Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Professor T

Bombs away in Israel & Gaza.. Again...

244 posts in this topic

so? it was probably a mere fluke that no one was seriously injured or killed.

you launch rockets at isreal, they are going to hit you back 3 fold if not more. simple logic. :yes: they shouldnt have shot at isreal first.

I don't see how the amount of injuries or deaths is really relevant in this case...

If someone pulls a gun on me, shoots at me but misses, are you really going to fault me for pulling out a gun, shooting him and killing or injuring him?

But what if a group of people charged into your house and took it over claiming it is theirs because they claimed their ancestors lived in the house before and forced you and your family to live in the toilet. And when those living in the toilet objected to that. you then terrorised them.

And if in desperation those living in the toilet pull a gun, you then have the right to chuck phosphorus shells and cluster bombs at their kids.

And yes, while their hands are tied with not real weapons allowed to them. Fish in a barrel have better fighting chances.

Do I fault you?

What for? When you do not know what is decency in the first place.

Cheaper to shoot and kill then make real movement to peace?

Will you then aim those rockets and high tech weapons at me then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel bombs ambulance station

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three Israeli civilians were killed last week when one of those rockets landed in their apartment. The world didn't go apeshit.

Then enlighten me o wise one. If a rocket-shaped projectile with a high explosive tip aimed at a civilian area isn't intended to kill civilians, then what is it for? Showing off?

Three people were killed last week. Do you actually bother keeping abreast of events or do you just like wandering in here and waving your opinions around?

1. I was referring to suicide bombings. And the World would most certainly go apeshit if Hamas set off a bomb in a cafe or something similar.

2. No doubt rockets are made to kill, much in the same way that guns are made to kill. This doesn't mean that killing is the primary reason for their use. They are used, primarily, to spread fear, not death. This is their main use. Similar to the fact that the main use of a gun, though it was created to injure or kill, is to deter violence, not to actually inflict it.

3. Yes, no **** Sherlock. 3 people killed last week, but please try to understand the text in my posts (you always had a hard time with that - it gets tiresome): "than rockets that hadn't killed anyone in 3 years". Can you spot the word that shows your mistake? "hadn't" means past tense, "Haven't" would have meant up until the present.

Is this the same flawed definition system that also says Gaza is occupied and that Israeli apartment blocks are legitimate military targets?

Then what does it make them then? If an individual or a group commits an act of violence or something similar which is designed purely to instill fear and terror in the conscious of a civilian populace then by definition, they are terrorists.

It's not particularly difficult to understand.

1. Gaza, and more importantly, the people of Gaza, are still occupied. This was defined at the Nuremberg Trials, by a load of smart, Western lawyers, not by me.

2. I didn't say that apartment blocks are a legitimate military target. In fact, if you'll please note, I actually described the rockets as a war crime.

3. So you would be of the view that Israel is a terrorist organisation? Applying only your own logic "If an individual or a group commits an act of violence or something similar which is designed purely to instill fear and terror in the conscious of a civilian populace then by definition, they are terrorists", then Israel must be. After all, Israel's entire policy in Gaza is exactly as you describe.

The reason Israel, or the U.S., or Russia are not 'terrorist organisations', or at least the reason they can not be defined as such, is because the term 'terrorist' does not allow for governments and armies to be classed as such.

THE CIA's DEFINITION OF TERRORISM

The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:

1. It is premeditated — planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.

2. It is political — not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.

3. It is aimed at civilians — not at military targets or combat-ready troops.

4. It is carried out by subnational groups — not by the army of a country.

http://www.cfr.org/issue/135/

Do you see number four (mentioned in the paragraph as well)? The big boys of the World (U.S., Russia, China, Britain, Israel, etc) define terrorism in this way so that they themselves cannot be defined as such. Sort of ironic from an Israeli standpoint - as soon as Hamas were elected into government, as soon as they rose from 'subnational' level, it became impossible to throw that term around legitimately without opening themselves up to the same label.

Edited by ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I was referring to suicide bombings. And the World would most certainly go apeshit if Hamas set off a bomb in a cafe or something similar.

2. No doubt rockets are made to kill, much in the same way that guns are made to kill. This doesn't mean that killing is the primary reason for their use. They are used, primarily, to spread fear, not death. This is their main use. Similar to the fact that the main use of a gun, though it was created to injure or kill, is to deter violence, not to actually inflict it.

3. Yes, no **** Sherlock. 3 people killed last week, but please try to understand the text in my posts (you always had a hard time with that - it gets tiresome): "than rockets that hadn't killed anyone in 3 years". Can you spot the word that shows your mistake? "hadn't" means past tense, "Haven't" would have meant up until the present.

1. Gaza, and more importantly, the people of Gaza, are still occupied. This was defined at the Nuremberg Trials, by a load of smart, Western lawyers, not by me.

2. I didn't say that apartment blocks are a legitimate military target. In fact, if you'll please note, I actually described the rockets as a war crime.

3. So you would be of the view that Israel is a terrorist organisation? Applying only your own logic "If an individual or a group commits an act of violence or something similar which is designed purely to instill fear and terror in the conscious of a civilian populace then by definition, they are terrorists", then Israel must be. After all, Israel's entire policy in Gaza is exactly as you describe.

The reason Israel, or the U.S., or Russia are not 'terrorist organisations', or at least the reason they can not be defined as such, is because the term 'terrorist' does not allow for governments and armies to be classed as such.

http://www.cfr.org/issue/135/

Do you see number four (mentioned in the paragraph as well)? The big boys of the World (U.S., Russia, China, Britain, Israel, etc) define terrorism in this way so that they themselves cannot be defined as such. Sort of ironic from an Israeli standpoint - as soon as Hamas were elected into government, as soon as they rose from 'subnational' level, it became impossible to throw that term around legitimately without opening themselves up to the same label.

Which is why Israel does not want the PA pursuing Statehood unilaterally - at least that's part of the reason. I suspect that this current action will make Abbas' task easier in that respect - especially. If that kind of even limited legitimacy is given to the Palestinians then rumblings begin about bringing Israel before International courts for what Israel considers to be legitimate exercise of self defense. It will add much more overall pressure to the situation there. I just don't see how a regional conflict can be delayed much longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
glorybebe, on 19 November 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

And that is what comes to question who the aggressor is. By taking the land away from the Palestinians in the first place, that set this up to be a constant battle. And the Paletinians do not have any rights over in Isreal, Isreal wants the land and no Palestinian citizens.

Israel can't give the land back to the "Palestinians" because these people have NEVER had a country of their own. "Palestine" is a geographical entity not a political one.

Israel occupies what used to be British land - the British Mandate of Palestine, which was created by the British in 1920. In turn, the British Mandate of Palestine once belonged to Ottoman Syria but it became British after the British Empire defeated the Ottoman Empire in the Great War.

Israel isn't the only country that was formed out of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948. Jordan was, too.

Also, Israel isn't the only country which was formed out of Ottoman Syria. So, too, were Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon, parts of Turkey and Iraq, and modern Syria.

So if the Israelis have to give back their land it won't be to the mythical "Palestinians". It would be given back to the British, as it was British land before Israel was established. And if the Israelis give their land back to the British - which I don't want Israel to do because I like the Israelis and their country and support its right to exist - then I would also demand the Jordanians give their land back to the British due to the undeniable fact that, like Israel, Jordan also occupies territory which was once the British Mandate for Palestine.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel can't give the land back to the "Palestinians" because these people have NEVER had a country of their own. "Palestine" is a geographical entity not a political one.

Israel occupies what used to be British land - the British Mandate of Palestine, which was created by the British in 1920. In turn, the British Mandate of Palestine once belonged to Ottoman Syria but it became British after the British Empire defeated the Ottoman Empire in the Great War.

Israel isn't the only country that was formed out of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948. Jordan was, too.

Also, Israel isn't the only country which was formed out of Ottoman Syria. So, too, were Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon, parts of Turkey and Iraq, and modern Syria.

So if the Israelis have to give back their land it won't be to the mythical "Palestinians". It would be given back to the British, as it was British land before Israel was established. And if the Israelis give their land back to the British - which I don't want Israel to do because I like the Israelis and their country and support its right to exist - then I would also demand the Jordanians give their land back to the British due to the undeniable fact that, like Israel, Jordan also occupies territory which was once the British Mandate for Palestine.

Israel didnt exist either before

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel can't give the land back to the "Palestinians" because these people have NEVER had a country of their own. "Palestine" is a geographical entity not a political one.

Israel occupies what used to be British land - the British Mandate of Palestine, which was created by the British in 1920. In turn, the British Mandate of Palestine once belonged to Ottoman Syria but it became British after the British Empire defeated the Ottoman Empire in the Great War.

Israel isn't the only country that was formed out of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948. Jordan was, too.

Also, Israel isn't the only country which was formed out of Ottoman Syria. So, too, were Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon, parts of Turkey and Iraq, and modern Syria.

So if the Israelis have to give back their land it won't be to the mythical "Palestinians". It would be given back to the British, as it was British land before Israel was established. And if the Israelis give their land back to the British - which I don't want Israel to do because I like the Israelis and their country and support its right to exist - then I would also demand the Jordanians give their land back to the British due to the undeniable fact that, like Israel, Jordan also occupies territory which was once the British Mandate for Palestine.

And your point is.......

Edited by shaddow134

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm conflicting reports.

"

1621:

In the last few hours, officials in Cairo are reporting that a ceasefire deal has been struck and will be announced in the coming hours."

But just now "

1646:

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev tells CNN that a ceasefire deal has not been finalised and the "ball is still in play". "Until you're there, you're not there," he said."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20405530

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least both sides have said they want a ceasefire. So good news there. They need to stop throwing rockets at each other.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least both sides have said they want a ceasefire. So good news there. They need to stop throwing rockets at each other.

In the lead up to this Hamas was launching rockets and taking responsibility for that. But over the past few months that were saying it was various splinter groups working independently. If the latter story is true then I doubt Hamas can control those groups. So if the shooting stops without the missiles being removed then the shooting just starts again in a few weeks and it slowly increases. It's ridiculous. On the other hand, since neither side will bend then eventually a regional war is going to occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that so many are minimizing the fact that Hamas has been lobbing rockets into Israel for years now and that it's somehow Israel who is at fault for fighting back. My understanding is that Hamas has fired more rockets in to Israel over the past 3 years than Nazi Germany fired into England during the entire of the Second World War.

And it somehow matters that the rockets miss their targets or don't cause many deaths? Say what?

So if Canada was lobbing rockets into northern Vermont and New Hampshire, the US would be fine with saying "well, they're just landing in the forest so it's really no biggie"? Or if Mexico were firing into the Texas desert (actually a more appropriate analogy since some think of Texas as occupied land stolen from Mexico), we'd be saying "well, nobody really lives there so it's cool".

Hardly.

Glenn Beck had an interesting analogy today as well - what if I stood in the middle of Times Square with an M16 and proceeded to start firing off 3,000 rounds into random windows and just into the air. Sure, I probably wouldn't hurt or kill too many people. So that would be OK or would the NYPD fill me full of holes on the spot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess it's kind of good news, but Hillary Clinton is on the way to Israel, reportedly to try and broker a ceasefire. Also Ban-Ki-Moony is in Egypt trying the same..

Also, some are reporting that Israel and Hamas have agreed to an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, to begin at 22:00 GMT Tuesday, that's about 3 hours away my time.. Netanyahu has said that “if a long-term solution can be put in place through diplomatic means, then Israel would be a willing partner for such a solution,” but maintained that Israel would not tolerate rocket attacks from Gaza.

It looks like some of the media/press are actually starting to ask the right questions for a change too.. It was very good to see one reporter asking a US offical "Don't you think it's about time to stop supporting israel and start trying to broker a truce?"... My god! Give that person a medal!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the lead up to this Hamas was launching rockets and taking responsibility for that. But over the past few months that were saying it was various splinter groups working independently. If the latter story is true then I doubt Hamas can control those groups. So if the shooting stops without the missiles being removed then the shooting just starts again in a few weeks and it slowly increases. It's ridiculous. On the other hand, since neither side will bend then eventually a regional war is going to occur.

This will be the way of Things for a few years yet,the political map has changed in the region,there are a lot of bridges to build and there doesn't seem to be any commen ground.All i can say is good luck to the person who has to try and sort it out,they are going to need plenty of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess it's kind of good news, but Hillary Clinton is on the way to Israel, reportedly to try and broker a ceasefire. Also Ban-Ki-Moony is in Egypt trying the same..

Also, some are reporting that Israel and Hamas have agreed to an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, to begin at 22:00 GMT Tuesday, that's about 3 hours away my time.. Netanyahu has said that “if a long-term solution can be put in place through diplomatic means, then Israel would be a willing partner for such a solution,” but maintained that Israel would not tolerate rocket attacks from Gaza.

It looks like some of the media/press are actually starting to ask the right questions for a change too.. It was very good to see one reporter asking a US offical "Don't you think it's about time to stop supporting israel and start trying to broker a truce?"... My god! Give that person a medal!

Well Obama is the man they've been waiting for, I think. At least he has had the stance of working to bring the Arab/Muslim element into better relationship. I have to say, though, that it doesn't seem to be very successful. They have taken what he offered and then looked at him and said "AND THEN?" (sorry, couldn't resist).... It never seems to be enough for either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel can't give the land back to the "Palestinians" because these people have NEVER had a country of their own. "Palestine" is a geographical entity not a political one.

Israel occupies what used to be British land - the British Mandate of Palestine, which was created by the British in 1920. In turn, the British Mandate of Palestine once belonged to Ottoman Syria but it became British after the British Empire defeated the Ottoman Empire in the Great War.

Israel isn't the only country that was formed out of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948. Jordan was, too.

Also, Israel isn't the only country which was formed out of Ottoman Syria. So, too, were Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon, parts of Turkey and Iraq, and modern Syria.

So if the Israelis have to give back their land it won't be to the mythical "Palestinians". It would be given back to the British, as it was British land before Israel was established. And if the Israelis give their land back to the British - which I don't want Israel to do because I like the Israelis and their country and support its right to exist - then I would also demand the Jordanians give their land back to the British due to the undeniable fact that, like Israel, Jordan also occupies territory which was once the British Mandate for Palestine.

What utter nonsense, Palestine is not "British land" it is located in the Middle East thousands of miles from the British Isles.

Yes, Palestine was once occupied by the imperial British Empire and administered by them after WW I, but to say that Palestine is British land, that like saying that India or Hong Kong is British land. Palestinians are the native and original inhabitants that have lived these ‘lands’ for over two thousand years.

It’s true that there has never been a nation-state called Palestine, but ever since the Jewish Diaspora of 70AD from Judea, the name Palestine has historically been used for the area and its people. The Palestinians (be it Muslim, Christian, or Jew) have been there since Roman times regardless of what the Zionists claim, what has not been there since then is a nation or kingdom known as Israel.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Obama is the man they've been waiting for, I think. At least he has had the stance of working to bring the Arab/Muslim element into better relationship. I have to say, though, that it doesn't seem to be very successful. They have taken what he offered and then looked at him and said "AND THEN?" (sorry, couldn't resist).... It never seems to be enough for either side.

I think the fact that after over half a centry of conflict and devision that has spread across the world it is nearing time for the rest of the world to just step in and remove the power to create conflict from both sides.. AND THEN perhaps after twenty years of not being able to fight each other the people of that nation (as a whole) might be able to live together..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ceasfire failed by the looks of things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that after over half a centry of conflict and devision that has spread across the world it is nearing time for the rest of the world to just step in and remove the power to create conflict from both sides.. AND THEN perhaps after twenty years of not being able to fight each other the people of that nation (as a whole) might be able to live together..

Unfortunately both sides suffer from the same problem,one has to have the last word or shot would be the more appropriate term.The problem is now that the political situation has moved in the favour of Hamas and they may always feel like they have the advantage,which of course they haven't in a Military sense.

If the US pulls the financial plug on Egypt then it would be a matter of time before you had a regional conflict.,

Edited by shaddow134
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately both sides suffer from the same problem,one has to have the last word or shot would be the more appropriate term.The problem is now that the political situation has moved in the favour of Hamas and they may always feel like they have the advantage,which of course they haven't in a Military sense.

If the US pulls the financial plug on Egypt then it would be a matter of time before you had a regional conflict.,

Agreed Shadow, unfortunately both sides take their EYE FOR AN EYE mentality to the extreme max, with this current attitude pervasive among the people of the region it may never be possible for peace to exist in the Middle East.

Olso came so close, Arafat almost had Hama on his side in acceptance to the Israeli right to exist as a nation, but Israeli intransigence on settlement expansion in the West Bank doomed the peace process and evidently lead to the Second Intifada in 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ceasfire failed by the looks of things

Yeah, wishfull thinking perhaps..

I don't think first attempts at cease-fires ever work because one side or the other always has to have that last word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far out the Media have come under attack something chronic!

A building housing the Agence France-Presse office in Gaza has just been hit by an Israeli airstrike, the MENA photo manager for AFP Patrick Baz tweeted. All AFP journalists are reportedly safe.

Three Palestinian Reporters were also killed yesterday..

Two more palestinian reporters killed recently, not sure who by, there's some reports stating that Hamas have killed a journalist or two so far.

An Israeli airstrike has killed two journalists working for the Hamas-run al-Aqsa TV station.

Also over the past three days buildings housing press offices have been targeted by the IDF..

Say's a lot about the value of real information doesn't it.. or perhaps something about the desire to stop that flow of information..

Hearts and minds...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. No doubt rockets are made to kill, much in the same way that guns are made to kill. This doesn't mean that killing is the primary reason for their use. They are used, primarily, to spread fear, not death. This is their main use. Similar to the fact that the main use of a gun, though it was created to injure or kill, is to deter violence, not to actually inflict it.

They are there to kill. Fear is the byproduct of said killing. If you wanted to spread fear, there are much more effective ways. Tell them you will engage on a campaign of suicide bombings for instance.

3. Yes, no **** Sherlock. 3 people killed last week, but please try to understand the text in my posts (you always had a hard time with that - it gets tiresome): "than rockets that hadn't killed anyone in 3 years". Can you spot the word that shows your mistake? "hadn't" means past tense, "Haven't" would have meant up until the present.

Let me guess. You say that they aren't for killing and then say they hadn't killed anyone in three years. Either way, you're still wrong.

1. Gaza, and more importantly, the people of Gaza, are still occupied. This was defined at the Nuremberg Trials, by a load of smart, Western lawyers, not by me.

With the intention of actually physically occupying Germany. They didn't pull all their troops out and then shelled Germany whenever something they didn't approve of happened. The Allies had troops in there, boots on the ground. You know, an actual occupation?

2. I didn't say that apartment blocks are a legitimate military target. In fact, if you'll please note, I actually described the rockets as a war crime.

That's not the point. You've previously said in the past and justified it that a bomb in a cafe would be a legitimate military target because of the fact that despite the presence of civilians, one of the people there "might" be in the military.

That alone is enough to write off whatever you post as the ramblings of someone who is blatantly being obtuse.

3. So you would be of the view that Israel is a terrorist organisation?

The current administration would be. Israel as an entity? No. An entity cannot be a terrorist. Individuals and groups can be terrorists.

Applying only your own logic "If an individual or a group commits an act of violence or something similar which is designed purely to instill fear and terror in the conscious of a civilian populace then by definition, they are terrorists", then Israel must be. After all, Israel's entire policy in Gaza is exactly as you describe.

And as I said, the current administration would be.

The reason Israel, or the U.S., or Russia are not 'terrorist organisations', or at least the reason they can not be defined as such, is because the term 'terrorist' does not allow for governments and armies to be classed as such.

Ever heard of the word "state terrorism"? Just because you are a government doesn't mean you can support or authorise acts of terrorism. They wouldn't be terrorist organisations in the same breadth as Hezbollah or the IRA or ETA, but they would still have committed an act of terrorism and therefore that administration that authorised said acts would be classified as terrorists. Fact is, a state is just as likely to sponsor or conduct an act of terrorism to achieve its own ends than a smaller group. You only to have to look as far back as the Rainbow Warrior to see this.

Do you see number four (mentioned in the paragraph as well)? The big boys of the World (U.S., Russia, China, Britain, Israel, etc) define terrorism in this way so that they themselves cannot be defined as such.

It's so they can exonerate themselves from anything that they may have committed in the past. Certainly, the French government

Sort of ironic from an Israeli standpoint - as soon as Hamas were elected into government, as soon as they rose from 'subnational' level, it became impossible to throw that term around legitimately without opening themselves up to the same label.

The only difference is, Israel is an internationally recognised state and it's government is a representative (until the next elections) of the Israeli people. Hamas is recognised by few countries but no one recognises it as the legitimate government of Palestine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran is giving these millitant hamas gangs rockets, bombs and they are hiding them in people houses . Did you see the hamas gang on the news killing six people and dragging one to death on motorcycles, acusing them of siding with isreal and being spies.They just a terrorist gang and the poor paletinian people who want to live in peace are the ones suffering from their actions.

http://www.foxnews.c...hrough-streets/

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Journalists are civilians and are protected under international law in military conflict," Robert Mahoney, New York-based CPJ's deputy director, said in a statement. "Israel knows this and should cease targeting facilities housing media organizations and journalists immediately."

http://www.ibtimes.c...r-crimes-887630

The Media War, aside from the bombs and missiles, is targeting the Freedom of information in this conflict. Information, truthes, these are just as important as the lives being lost in my opinion because without the truth about what has occured so far and what is occuring as we follow this will only cloud peoples judgement in the future.. The Hearts and Minds campaign going on around the world is costing lives..

Israel is playing the "We are justified because we are being targeted and we are suffering" game..

Hamas is playing the "We are justified because we are being suppressed and our civilians are being targeted" game..

The propaganda war raging on the Airwaves and the Web and on your TV at home is distracting people from the fact that neither side of the conflict are justified in what they are doing, and keeping the world divided in the "Who is Justified" game only serves to perlong the suffering of both sides because it distracts the world from the real issue right now which is attaining a ceasefire.

Edited by Professor T
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting headline... US blocks ‘unbalanced’ UN Security Council statement calling for Gaza ceasefire..

In the context of Power to destroy or power between each side, what part of this conflict is balanced?

This is what happens when nations take sides..

http://rt.com/news/u...ks-gaza-un-185/

Edited by Professor T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.