What's new

Turkish Navy and PM to accompany more aid ships to Gaza

Turkish PM mulls over joining Gaza aid flotilla backed by Turkish Navy


TURKISH Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was considering sailing to the Gaza Strip as part of an aid flotilla backed by the Turkish Navy.

Lebanese newspaper al Mustaqbal quoted security sources as saying that Mr Erdogan was pondering the move in order to break the barrier imposed against Gaza by Israel.

It said that "as part of the open conflict between Turkey and Israel following the massacre against the 'freedom sail' to Gaza and the protest sparked in the world, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan is considering going to Gaza himself in order to break the blockade imposed on the Strip."

The sources said Erdogan raised the option in discussions with associates.

The report added that the Turkish leader also told the U.S. that he planned to ask his navy to escort another aid flotilla - but officials in Washington asked him to delay the plan in order to look into the matter.


The move followed strong criticism of Israel by Erdogan after Israeli armed forces killed several people on board an aid flotilla Monday, sparking widespread international condemnation.

When the possibility of Erdogan joining a flotilla was posed to Mark Regev, the spokesman for the Israeli prime minister, he said such a move was not a "realistic scenario" and dismissed it outright.

"Some of these reports must be taken with a grain of salt ... I am not sure that is a realistic scenario," he told Sky News.

"I prefer that we sort these things out peacefully. Nobody wants any saber-rattling. It does not do any good," said Regev.

Turkish PM mulls over joining Gaza aid flotilla backed by Turkish Navy | Herald Sun
 
sorry bro i just hate the ignorance of isreal ja know .... baically i just dont want turkey to be embargoed for starting a war that they dident start
 
yes they all were mass murdered.
they broke treaties..??
what treaties..???
treaties had the precondition that accept islam or die , and when they refused to accept islam they were wiped out.
do u call this breaking a treaty..??
if im wrong , plz tell me what were in those treaties..??
Also, they weren't towns, they were tribes. Shows how much you know.[/QUOTE]

i know they werent town but tribes.
does it make it any difference ..??? the entire population of those tribes were massacared , and ure teaching me the difference between town n tribe..??

[/QUOTE]From there a majority of them went north and west and spread out toward Europe and the rest of Arabia.[/QUOTE]

but why did they go to europe..??
why werent they allowed to live in thier native lands..??
they lived and called those lands home for thousands of years , why did they have to leave those lands..??

[/QUOTE]I can't believe you actually think Muslims hate Jews just because a bunch of 12 year olds went on about bombing Israel.[/QUOTE]

who is making that 12 year old kid become a suicide bomber..??
who taught him that by killing civilians he will get 72 virgins..??

ure whole system is skewed and upside down.

tell me do all muslims hate jews or not ..??



[/QUOTE]Go study Muslim Spain and the Crusades.[/QUOTE]

i can teach u about spain and crusades better than ure biased textbooks and zaid hamid.
lets not discuss it here.

[/QUOTE]Muslims and Jews worked together and achieved victory in defending their conquered lands.[/QUOTE]

really..???
which land...???
all the lands of jews today have been taken by muslims .
jews are left with only a tiny piece of land called israel today , and muslims are after that too.

[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, the majority of today's Jews only work for themselves, which is admirable indeed, but they overdo it and end up hurting those around them. And that is where today's conflict begins.[/QUOTE]

what...???
so according to u.. reason of these conflicts is that jews are working too much..??
do u know what ure talking.???
the war in the Middle East is not over land. It is over religious beliefs.
it is becoz of the hatred that is spoonfed to the kids of palestine and other islamic countries against jews.

FACE IT[/QUOTE]

Your knowlege of muslim history is at best pathetic. There were no treaties of muslim's with jew's that say, convert or be killed.

All they muslim,s wanted from these jew's is to remain nuetral in case the Quresh tribe attacks madina, but as in there blood they tried to play double game and paid the price.

Jew's were more killed and banished by christian than muslim's in history, go check early christian history.

Jew's r like parasite's, they eat there host from inside untill its to late. (american's will know that very soon).

Just imagine no planted Israel in ME, will there be any conflict between Muslim's and chirstian.


Jew's know that there survival depends upon Muslim/Chirstian confilit, otherwise they will be in deep trouble coz of there double's face nature.

Jesus christ was crucified coz of jewish informer.

:cheers:
 
No because confront the evil, though i dont consider it a wise move

But i consider it a good move because i think

1) it will boost up the Palestinian's morale, atleast now they are aware of the fact that someone is there to stand up for their rights

2) The other muslim nations will also rethink n regroup after this act n may future will bring them also in the party

3) It will create a sense of unity b/w muslims

4) N most importantly israel may will reconsider their acts after knowing that some forces are openly resisting her evil deeds with courage

5) If this happens it will b kinda revolution in muslim world

And remember a war is due b/w Muslims and Jews and its not me who is saying this , Its in our Ahadith books and also in jewish scripture thats how it will trigger
 
Last edited:
well if talk about indian so what we can aspect pakistany people that support terrorism in india and call those terrorist freedom fighter ????

in case of Isreal - Turkey .... yes only Isreal have nuke

The last time I checked A Moron was lecturing 2 very senior members here about how to spell hindustani, when they had written hindustany So as you guys like to whine about the spellings and details. Remember this that Pakistani is the right word and not Pakistany
 
Boarding a commercial vessel with the resulting loss of human life, However tragic it is. Does not quite meet the same threshold as sending warships into territorial waters. flags of convenience are pretty much franchised sovereignty. It is also the reason why NATO would not consider them to be attacks upon Turkey. There by invoking intervention by NATO. An attack on a warship is a whole other matter.

Remember when Iran was attacking commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf with mines and RPG's years back? Yet countries did not consider them acts of war.

I hope this will answer your argument.

America Joins The War
America was a reluctant to participate in World War 1, infact in august 1914 when the war broke out in Europe; President Woodrow Wilson issued a declaration of neutrality. Preferring to remain isolated from the war, America tried to broker peace between the allies and the axis, the war was in Europe; America did not need to get involved.

On May 7th 1915, German U-boats, patrolling in the Atlantic Ocean, fired torpedos at the British passenger ship Lucitania sinking her in 20 minutes. Onboard were 128 Americans.

Woodrow Wilson, demanded that Germany stop attacking passenger ships, and declared that America was too proud to fight.

Wilson also tried to mediate a compromise settlement but failed.

Wilson also repeatedly warned that America would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, as it was in violation to American ideas of human rights. Wilson was under great pressure from former president Theodore Roosevelt, who denounced German "piracy" and Wilson's cowardice.

In January 1917, Germany announced it would destroy all ships heading to Britain. Although Wilson broke off diplomatic ties with Germany, he still hoped to avert war by arming merchant vessels as a deterrent. Nevertheless, Germany began sinking American ships immediately.


The above happened in international waters, and mind you it has been documented extensively throughout history that the US was at time supplying munition to the Brits under the pretext of commercial shipping. So that in a way was a legal target for the Germans, but when that scenario can start a war then what happens when an aid convoy gets attacked.
 
Oren: Turkey has embraced the leaders of Iran and Hamas
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
06/06/2010 05:28

Erdogan: Hamas is not a terrorist organization.
Talkbacks (5)

WASHINGTON – Israel envoy criticized Ankara’s outreach to terrorist groups Friday, the same day that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as saying Hamas is not a terrorist organization.

“Turkey has embraced the leaders of Iran and Hamas, all of whom called for Israel’s destruction,” Ambassador Michael Oren declared.

“Our policy has not changed but Turkey’s policy has changed, very much, over the last few years,” he said. “Under a different government with an Islamic orientation, Turkey has turned away from the West.”

But Oren, speaking on a conference call organized by The Israel Project, held out hope for reconciliation.

“We certainly do not have any desire in any further deterioration in our relations with the Turks,” he said. “It’s an important Middle Eastern power. It has been a friend in the past.”

Erdogan on Friday declared at a rally that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but a resistance movement, according to the Istanbul-based daily Hürriyet.

Erdogan said that Hamas, the legitimate winner of the Palestinian elections, was fighting for its land.

“You are always talking about democracy. You’ll never let Hamas rule. What kind of democracy is this?” he said, apparently addressing the Israeli leadership.

“I do not think that Hamas is a terrorist organization,” Erdogan was quoted as saying. “They are Palestinians in resistance, fighting for their own land.”

The Turkish leader went on to echo Tuesday’s speech, in which he called Israel’s boarding of the Gaza flotilla “a massacre.”

In his address Friday, he said the Ten Commandments should have deterred the soldiers from killing the nine men who died onboard the Mavi Marmara. “If you do not understand it in Turkish, I will say it in English: You shall not kill,” he reportedly said – repeating the phrase in Hebrew.

“They even slaughtered 19-year-old Furkan. They did not even care for the babies in the cradle,” Erdogan said.

Nineteen-year-old Furkan Dogan, a Turkish-American was the youngest of the nine activists killed in the raid. His funeral Friday in his family’s hometown in Kayseri in central Turkey drew 10,000 people, some chanting, “Down with Israel.”

“Neither I nor his mother or brother have any grief,” his father, Ahmet Dogan, told The Associated Press as he arranged flowers on his son’s coffin before prayers started. “We believe he became a martyr and God accepts martyrs to paradise.”

In his speech, Erdogan also slammed Turkish media reports that were critical of his Justice and Development Party’s support of Hamas, saying the “columnists” had a slanted view of the events.

Earlier on Friday, Turkey’s deputy prime minister said his country would work to reduce its military and economic cooperation with Israel. Existing contracts would be reviewed and reworked or canceled, he said.



Oren: Turkey has embraced the leaders of Iran and Hamas
 
BTW, What is the better way?

The better way would be to put diplomatic pressure. These small errands will be termed as mis adventures. If her really is concerned about the people of Gaza ( what ever may be the reason) he should look out for a long term solution, which can feed them for years to come and the way in which the people of Gaza can be self sufficient. Taking a flotilla to Gaza is not going to change anything.
 
The better way would be to put diplomatic pressure. These small errands will be termed as mis adventures. If her really is concerned about the people of Gaza ( what ever may be the reason) he should look out for a long term solution, which can feed them for years to come and the way in which the people of Gaza can be self sufficient. Taking a flotilla to Gaza is not going to change anything.

KB when you talk about Diplomatic Pressure let me divert your attention to the following;

United Nations General Assembly resolutions

See also: United Nations General Assembly resolution
This list is incomplete;

1975 March 22: UN General Assembly Resolution 3379: equating Zionism with racism
1991

See also: United Nations Security Council resolution

Resolution 106: The Palestine Question (29 Mar 1955) 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid.


Resolution 111: The Palestine Question (January 19, 1956) " ... 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".

Resolution 127: The Palestine Question (January 22, 1958) " ... 'recommends' Israel suspends its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".

Resolution 138: (June 23, 1960) Question relating to the case of Adolf Eichmann, concerning Argentine complaint that Israel breached its sovereignty.

Resolution 162: The Palestine Question (April 11, 1961) " ... 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".

Resolution 171: The Palestine Question (April 9, 1962) " ... determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".

Resolution 228: The Palestine Question (November 25, 1966) " ... 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under
Jordanian control".

Resolution 237: Six Day War June 14, 1967) " ... 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".

Resolution 240 (October 25, 1967): concerning violations of the cease-fire

Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel's neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict

Resolution 248: (March 24, 1968) " ... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".

Resolution 250: (April 27) " ... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".

Resolution 251: (May 2) " ... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".

Resolution 252: (May 21) " ... 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".

Resolution 256: (August 16) " ... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".

Resolution 259: (September 27) " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".

Resolution 262: (December 31) " ... 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".

Resolution 265: (April 1, 1969) " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on Salt, Jordan".

Resolution 267: (July 3) " ... 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".

Resolution 270: (August 26) " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".

Resolution 271: (September 15) " ... 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".

Resolution 279: (May 12, 1970) "Demands the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory."(full text)

Resolution 280: (May 19) " ... 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".

Resolution 285: (September 5) " ... 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".

Resolution 298: (September 25, 1971) " ... 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".

Resolution 313: (February 28, 1972) " ... 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".

Resolution 316: (June 26) " ... 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".

Resolution 317: (July 21) " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".

Resolution 332: (April 21) " ... 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".

Resolution 337: (August 15) " ... 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".

Resolution 338 (22 October 1973): cease fire in Yom Kippur War

Resolution 339 (23 October 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.

Resolution 347: " ... 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".

Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between
Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.

Resolution 425 (1978): " ... 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was completed by 16 June 2000.

Resolution 427: " ... 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon".

Resolution 444: " ... 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN
peacekeeping forces".

Resolution 446 (1979): 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

Resolution 450: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".

Resolution 452: " ... 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".

Resolution 465: " ... 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".

Resolution 467: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".

Resolution 468: " ... 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".

Resolution 469: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".

Resolution 471: " ... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

Resolution 476: " ... 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".

Resolution 478 (20 August 1980): 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'.

Resolution 484: " ... 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".

Resolution 487: " ... 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".

Resolution 497 (17 December 1981) decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.

Resolution 498: " ... 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".

Resolution 501: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".

Resolution 509: " ... 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".

Resolution 515: " ... 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".

Resolution 517: " ... 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".

Resolution 518: " ... 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".

Resolution 520: " ... 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".

Resolution 573: " ... 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.

Resolution 587 " ... 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".

Resolution 592: " ... 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".

Resolution 605: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.

Resolution 607: " ... 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Resolution 608: " ... 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".

Resolution 636: " ... 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.

Resolution 641 (30 Aug 1989): " ... 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.

Resolution 648 (31 Jan 1990)[1] The Security Council extends the mandate of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon until July 31, 1990.

Resolution 672 (12 Oct 1990): " ... 'condemns' Israel for "violence against Palestinians" at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

Resolution 673 (24 Oct 1990): " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.

Resolution 681 (20 Dec 1990): " ... 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.

Resolution 694 (24 May 1991): " ... 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.

Resolution 726 (06 Jan 1992): " ... 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.

Resolution 799 (18 Dec 1992): ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

Resolution 904 (18 Mar 1994): Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.

Resolution 938 (28 Jul 1994): extends mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon until January 31, 1995.

Resolution 1701 (11 August 2006) called for the full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.

Resolution 1860 (9 January 2009) called for the full cessation of war between Israel and Hamas.


Now above are some of the UN resolutions against israel, and can you tell me how many of them did they actually comply with. And this is the diplomatic pressure that you are talking about.
 
This is what ANY nation should do. The only thing is our nation's leaders are sold off to these western powers perhaps even on their payrolls, so they never really uphold national pride or try to do the right thing like feed hungry and destitute people and prevent a genocide.

This is happening only because Turkey is spearheading this on Israel. Had it been Pakistan, Iran, etc any other country, it would have been fruitless. Turkey carries diplomatic as well as economic might- and they are forcing the rest of the world to condemn Israel.

They are also not dependent on NATO armies for their defence. They can handle it themselves.
 
KB when you talk about Diplomatic Pressure let me divert your attention to the following;

<snip>

Now above are some of the UN resolutions against israel, and can you tell me how many of them did they actually comply with. And this is the diplomatic pressure that you are talking about.

Thanks Khalidali for pulling out all these details.

Now we both agree that Israel has done something which rest of the world did not like ( or atleast showed that they dint like)

Now, if back in 1971 UN publicly condemned the act of Israel and still no one could do anything till 2010, why do you think Israel care a hoot about anyone.

Let me be clear that I am not a blind Israel supporter nor I am against the people of Gaza in anyway. What I am saying is that a PM going personally to deliver some AID looks so inappropriate. If Turkey thinks it has the political and military might to take on Israel, which no other nation had the guts till now, dont you think they should think of long term solutions?

Will the PM come with each flotilla to Gaza? Or is he trying to provoke Israel for some misadventure?
 
Thanks Khalidali for pulling out all these details.

Now we both agree that Israel has done something which rest of the world did not like ( or atleast showed that they dint like)

Now, if back in 1971 UN publicly condemned the act of Israel and still no one could do anything till 2010, why do you think Israel care a hoot about anyone.

Let me be clear that I am not a blind Israel supporter nor I am against the people of Gaza in anyway. What I am saying is that a PM going personally to deliver some AID looks so inappropriate. If Turkey thinks it has the political and military might to take on Israel, which no other nation had the guts till now, dont you think they should think of long term solutions?

Will the PM come with each flotilla to Gaza? Or is he trying to provoke Israel for some misadventure?

See the reason that the israelies dont give even an ear to the international community is that they have uncle sam on their side. They know that no matter what the american gov will come to their aid in a heart beat. I mean how many times have you seen a country literally destroying another countries warship and still that country dont even conduct an investigation. So the bottom line is that the americans will take care of the problems for the israelies. Now will Edgordan personally go to Gaza, I highly doubt it. Yet again the americans gov will come into the pic and try to sort out the mess. But is the Turkish PM wrong in creating all of this pressure on them no he is not. Will I support him to go to Gaza! yes I will. But is this the right time. No!
No, because the Turks have done a wonderful job thus far, and every one is on their side. So if they involve the military at this moment this will immediately shift the world opinion. And the media supporters of Zion are very capable of doing this.
That said the only language that the israelies understand is the language of the sword, gun, or might what ever you want to call it. Many argue that they comprehensively beat the Arabs in almost all the wars. But there were many things that have played a role in their victory. The biggest one of them was the american assistance. And the one even bigger one than that was the disunity amongst arabs. The israelies realized that Egypt could become a problem that they couldnt handle after 73 and they didnt hesitate for a sec to shake their hand when it was on offer.
 
Will the PM come with each flotilla to Gaza? Or is he trying to provoke Israel for some misadventure?

someone have to take some action about this illegal blockade.. And this action have to be started by somebody in that region...

If turkey is helping Palestinians now then they have the right to help them.. PM will only come to stop that illegal blockade of Israel and they have no intention of war. turkey navy will not enter in Israeli waters.. If they enter in Israeli waters then Israel can say what ever they want.....

They will go from international waters to Gaza and Israelis should have issues with it.... Israel has no right to stop them wherever they go in the international waters ...

Israel should not stop them in international waters UNLESS if they want to start war with Turkey .. and If Israel does then definitely it will have to face the consequences....

And once that illegal blockade is finished then there is no need of rulers to go with the aid ship.. Turkish PM is going to stop the illegal blockade of Israelis on Gaza and I support him in this step.....
 
See the reason that the israelies dont give even an ear to the international community is that they have uncle sam on their side. They know that no matter what the american gov will come to their aid in a heart beat. I mean how many times have you seen a country literally destroying another countries warship and still that country dont even conduct an investigation. So the bottom line is that the americans will take care of the problems for the israelies. Now will Edgordan personally go to Gaza, I highly doubt it. Yet again the americans gov will come into the pic and try to sort out the mess. But is the Turkish PM wrong in creating all of this pressure on them no he is not. Will I support him to go to Gaza! yes I will. But is this the right time. No!
No, because the Turks have done a wonderful job thus far, and every one is on their side. So if they involve the military at this moment this will immediately shift the world opinion. And the media supporters of Zion are very capable of doing this.
That said the only language that the israelies understand is the language of the sword, gun, or might what ever you want to call it. Many argue that they comprehensively beat the Arabs in almost all the wars. But there were many things that have played a role in their victory. The biggest one of them was the american assistance. And the one even bigger one than that was the disunity amongst arabs. The israelies realized that Egypt could become a problem that they couldnt handle after 73 and they didnt hesitate for a sec to shake their hand when it was on offer.

Well, First thing you said was Israel dont care about the world opinion because of the Big Daddy, So why do you think the situation has changed any bit. US is still the lone superpower, and its still putting that umbrella over Israel. So, nothing has changed since 1971. Well Can the trip of PM, Turkey change a thing? May be not, But ,May be its the beginning of the change.

About the PM going there, I highly doubt it. He would be already under tremendous back door pressure. I wont be surprised if the things change very soon and media will cover it intelligently.
 
Back
Top Bottom