. The International Court of Justice found that Israel did not have a right to self-defense in order to impose any regime on Palestinians (https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf page 194). This also has to do with the fact that states' (in the international sense) right to self-defense is based on the attacking entity being another state, and Israel of course does not recognize Palestine as such.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 23:59
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:
That's... not at all the right interpretation of that resolution. The key bit is " The armed conflicts involving the struggle of peoples against colonial and alien domination and racist régimes are to be regarded as international armed conflicts in the sense of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and the legal status envisaged to apply to the combatants in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other international instruments is to apply to the persons engaged in armed struggle against colonial and alien domination and racist régimes." It's setting the terms that people engaged in anticolonial struggle have the right to be treated as combatants protected under the rules of war (as opposed to criminals - which is the context in which imperial states were trying to frame their colonial conflicts at the time). The conflict itself is still bound by the Geneva Conventions. e: I'm not at all an expert here but I think the phrase 'all means necessary' in that context means there's no obligation to negotiate or accept a dominion status or whatever that would make armed struggle illegitimate. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 00:06
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:That... not at all the right interpretation of that resolution. The key bit is " The armed conflicts involving the struggle of peoples against colonial and alien domination and racist régimes are to be regarded as international armed conflicts in the sense of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and the legal status envisaged to apply to the combatants in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other international instruments is to apply to the persons engaged in armed struggle against colonial and alien domination and racist régimes." You appear to be right and that was a significant mistake I made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 00:09
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:That would indeed be the correct distinction. The International Court of Justice found that Israel did not have a right to self-defense in order to impose any regime on Palestinians (https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf page 194). This also has to do with the fact that states' (in the international sense) right to self-defense is based on the attacking entity being another state, and Israel of course does not recognize Palestine as such. Quick point of order here, I think Israel's recognition/non-recognition status of Palestine I'm not sure is relevant here; Canada didn't recognize Ireland as a independent state during the Fenian raids but I don't think it would follow that Canada doesn't have a right to self-defence against a non-state actor; and just because Palestine isn't recognized by Israel doesn't make them for all practical matters a "belligerent" or a "party" to the conflict where all the rules still apply for both sides. Another example here might be the Vietnam War and Chinese Civil War or the Korean War where belligerents didn't recognize each other but the intention of the 'rules of law' is probably more about trying to restrain all parties into minimizing unnecessary human suffering. The bombing campaign of North Korea by the USAF wouldn't be more lawful because they didn't recognize North Korea as a state, just as how it wouldn't be lawful for North Korean or PVA troops to summarily execute captured US soldiers (if it hypothetically happened).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 01:31
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Quick point of order here, I think Israel's recognition/non-recognition status of Palestine I'm not sure is relevant here; Canada didn't recognize Ireland as a independent state during the Fenian raids but I don't think it would follow that Canada doesn't have a right to self-defence against a non-state actor; and just because Palestine isn't recognized by Israel doesn't make them for all practical matters a "belligerent" or a "party" to the conflict where all the rules still apply for both sides. Another example here might be the Vietnam War and Chinese Civil War or the Korean War where belligerents didn't recognize each other but the intention of the 'rules of law' is probably more about trying to restrain all parties into minimizing unnecessary human suffering. The bombing campaign of North Korea by the USAF wouldn't be more lawful because they didn't recognize North Korea as a state, just as how it wouldn't be lawful for North Korean or PVA troops to summarily execute captured US soldiers (if it hypothetically happened). Hi there. Canada never occupied Ireland. It absolutely matters to the legal discussion about self-defence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 03:58
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:Hi there. Canada never occupied Ireland. It absolutely matters to the legal discussion about self-defence. I understood the crux of Koo's statement as being on whether Palestine is recognized/unrecognized by Israel (that the right to self-defence was on a 'state to state' basis), not that on whether Israel is occupying Palestine, hence my example being other incidences of conflicts between non-state actors/states, but of course Koos can clarify if my understanding was correct or incorrect. In any case, I'm not sure how Israel occupying parts of the West Bank is relevant to Hamas attacking Israel within the internationally recognized Israel green line borders (the area Israel is *not* occupying). That the USSR was occupying/invading Afghanistan doesn't really mean the USSR doesn't have a right to defend itself from the CIA somewhere else even if that CIA sponsored attack is in aid of the Mujahadeen. My understanding of the context was that the discussion was on the question as to which sort of conflicts and which categories of international actors enjoyed the benefits of international law and if they ever "not" applied in some particular set of circumstances and my position is that there's categorically never a point where the rules of war stop applying. Maybe I misunderstood the discussion? Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 04:30
|
|
|
Canada was still part of the British Empire when the Fenian Raids occurred. That was why the Fenians attacked Canada in the first place, as revenge for what the Brits had been doing to Ireland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 05:57
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I understood the crux of Koo's statement as being on whether Palestine is recognized/unrecognized by Israel (that the right to self-defence was on a 'state to state' basis), not that on whether Israel is occupying Palestine, hence my example being other incidences of conflicts between non-state actors/states, but of course Koos can clarify if my understanding was correct or incorrect. At least, I think you did not understand Koos correctly. States have the “right” of self-defense through Article 51 of the UN Charter which permits the use of armed force to defend a nation party to the charter against hostile armed action *by another state* - to the extent that any such right exists. Article 51 does not permit a state to militarily occupy territory and then retaliate against military threats originating from the territory it occupies. If the occupying party is faces violent resistance against its individuals or organizations from within the territory it occupies, it is permitted to engage in limited police actions to ensure the normal course of civilian life or withdraw its occupation. There is no provision of international law that permits Israel to unilaterally blockade Gaza for going-on two decades while periodically dropping Mk 84s into it. Also, Hamas doesn’t accept that it is limited to the Gaza Strip, or that the Gaza Strip is meaningfully separable from the West Bank. To them, and most arbiters of international law, both Gaza and the West Bank constitute the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Israel would like to pretend that it ended its occupation of Gaza and is allowed to occupy the West Bank, but the US would like to pretend it’s an honest broker too, so the Palestinians and their sympathizers could hardly be blamed for not trusting literally any statement out of either Israel or the United Staes without third party verification. Personally, I strongly advocate the US equipping Hamas with both an IADS in order to protect Palestinian life, and whatever materiel is required for Hamas to prosecute their legally permitted military objectives in compliance with any and all applicable laws of armed conflict. Send the Green Berets to train the al Qassam brigades if that is what is required to ensure the emergence of a professional cadre in the Palestinian Armed Forces that can fight this unfortunate war at least as humanely as the IDF
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 06:34
|
|
|
waydownLo posted:At least, I think you did not understand Koos correctly. Okay there's a lot here that I'm not sure if it relates to my post; in any case I definitely didn't say that Israel had any kind of "right" to endlessly drop bombs into Gaza or continuously blockade it, I'll leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 06:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/OmarBaddar/status/1748500922034987013?t=cKME4h2ZEGQZ5i4QAWH_vw (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 08:33
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Settlers would be considered civilians by the standard definition, which is a person who is not a member of the armed forces or police force. I think settlers can be meaningfully viewed as "not civilians" if we're talking about "civilians" as a group Hamas should not attack, which was the meaning that was being used in this discussion. Under international law, Israel is prohibited from transferring its own population into occupied territories, which is exactly what they're doing when they don't prevent settlers from invading Palestine. Israel has also been handing out guns to the settlers for "self defense", and those settler organizations have "security teams" and "civilian armouries". When we're talking about "civilians" as a group of people Hamas should be condemned for attacking, I don't think we should include a group of people with guns (provided by the government or otherwise), who are invading and occupying the territory of another country. Esran fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 11:04
|
|
|
The group is a "militia" in that case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 12:14
|
|
|
Esran posted:I think settlers can be meaningfully viewed as "not civilians" if we're talking about "civilians" as a group Hamas should not attack, which was the meaning that was being used in this discussion. A country can be prohibited from moving its people into a territory while still having the people still be unlawful military targets to deliberately target. Regardless if the point of discussion is regarding the events of October, weren't the Israeli citizens killed within the green line of Israel's recognized borders and not in the West Bank? They obviously wouldn't be settlers in that case, every citizen in Israel in their homes doing their day to day isn't a legitimate military target.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
I'm not saying people killed in October were settlers. I was responding to a poster who felt that posters in this thread were defending "the murder of civilians". I responded that I don't think posters (me and others) are cheering when Israeli civilians are killed. We just consider the current and past governments of Israel to be responsible for these deaths. In that post, I included a parenthetical that I don't think settlers should be categorized as civilians. It wasn't really relevant to the main point of the post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
https://x.com/mj_lee/status/1748475734568444173?s=20 Ahhh gently caress this guy doesn’t have internet or what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
selec posted:https://x.com/mj_lee/status/1748475734568444173?s=20 Biden has to put the best possible face on an impossible position. He has embraced Israel and backed it to the hilt, which Israel has taken as carte blanche for a campaign of rampant brutality against the Palestinians, complete with a vocal and now very public segment of the Israeli populace clamoring for an actual ethnic cleansing at the least, and outright genocide at worst, without any attempt at equivocation or circumlocution. At the same time, Biden also knows that letting that happen is a) Going to absolutely cement the perception ( and, I would argue, reality ) that 'The West' does not give a single poo poo about Palestinians for a generation, at least. b) Show the so-called 'rules-based international order' for the cynical sham that it is c) Not going to actually increase Israeli security at all. Unfortunately, this is - as I keep saying, I'm a broken record, I know, but it's true dammit - an election year. US willingness to lean on Israel is sporadic and erratic at best, but even if there was a will to actually use leverage against Israel, Biden can't do it. The moment he tries to do anything, he will be branded an anti-Semite. Of course, this is all academic, because by the same token, there is no leverage he can actually use. Biden can't cut aid to Israel, can't intervene with force, can't stop military sales or anything else. Not just because of his personal beliefs, or domestic political concerns, but because Congress will never let it happen even if he tried. Which is not even considering the fact that Bibi doesn't want Biden to be re-elected. Bibi wants Trump, who'd probably enthusiastically join in leveling Gaza and then bid for the rebuilding contracts to the Trump organization. And the longer things go on, the more Israel defies any call to stop or moderate or slow down, the more support Biden will lose among young voters and American Muslims. I'm not sure if Biden thought he actually could control Israel by nailing his colors to the mast like he did, but if so, I think he miscalculated. Badly. So now, all he can do is try to say "No, no, Bibi said it but he didn't mean it". Because there's gently caress-all else he can do. ed2: Gumball Gumption posted:He could call it genocide and cut them free. The voters they win will outnumber the ones they lose. I do say this with zero evidence but that's the same amount of evidence provided on why he has to hold course or else it would be a disaster at the polls. Congress may stand in his way but the executive also has options to stymie their attempts to continue to provide aide. I have no idea if he'd gain or lose votes by cutting them free. But apart from the fact that he actually can't just cut them free ( it would entail stopping military and financial aid, which is a no-go with Congress ), calling Israel's actions genocide would entail taking a political risk. And no matter what else, I think we can agree that if there's one thing politicians - any politician - loathes beyond anything else, it's taking risk. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
He could call it genocide and cut them free. The voters they win will outnumber the ones they lose. I do say this with zero evidence but that's the same amount of evidence provided on why he has to hold course or else it would be a disaster at the polls. Congress may stand in his way but the executive also has options to stymie their attempts to continue to provide aide.
Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 18:41
|
|
|
I think this reading assigns way too little agency to Biden as president. Reagan and Bush Sr. were both perfectly capable of yanking the leash. If Biden really wanted to, he could do any number of things to rein in Israel. You can't really blame election concerns or the difficulty of working with Congress, when the man literally went around Congress to hand Israel even more munitions to throw at Gaza in the middle of this genocide. The truth is Biden is fine with what's happening, or he at least doesn't feel strongly enough about it to do more than lightly scold Netanyahu. I'd remind you that Biden has been an ardent Zionist for half a century at this point, he was the top scorer on pro-Israel donations in the Senate. There's no reason to believe that Biden secretly really wants to help Palestine and can't. Edit: I'll also add that the note on Trump is silly lesser-evilism. You're basically saying that Trump would be much worse than Biden, because while they will both help Israel genocide the Palestinians, Trump might also try to make some money off it on the side. quote:I have no idea if he'd gain or lose votes by cutting them free I think you are using the same type of argumentation that people used to defend Obama's right-wing policies. Somehow when it comes to doing good things, the Democrat executive is entirely powerless, but if handed to Trump, it becomes very powerful all of a sudden. The executive is apparently powerful enough to allow the president to send weapons to Israel with no oversight. Is that also a thing Biden has no choice in? Esran fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:Unfortunately, this is - as I keep saying, I'm a broken record, I know, but it's true dammit - an election year. US willingness to lean on Israel is sporadic and erratic at best, but even if there was a will to actually use leverage against Israel, Biden can't do it. The moment he tries to do anything, he will be branded an anti-Semite. Of course, this is all academic, because by the same token, there is no leverage he can actually use. Biden can't cut aid to Israel, can't intervene with force, can't stop military sales or anything else. Not just because of his personal beliefs, or domestic political concerns, but because Congress will never let it happen even if he tried.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 19:02
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:And no matter what else, I think we can agree that if there's one thing politicians - any politician - loathes beyond anything else, it's taking risk. So? They should. It would be better if they did. Being a coward isn't an answer, it is an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:do you honestly believe that his rhetoric would be different if it wasn't an election year? No. I'm saying that even if he wanted to intervene and stop Israel, the support for Israel in the political and governing class is so iron-clad and bipartisan, that there's not much he could do. Like I said, he nailed his colors to the mast and went all in on supporting Israel, who is currently run by a government that wants Biden out of office. I think he made a huge mistake. I don't think he'd do anything different if it wasn't an election year, but given that it is an election year, even if he were to realize what's happening and how bad it's going to be, I don't see there being any appetite in Congress for doing anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
He could choose not to send them extra guns beyond what he thinks Congress would approve. He's sending those guns anyway, because he wants to support Israel. Is it really meaningful to discuss the hypothetical reasons Biden could not stop Israel if he wanted to, when it's obvious to everyone that he doesn't want to? Esran fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
Esran posted:He could choose not to send them extra guns beyond what he thinks Congress would approve. I think so. Because there seems to be an idea that "Oh, if only Biden would come around and put some effort behind it, then he could restrain Israel and keep the genocide from happening". I do not think that is the case at all. At best, the extra guns would stop, but that's about it. Gumball Gumption posted:So? They should. It would be better if they did. Being a coward isn't an answer, it is an excuse. He is a coward, it would be better, and they absolutely should. But they won't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
So your argument is that Biden doesn't want to stop it, won't stop it, but also people are wrong and need to be corrected if they think he could stop it or could take actions that would slow anything down? No offense but what's the point of that argument besides tediously telling people they don't understand the proper path to stopping genocide? This started with you saying Biden had to say Netenyahu supports a 2 state solution. I would also like to suggest that all of the things you absolutely know Biden knows and how Biden has all these internal thoughts that you know are real even though they run counter to what he has done in public speaks to how much soft power someone like the President has and how someone in the position can change minds, like the ones in Congress, by just coming out and saying things like Israel is currently committing genocide. In a lot of ways a President is a cult of personality we just swap out every few years, if they say jump a lot of folks will ask how high. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 19:47
|
|
|
selec posted:https://x.com/mj_lee/status/1748475734568444173?s=20 And of course Netanyahu repeats it today, how long is Biden going to pretend to be blind? https://twitter.com/netanyahu/status/1748764135716749568 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:So your argument is that Biden doesn't want to stop it, won't stop it, but also people are wrong and need to be corrected if they think he could stop it or could take actions that would slow anything down? No offense but what's the point of that argument besides tediously telling people they don't understand the proper path to stopping genocide? This started with you saying Biden had to say Netenyahu supports a 2 state solution. And I think he does. He has to pretend that the two-state solution is still a viable thing. I don't know what he believes in his heart, but for political reasons if nothing else, he has to put the best face he can on this, and at this point that is "Nah, man, he didn't say what he obviously said." It's entirely possible that I've been staring into the abyss too long and should take a mental health break, but that quote is to me really emblematic of how absolutely dire things are. Unless there's some radical change of some sort, I don't think there is any stopping this, because the people who could won't or can't. It's not about there being no proper path to stopping this genocide, it's that I don't see that there's a path at all. fake edit: Case in point: Piell posted:And of course Netanyahu repeats it today, how long is Biden going to pretend to be blind? Yeah, I think a bit of a break might be in order.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
 based on what you've said I think the best thing you personally can do is to do what you can to make it politically unviable for politicians to not say things like Israel is committing genocide. If you think they are cowardly creatures that will only go where the wind blows start blowing wind.Also yeah, a break is a good idea probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 20:21
|
|
|
There is no reason to believe Biden believes anything other than what his action demonstrate. His actions are entirely consistent with his entire career up to this point. Speculating that he may secretly hold less toxic beliefs is sadly wishful thinking. I agree that there is no will to stop this genocide in the US, Israel or most of the West, and it is unrealistic to expect a change of heart at this point. This is one of the reasons you'll find people cheering at things like Yemen's blockade: Whether Ansar Allah is pure of heart or not, their ability to impede traffic is indicating that the US is growing less capable of imposing its will on the world. For the Palestinians, a diminished US would be a clear improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
It is absolutely untrue that there is nothing Biden could do to stop this genocide if he wanted to. He is the commander in chief of the most expensive military on the planet. He could blockade weapons and supplies from entering Israel, set a no fly zone over Gaza, use tactical strikes to reduce their air capability. These would be absolute last resort actions, there are a thousand more things he could use the power of the executive to do. The fact that they would have political consequences for him does not enter into the moral judgement, and to act otherwise is to try and absolve him of his moral responsibility to end a genocide. To be clear, Biden is completely culpable for this and absolutely has the power to end it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 22:31
|
|
