Ah now I completely agree with that. Notice that I haven't defended Iran in this thread. My basic point is that the behaviour of the State of Israel towards the Palestinians since 1948 has been the main factor in bringing about these crises. The continued land grabbing and building of settlements (illegally even under Israeli law, never mind Conny's dismissal of international law, yet largely with impunity) continues to exacerbate the problem. And while Conny will cry 'off topic' because it doesn't suit his selective vision, I believe it is worth noting that while Jews lived under frequent threat in Christian Europe for nearly two millennia until the extremes of the pogroms and Holocaust, throughout the history of the existance of Islam, Jews were safe and secure until Muslim rulership. Everything changed with the unilateral terrorist-driven landgrab, disenfranchising of Palestinians and declaration of Statehood in 1948. We're not talking about the Vikings or Genghis Khan here; we're talking about events recent enough to have a direct and clear impact on global insecurity today. Iran and every other regional state has every right to feel insecure and seek self-protection in the face of a rogue state that has for over 60 years disregarded concerns and criticism of just about every nation in the world, including it's sponsor America.jm wrote:I make no assumption that the views expressed are representative of the populace. I do presume that the views are government-friendly, I think not unreasonably. If I were Israel I would be concerned, that's all I'm saying. I realize there are crazies on all sides.
Terrorist Attack in Bangkok, Iranian Involved
-
- 20,000 Posts; I need professional help !
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 22651
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:31 pm
- Location: Space, maaaan
I came, I argued, I'm out
- connecticuter
- I need professional help
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:23 pm
- Location: Phnom Penh
I would just add the following. Just because two nations have crazies or fundamentalists, it does not imply that both nations are equally extreme or equally at fault for a failure to resolve a conflict.jm wrote:I make no assumption that the views expressed are representative of the populace. I do presume that the views are government-friendly, I think not unreasonably, Iran is hardly known for its press freedom. If I were Israel I would be concerned, that's all I'm saying. I realize there are crazies on all sides.
I think it is important what position the crazies have in a given society and what degree their craziness represents mainstream views in that society. The clerics of Iran and many Iranian elite buy into the Madhi business, extreme consipiracy theories regarding zionism, and blatant genocidal views. Likewise, with the latter two features amonst the palestinians: consider the latest ruckus over the Fatah backed cleric that made anti-semitic and genocidal statements with no one in the territories batting an eye. I just do not recall Israeli children being paraded down the street in mock suicide vests chanting death to the palestinians with the media not pointing out the wretchedness of such behavior: something all too common in the palestinian territory. In contrast, Israel has a large number of moderates (that call for land for peace) as well as "doves" that are outraged by perceived Israeli atrocities. There just is no serious comparison between what constitutes mainstream views in the palestinian territories and the Israeli nation.
That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.
- connecticuter
- I need professional help
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:23 pm
- Location: Phnom Penh
I guess we have a serious disagreement about the fundamental nature of mideast tension. I do not think that most of the causes of war and tension are rooted in arab sympathy for the palestinians (at least at the government level). In my view, there are two main sources. First, dictatorial regimes feign(ed) sympathy for the palestinians (without soothing the plight of the refugees - many still languish in refugee camps, other nations like it this way). They do (have done) this as a way to shift frustration with their own regimes - shift the peoples anger to the jews rather than their own jailers. They can also use the plight of the palestinians as a pretext for their coldly calculated polices based on balance of power politics. The second source of tension lies with the fundamentalist true believers that truly believe in the extermination of the jews, or at least the elimination of Israel in any form.andyinasia wrote:Ah now I completely agree with that. Notice that I haven't defended Iran in this thread. My basic point is that the behaviour of the State of Israel towards the Palestinians since 1948 has been the main factor in bringing about these crises. The continued land grabbing and building of settlements (illegally even under Israeli law, never mind Conny's dismissal of international law, yet largely with impunity) continues to exacerbate the problem. And while Conny will cry 'off topic' because it doesn't suit his selective vision, I believe it is worth noting that while Jews lived under frequent threat in Christian Europe for nearly two millennia until the extremes of the pogroms and Holocaust, throughout the history of the existance of Islam, Jews were safe and secure until Muslim rulership. Everything changed with the unilateral terrorist-driven landgrab, disenfranchising of Palestinians and declaration of Statehood in 1948. We're not talking about the Vikings or Genghis Khan here; we're talking about events recent enough to have a direct and clear impact on global insecurity today. Iran and every other regional state has every right to feel insecure and seek self-protection in the face of a rogue state that has for over 60 years disregarded concerns and criticism of just about every nation in the world, including it's sponsor America.
For these 2 reasons I just do not believe that Israel has any options or any peace partners. If Israel unilaterally withdrew from both gaza and the westbank, removed all settlers, paid financial reparations, ended the blockade of gaza, removed the security fence, provided the palestinians with a contiguous border, etc..., they would would still find themselves surrounded by a sea of hostile arabs that wanted to drive them into the sea. The suicide bombings would not cease and their arab neighbors would not adopt policies of peace.
I have no doubt that if the US ceased supporting Israel, then there would be a second holocaust.
That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.
- kinglear#1
- I need professional help
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:35 pm
- Location: Out in a storm
This is a very interesting perspective on atrocities perpetrated by Israel:
http://www.peterloud.co.uk/palestine/
"Where is Palestine and why are Palestinians unhappy with their lot?"
In 2008, up to 27th Dec., the home-made rockets that Hamas fired into Israel killed no-one. In return the Israelis killed 400 children and 900 adults in Gaza. After the Israeli attacks Hamas rockets killed 3 Israeli civilians. The Israelis shelled clearly designated UN schools sheltering civilians and used white phosphorus against civilians, both of these actions are war crimes. USA supplied, free, the aircraft, helicopter gunships, missiles, bombs and bullets for these attacks and will block any international condemnation of Israel in UN.
I'm not taking sides, btw. I just want a more balanced perspective, and the media generally tends to focus more on how Israel is the victim.The article above is a bit one-sided and extreme as it reads on.
There are nutters on both sides, sadly. Israel, and the rest of the world, is right to be concerned about Iran, of course, as nutters shouldn't have the bomb. At some point, something has to give.
http://www.peterloud.co.uk/palestine/
"Where is Palestine and why are Palestinians unhappy with their lot?"
In 2008, up to 27th Dec., the home-made rockets that Hamas fired into Israel killed no-one. In return the Israelis killed 400 children and 900 adults in Gaza. After the Israeli attacks Hamas rockets killed 3 Israeli civilians. The Israelis shelled clearly designated UN schools sheltering civilians and used white phosphorus against civilians, both of these actions are war crimes. USA supplied, free, the aircraft, helicopter gunships, missiles, bombs and bullets for these attacks and will block any international condemnation of Israel in UN.
I'm not taking sides, btw. I just want a more balanced perspective, and the media generally tends to focus more on how Israel is the victim.The article above is a bit one-sided and extreme as it reads on.
There are nutters on both sides, sadly. Israel, and the rest of the world, is right to be concerned about Iran, of course, as nutters shouldn't have the bomb. At some point, something has to give.
O, let me not be mad, not mad, sweet heaven
- vladimir
- Feminist Watch List
- Reactions: 4
- Posts: 34235
- Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:43 am
- Location: mod edit
connie, it would have been nice if they had thought about this in (and before) 1948, don't you think? I have met some very smart Israelis whose parents/grandparents (latter, mostly) were involved in the process, and the first thing that struck me was that there was no way they didn't consider/weren't aware of the future plight of the Arabs in making the decision; they simply didn't give a fuck.connecticuter wrote: For these 2 reasons I just do not believe that Israel has any options or any peace partners. If Israel unilaterally withdrew from both gaza and the westbank, removed all settlers, paid financial reparations, ended the blockade of gaza, removed the security fence, provided the palestinians with a contiguous border, etc..., they would would still find themselves surrounded by a sea of hostile arabs that wanted to drive them into the sea. The suicide bombings would not cease and their arab neighbors would not adopt policies of peace.
I have no doubt that if the US ceased supporting Israel, then there would be a second holocaust.
Re the 2nd holocaust, if the US wasn't involved, it wouldn't happen, the law of nature would simply take its course and the whole world wouldn't have to be affected by this crappy situation. My own view is that yes, there are Palestinian and Arab terrorists, but I'm pretty sure they tried dialogue first and resorted to violence later, although we're not really allowed to talk about that.
You said that you don't regard the UN as a legal body because it is not made up of democracies.If we accept that, can you explain why Clinton et al continue to use an 'illegal' body to try and pressure Syria? I'm not defending Syria (pigs) but you need to be consistent, otherwise people will just label you expedient.
I apologise for the coffee remark, I was just taking the piss, nothing personal.It was aimed more at the rich girl out to impress than the impecunious (by choice) philosopher.
ירי ילדים והפצצת אזרחים דורש אומץ, כמו גם הטרדה מינית של עובדי ההוראה.
Whew, now I can sleep at night, knowing that Conner has talked to a few Japs about using atomic bombs and "many" thought they were immoral. What did the few others say?connecticuter wrote:
I would not worry about Japan getting a nuke. I have had discussions with Japanese people on this very matter. Many held that nukes are immoral and ought not to be used. Many also stated that they feared the mere presence of such weapons. ...
- vladimir
- Feminist Watch List
- Reactions: 4
- Posts: 34235
- Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:43 am
- Location: mod edit
I'm sure the Japanese army would never have used the bomb if they had had it before the US.
How can you imprison and torture someone you've blown to pieces?
How can you imprison and torture someone you've blown to pieces?
ירי ילדים והפצצת אזרחים דורש אומץ, כמו גם הטרדה מינית של עובדי ההוראה.
- kinglear#1
- I need professional help
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:35 pm
- Location: Out in a storm
I did say that the article was a bit one-sided and extreme. The facts about the atrocities might well remain, but you're right, I need to find a more balanced reference. I'm just a humble seeker after truth and needed a quick source to point out to connie that it wasn't all one-sided.jm wrote:One more harangue. What's with the maps on that site Lear? To the completely ignorant one would surmise that the appearance of the word Palestine on 19th century maps indicates a pre-existing Palestinian state. The fact that the maps are presented without discussion makes pretty clear the level of intelligence presumed by the author. I think you can do better Lear.
I'm spending time with three pertinent books I highly recommend, Jerusalem: A Biography, Closing of the Muslim Mind, two i mentioned elsewhere, and Laqueur's History of Zionism. E-copies at Garage.
O, let me not be mad, not mad, sweet heaven
-
- 20,000 Posts; I need professional help !
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 22651
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:31 pm
- Location: Space, maaaan
Me too. If I felt that there was a sensible and rational discussion to be had, I might make the time to dig out facts and figures. Now in Conny's last response to me he's saying the CAUSES of the conflict are outside the parameters of his debate, presumably because they rather seriously undermine his extremism; therefore, he wants to focus the debate on imagined scenarios. Sorry, I just don't have the time to waste. The debating methodology being used by a trained academic here is dangerously akin to those used by extremists such as Al-Qaeda supporters or Creation Scientists. Without detailed stats to back me up, I'll just make the general comment that ever since Palestinians started throwing sticks and stones at Israel, the State has consistently reacted with overwhelmingly disproportionate responses (however you much you might dispute the sources and figures KL dug out, the gist is undeniable). For me, the essential issue is a simple one - Justice: impersonal, impartial justice - anyone but the most fanatical extremist would concur that the Palestinians have not had and are not getting it, and that this does matter.kinglear#1 wrote:I did say that the article was a bit one-sided and extreme. The facts about the atrocities might well remain, but you're right, I need to find a more balanced reference. I'm just a humble seeker after truth and needed a quick source to point out to connie that it wasn't all one-sided.jm wrote:One more harangue. What's with the maps on that site Lear? To the completely ignorant one would surmise that the appearance of the word Palestine on 19th century maps indicates a pre-existing Palestinian state. The fact that the maps are presented without discussion makes pretty clear the level of intelligence presumed by the author. I think you can do better Lear.
I'm spending time with three pertinent books I highly recommend, Jerusalem: A Biography, Closing of the Muslim Mind, two i mentioned elsewhere, and Laqueur's History of Zionism. E-copies at Garage.
I came, I argued, I'm out
- connecticuter
- I need professional help
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:23 pm
- Location: Phnom Penh
I never said the causes of regional conflict are outside the bounds of debate. As I said earlier, we seem to have a disagreement over the nature of the causes. In my view the regional causes are rooted in a. fundamentalist Islamic ideology that calls for the murder of jews as part of the religious duty of jihad, and b. dictatorial nations using the plight of palestinians to distract their own repressed publics and as a pretext for their own political machinations. In contrast, you seem to be argueing that a. the very nature that Israel exists is cause, and b. the claim that Israel was founded by terror (which reasonable people can disagree about - it is more complex than that).andyinasia wrote:If I felt that there was a sensible and rational discussion to be had, I might make the time to dig out facts and figures. Now in Conny's last response to me he's saying the CAUSES of the conflict are outside the parameters of his debate, presumably because they rather seriously undermine his extremism; therefore, he wants to focus the debate on imagined scenarios. Sorry, I just don't have the time to waste.
andyinasia wrote:The debating methodology being used by a trained academic here is dangerously akin to those used by extremists such as Al-Qaeda supporters or Creation Scientists.
I think we are really talking past one another. I was trying to get at the Israel/Iran problem. I read you as thinking that palestinians and their neighbors are merely reacting to perceived Israeli injustice. As if Israel made the sorts of changes I suggested earlier, then there would be peace in the region. I see international relations as more complex than that. When countries make claims of justice and law as the source of their motives I am extremely skeptical. As I said before, if the US ceased to provide Israel with protection I have no doubt they would be wiped out.andyinasia wrote:Without detailed stats to back me up, I'll just make the general comment that ever since Palestinians started throwing sticks and stones at Israel, the State has consistently reacted with overwhelmingly disproportionate responses (however you much you might dispute the sources and figures KL dug out, the gist is undeniable). For me, the essential issue is a simple one - Justice: impersonal, impartial justice - anyone but the most fanatical extremist would concur that the Palestinians have not had and are not getting it, and that this does matter.
Finally, I do not think it is important to the discussion at hand about how Israel was founded. The founding of the US was a complicated bloody and less than lawful (by todays standards) affair. Native American Indians are not getting the land back: end of story. The reality on the ground, here today, and not old grievances must guide our analysis and policy recommendations.
The Israelis are not going to give up Israel, there will be no right of return (that will destroy the Jewish nature of Israel). As far as the claim that they overreact, I just do not know what you expect. Israel could turn gaza into a parking lot if they wanted, they show restraint. They show restraint when they use targeted assassinations rather than use full scale invasion. They show restraint by negotiating with Fatah, a terrorist organization. They showed restraint when the ridiculous flotilla members beat Israeli soldiers with pipes. They show restraint when they provide palestinians with jobs and utilities. They show restraint by letting palestinians travel.
How many other nations, in the face of regular terror and with such so called peace partners (which call for your destruction and promote terror) would be as gentle as the Israelis? If I was responsible for policy in Israel I would not tolerate the situation. After one rocket attack from gaza, I would send the troops in - they would not leave until hamas was eliminated.
That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.
- kinglear#1
- I need professional help
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:35 pm
- Location: Out in a storm
This could easily be from "Diary of a Madman" Just the kind of hardliner attitude that leads to more innocent deaths, rather than reasoned argument. Thankfully, you are NOT responsible for policy in Israel. Don't you consider that the hardliners in Hamas have just such unreasonable feelings?connecticuter wrote: In my view the regional causes are rooted in a. fundamentalist Islamic ideology that calls for the murder of jews as part of the religious duty of jihad, and b. dictatorial nations using the plight of palestinians to distract their own repressed publics and as a pretext for their own political machinations. In contrast, you seem to be argueing(SIC) that a. the very nature that Israel exists is cause, and b. the claim that Israel was founded by terror (which reasonable people can disagree about - it is more complex than that).
I think we are really talking past one another. I was trying to get at the Israel/Iran problem. I read you as thinking that palestinians and their neighbors are merely reacting to perceived Israeli injustice. As if Israel made the sorts of changes I suggested earlier, then there would be peace in the region. I see international relations as more complex than that. When countries make claims of justice and law as the source of their motives I am extremely skeptical. As I said before, if the US ceased to provide Israel with protection I have no doubt they would be wiped out.
Finally, I do not think it is important to the discussion at hand about how Israel was founded. The founding of the US was a complicated bloody and less than lawful (by todays standards) affair. Native American Indians are not getting the land back: end of story. The reality on the ground, here today, and not old grievances must guide our analysis and policy recommendations.
The Israelis are not going to give up Israel, there will be no right of return (that will destroy the Jewish nature of Israel). As far as the claim that they overreact, I just do not know what you expect. Israel could turn gaza into a parking lot if they wanted, they show restraint. They show restraint when they use targeted assassinations rather than use full scale invasion. They show restraint by negotiating with Fatah, a terrorist organization. They showed restraint when the ridiculous flotilla members beat Israeli soldiers with pipes. They show restraint when they provide palestinians with jobs and utilities. They show restraint by letting palestinians travel.
How many other nations, in the face of regular terror and with such so called peace partners (which call for your destruction and promote terror) would be as gentle as the Israelis? If I was responsible for policy in Israel I would not tolerate the situation. After one rocket attack from gaza, I would send the troops in - they would not leave until hamas was eliminated.
Any gains Israel has made in terms of territory has been made in exactly that - a forcible way! 'Gentle' Israel (as you call it) is no more gentle than 'Gentle Jesus, meek and mild' , who was so gentle when he bound a length of cord and whipped the money-changers out of the Temple!
Get real, please, connie. Israel has committed numerous atrocities - as has the Palestinian side. Israel is not without blame in this conflict - indeed, it has repeatedly stolen/forced land concessions out of the Palestinians. And wholly backed by the US. Attempts have been made by reasonable US presidents, such as Carter, but the 'we must support Israel' mantra remains - because the support of the pro-Israel lobby is the most powerful in the US and one of the most powerful in the UK. You seem to be seduced by this nonsense.
I'll post more proof of Israel's atrocities, unless you concede that Israel is not 'whiter than white' in this conflict. Stop burying your head in the sand.
In between lessons today, I borrowed "The Arab-Israeli Conflict" off our history teacher, which tome gives a bland, but factual, account of the history of this unfortunate conflict. It is not pleasant reading from Israel's perspective, though is balanced. War benefits not many, but it is by no means a one-sided argument.
The 'gentle' bombing of kids playing on the beach must have been gratifying for the proponents of the 'gentle' Israel lobby!
O, let me not be mad, not mad, sweet heaven
- horace
- I can not turn my computer off ...
- Reactions: 307
- Posts: 5484
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:27 pm
- Location: different planet
I still say the bloke's a nutter, Mr C that is, not the delightful Mr lear.kinglear#1 wrote:This could easily be from "Diary of a Madman" Just the kind of hardliner attitude that leads to more innocent deaths, rather than reasoned argument. Thankfully, you are NOT responsible for policy in Israel. Don't you consider that the hardliners in Hamas have just such unreasonable feelings?connecticuter wrote: In my view the regional causes are rooted in a. fundamentalist Islamic ideology that calls for the murder of jews as part of the religious duty of jihad, and b. dictatorial nations using the plight of palestinians to distract their own repressed publics and as a pretext for their own political machinations. In contrast, you seem to be argueing(SIC) that a. the very nature that Israel exists is cause, and b. the claim that Israel was founded by terror (which reasonable people can disagree about - it is more complex than that).
I think we are really talking past one another. I was trying to get at the Israel/Iran problem. I read you as thinking that palestinians and their neighbors are merely reacting to perceived Israeli injustice. As if Israel made the sorts of changes I suggested earlier, then there would be peace in the region. I see international relations as more complex than that. When countries make claims of justice and law as the source of their motives I am extremely skeptical. As I said before, if the US ceased to provide Israel with protection I have no doubt they would be wiped out.
Finally, I do not think it is important to the discussion at hand about how Israel was founded. The founding of the US was a complicated bloody and less than lawful (by todays standards) affair. Native American Indians are not getting the land back: end of story. The reality on the ground, here today, and not old grievances must guide our analysis and policy recommendations.
The Israelis are not going to give up Israel, there will be no right of return (that will destroy the Jewish nature of Israel). As far as the claim that they overreact, I just do not know what you expect. Israel could turn gaza into a parking lot if they wanted, they show restraint. They show restraint when they use targeted assassinations rather than use full scale invasion. They show restraint by negotiating with Fatah, a terrorist organization. They showed restraint when the ridiculous flotilla members beat Israeli soldiers with pipes. They show restraint when they provide palestinians with jobs and utilities. They show restraint by letting palestinians travel.
How many other nations, in the face of regular terror and with such so called peace partners (which call for your destruction and promote terror) would be as gentle as the Israelis? If I was responsible for policy in Israel I would not tolerate the situation. After one rocket attack from gaza, I would send the troops in - they would not leave until hamas was eliminated.
Any gains Israel has made in terms of territory has been made in exactly that - a forcible way! 'Gentle' Israel (as you call it) is no more gentle than 'Gentle Jesus, meek and mild' , who was so gentle when he bound a length of cord and whipped the money-changers out of the Temple!
Get real, please, connie. Israel has committed numerous atrocities - as has the Palestinian side. Israel is not without blame in this conflict - indeed, it has repeatedly stolen/forced land concessions out of the Palestinians. And wholly backed by the US. Attempts have been made by reasonable US presidents, such as Carter, but the 'we must support Israel' mantra remains - because the support of the pro-Israel lobby is the most powerful in the US and one of the most powerful in the UK. You seem to be seduced by this nonsense.
I'll post more proof of Israel's atrocities, unless you concede that Israel is not 'whiter than white' in this conflict. Stop burying your head in the sand.
In between lessons today, I borrowed "The Arab-Israeli Conflict" off our history teacher, which tome gives a bland, but factual, account of the history of this unfortunate conflict. It is not pleasant reading from Israel's perspective, though is balanced. War benefits not many, but it is by no means a one-sided argument.
The 'gentle' bombing of kids playing on the beach must have been gratifying for the proponents of the 'gentle' Israel lobby!
k440, something to do when you're pissed.
- Lucky Lucan
- K440 Knight Captain
- Reactions: 761
- Posts: 22525
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:24 pm
- Location: The Pearl of the Orient
I'm not particularly big on Palestinians, but I distinctly remember a few full scale invasions over the last few years, which turned large areas of Gaza into a flattened parking lot. How did they show restraint when they stopped that flotilla? They executed at least 10 people. Letting people travel? That's big of them, obviously any normal country would just put a big fence around the place and force them to stay indoors for the rest of their lives.I just do not know what you expect. Israel could turn gaza into a parking lot if they wanted, they show restraint.They show restraint when they use targeted assassinations rather than use full scale invasion. They show restraint by negotiating with Fatah, a terrorist organization. They showed restraint when the ridiculous flotilla members beat Israeli soldiers with pipes. They show restraint when they provide palestinians with jobs and utilities. They show restraint by letting palestinians travel.
I still say the bloke's a nutter
Too bleeding right.
Romantic Cambodia is dead and gone. It's with McKinley in the grave.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Iranian-American longtime criminal David Reza Shahriari accused of stealing passports, moto and viagra in Cambodia
by gavinmac » Fri Oct 04, 2019 12:13 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 8 Replies
- 10952 Views
-
Last post by ricecakes
Sat Oct 05, 2019 2:33 am
-
-
-
4 Bombs in Bangkok
by Bong Burgundy » Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:12 am » in Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar and Lao forums - 2 Replies
- 1301 Views
-
Last post by Jep
Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:12 pm
-
-
- 4 Replies
- 1228 Views
-
Last post by Lucky Lucan
Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:07 pm
-
- 12 Replies
- 1962 Views
-
Last post by Chroy Changvarite
Sun Apr 21, 2024 2:30 am