6 August - Aniversarea atacului de la Hiroshima

#0 by BlackCross

(Raging Lunacy) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 14:50:00 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks during World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States of America under US President Harry S. Truman. On August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, followed on August 9, 1945 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. They are the only instances of the use of nuclear weapons in warfare.

In estimating the number of deaths caused by the attacks, there are several factors that make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures: inadequacies in the records given the confusion of the times, and the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda. The United States Department of Energy estimates that, at Hiroshima, the death toll from the immediate blast was roughly 70,000, with additional deaths occuring in the time soon after the explosion and in the decades that followed. The figures for Nagasaki are slightly less. Other estimates vary widely, and are as low as 74,000 for Nagasaki. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were civilians.

The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification of them, has been subject to much debate.

On August 15, 1945 Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2 which officially ended World War II. Furthermore, the experience of bombing led post-war Japan to adopt Three Non-Nuclear Principles, which forbids Japan from nuclear armament.

Inherently immoral

A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes or crime against humanity. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"
A number of scientists who worked on the bomb were against its use. Led by Dr. James Franck, seven scientists submitted a report to the Interim Committee (which advised the President) in May 1945, saying:

"If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons."
On August 8, 1945, Albert Camus addressed the bombing of Hiroshima in an editorial in the French newspaper Combat:

"Mechanized civilization has just reached the ultimate stage of barbarism. In a near future, we will have to choose between mass suicide and intelligent use of scientific conquests[...] This can no longer be simply a prayer; it must become an order which goes upward from the peoples to the governments, an order to make a definitive choice between hell and reason."
In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage:

"As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."
In 1963 the bombings were the subject of a judicial review in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State. On the 22nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the District Court of Tokyo declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general, but found that "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war."

New York City: An anti-nuclear weapon display in Tompkins Square Park on August 4, 2006In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923 and was therefore illegal.

As the first military use of nuclear weapons, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent to some the crossing of a crucial barrier. Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC wrote of President Truman:

”He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species. It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity."
Kurznick is one of several observers who believe that the U.S. was largely motivated in carrying out the bombings by a desire to demonstrate the power of its new weapon to the Soviet Union. Historian Mark Selden of Cornell University has stated "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan."

Takashi Hiraoka, mayor of Hiroshima, upholding nuclear disarmament, said in a hearing to The Hague International Court of Justice (ICJ):

"It is clear that the use of nuclear weapons, which cause indiscriminate mass murder that leaves [effects on] survivors for decades, is a violation of international law".
Iccho Itoh, the mayor of Nagasaki, declared in the same hearing:

"It is said that the descendants of the atomic bomb survivors will have to be monitored for several generations to clarify the genetic impact, which means that the descendants will live in anxiety for [decades] to come. [...] with their colossal power and capacity for slaughter and destruction, nuclear weapons make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants or between military installations and civilian communities [...] The use of nuclear weapons [...] therefore is a manifest infraction of international law."
John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples why the US should not adhere to the International Criminal Court (ICC):

"A fair reading of the treaty [the Rome Statute concerning the ICC], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable."
Although bombings do not meet the definition of genocide, some consider that this definition is too strict, and that these bombings do represent a genocide. For example, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."

Historical accounts indicate that the decision to use the atomic bombs was made in order to provoke an early surrender of Japan by use of an awe-inspiring power. These observations have caused some commentators to state that the incident was an act of "war terrorism". Michael Walzer wrote, "... And, finally, there is war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case." This type of claim eventually prompted historian Robert Newman, a supporter of the bombings, to argue that the practice of terrorism is justified in some cases.

Militarily unnecessary

Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.

One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

What was originally the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall has now been turned into the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. The atomic bomb exploded almost directly overhead.The survey assumed that conventional bombing attacks on Japan would greatly increase as the bombing capabilities of July 1945 were ...a fraction of its planned proportion... due to a steadily high production rate of new B-29s and the reallocation of European airpower to the Pacific. When hostilities ended, the USAAF had approximately 3700 B-29s of which only about 1000 were deployed.

Had the war gone on these and still more aircraft would have brought devastation far worse than either bomb to many more cities. The results of conventional strategic bombing at the cease-fire were summed up thusly:

"...On the basis of photo coverage, intelligence estimated that 175 square miles of urban area in 66 cities were wiped out. Total civilian casualties stemming directly from the urban attacks were estimated at 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured, and 9,200,000 rendered homeless." General Haywood S. Hansell
General MacArthur has also contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition. Before the bombings, the position of the Japanese leadership with regards to surrender was divided. Several diplomats favored surrender, while the leaders of the Japanese military voiced a commitment to fighting a "decisive battle" on Kyūshū, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward. The Japanese government did not decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme War Council was still split, with the hard-liners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials would be conducted, and no occupation of Japan would be allowed. Only the direct intervention of the emperor ended the dispute, and even then a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender.

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945.

Victimele supraveţuitoare a ataculului: copii, femei, bătrăni, civili, toate mutilate de mâinile "iubiţilor noştri" americani:

Editat de către BlackCross la 2007-08-05 15:12:06

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

1 2 3 4 5
<< Precedenta Următoarea >>

#26 by 13voin Drivers Club

(Carasic) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 19:23:49 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

#5 AzerothX, da eu au inceput..dar razboiul deja era aproape gata ...iar bomba era un mesaj pentu URSS asa ca americanii chiar sint cei vinovastsi.. de moartea sutelor de mii de oameni mai ales ca a urmat si a 2 bomba.. kare kiar era de prisos..

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#27 by KillaPriest (Drunken McLoud) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 19:40:15 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

da saracii oameni si de la Harbour shi de la Hiroshima =(

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#28 by marius55555 (Arsenaloholic) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 19:51:55 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

autoritatile au fost vinovate, caci n-au fost de acord cu capitularea tarii. Nu numai americanii, dar si sovieticii erau sa procedeze astfel

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#29 by BlackCross

(Raging Lunacy) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 20:48:20 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

#28 marius55555, "... autoritatile au fost vinovate ..." - autorităţile şi aşa aveau să capituleze în căteva săptămâni, atacul era absolut ne necesar, un moft al călăilor americani.

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#30 by marius55555 (Arsenaloholic) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 20:53:40 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

#29 BlackCross minciuni, ei au prelungit sa lupte atit cu fortele americane cit si cu fortele sovietice.

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#31 by NovaSky (User) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 20:54:11 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

#29 BlackCross, "... un moft al călăilor americani ..." +1

Au murit foarte multi oameni nevinovati :rip:

#28 marius55555, "... dar si sovieticii ..." - poate ma insel dar nu cred ca pe atunci rusii aveau bombe atomice :-/

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#32 by marius55555 (Arsenaloholic) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 20:55:33 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

#31 DarkMaster, desigur, dar am avut in vedere ca erau sa procedeze la fel(daca dispuneau de asemenea bombe).

Nu sunt impotriva japonezilor, caci stiu ca poporul japonez este unul muncitor. In urmatorul an de dupa razboi situatia economica a Japoniei era la acelasi nivel ca si cea a R.Moldova in 2001(asa spun statisticele). Doar consider ca in primul rind au fost vinovate autoritatile japoneze.

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#33 by vict90 (Power User) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 21:21:51 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

Ha, in schimb a fost un kabumts foarte frumos

Insa, daca sa fim seriosi, Japonia si-a facut cu miinile proprii aceasta tragedie, cum a mai fost spus din naivitate si nedorinta de a capitula de binevol.

P.S. Moartea oamenilor nevinoveti e unicul si cel mai convingator argument intr-u terminarea razboaielor. Asta a inteles SUA, si in cazul dat ii sustin pe ei mai mult decit pe acei oameni care au dat sufletul in boom-ul cela.

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#34 by M4L3Tz (User) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 21:43:19 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

tragic, dar a fost razboi, "scopul scuza mijloacele". Omul (omenirea) din greseli invata, si cred ca aceasta a fost una din cele mai mari greseli, insa cum au mai scris mai sus Japonia singura si-a ales aceasta cale, facand alianta cu germanii si cu italienii.

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#35 by loliki (User) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 22:14:24 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

Pe 6 August ii ziua lu tatmeu asa ca eu voi sarbatori da ce sa intimplat la Hiroshima a fost foarte strashnic caldura era de 4000 grade C. din oameni raminea doar cenusha

foarte tragic:

http://play.md/video/e3e62149-ed8d-4464-826b-227151cfaf50

http://play.md/video/912bc8c8-2240-4f6c-a2e0-8612a56b14ef

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#36 by BlackCross

(Raging Lunacy) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 22:46:23 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

#31 DarkMaster, "... poate ma insel dar nu cred ca pe atunci rusii aveau bombe atomice ..." - nu aveau

#30 marius55555, "... minciun ..." - ada argumente ca sunt minciuni!

#33 vict90, "... Ha, in schimb a fost un kabumts foarte frumos ..." - geez, you're sick! :suicide:

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#37 by lopata (Хырлец) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 22:51:03 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

#35 loliki, roliku al 2 e foarte trist

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#38 by MDD (Rupe sârma de la Prut !!!) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 22:59:30 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

dupa fapta si rasplata.
Nu treabuia japonezii sa faca ceea ce au facut in Pearl Harbor + sutele si miile de experimente pe care le-au facut pe chinezi, e ceva de groaza. Chiar in ajun am privit un documentar la tema. Le inghetau cu azot membrele ostaticilor chinezi, de viu, p/u a vedea reactia organismului.

dar drept vorbibd eu sunt contra armelor de distrugere in masa si contra oricarui tip de razboi. chiar nu e posibil de trait in pace???

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#39 by AzerothX (†ranœ ºverdosed) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 23:37:39 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

http://play.md/video/a2333ff8-8122-47e6-8169-237f27f6bdfe

Americanii erau intradevar un popor puternic , japonezii nu au vazut asta , americanii le-au aratat-o , daca nu aveau japonezii sa inceapa razboiul , eu acum eram de partea lor , au cautat-o , au primit-o.

PS civili americani la fel au murit.

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#40 by marius55555 (Arsenaloholic) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 23:47:20 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

Insa anume americanii dupa razboi au facut investitii in Japonia, ce a dus atit la restabilirea economiei in tara, cit si la dezvoltarea ei, astfel Japonia devenind un concurent economic pe plan mondial.

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#41 by AzerothX (†ranœ ºverdosed) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 23:56:45 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#42 by BlackCross

(Raging Lunacy) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-06 00:03:50 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

#41 AzerothX, mi-i greaţă de american fanboys, vă place un popor care vă călăreşte pe voi şi restul lumii, căruia i-a scupa pe voi şi dacă aţi avea petrol v-ar cuceri (ex Iraq). Ei nu au făcut fărdelegi doar în Japonia ci şi în Vietnam, Afganistan, Korea, Germania şi în multe altele. Deschideţi băh ochii odată!

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#43 by marius55555 (Arsenaloholic) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-06 00:08:13 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

#42 by BlackCross intr-un topic cineva mi-a spus despre tine ca cindva erai anti-comunist, dar pe urma te-ai schimbat de necrezut(atit tu cit si mentalitatea ta), si acum in asta m-am convins. Despre care cucerire a Iraq-ului merge vorba? mai descide si tu oleaq ochii.

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#44 by BlackCross

(Raging Lunacy) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-06 00:38:33 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

#43 marius55555, ce tie cineva ti-a zis pe mine ma doar fix in cot, eu nu-s comunist. Si vorba nu merge, ea alearga. :lol:

Despre Iraq am amintit cu scopul ca sa va dati seama de fardelegile ce le face SUA pe parcursul istoriei.

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#45 by marius55555 (Arsenaloholic) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-06 00:51:06 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

Bine, atunci hai sa comparam cazul cu Coreea, in ce situatie economica se afla Coreea de Sud(care dupa cuvinte de-ale tale a fost cucerita de americani) si cea de Nord ??? statele de inainte RFG(unde deasemenea au calcat americanii) si RDG ? si in Iraq situatia se va inbunatati, ai sa vezi.

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#46 by AzerothX (†ranœ ºverdosed) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-06 00:55:52 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

BlackCross aici tu ceva incurci , USA sau G.W.Bush?

mai departe , Iraq, Afganistan?? mai bine zis WTC!

Vietnam? comunism!

Germania? uite in istorie cum germanii scufundau nave americane civile din Atlantic

US arata ca e un stat puternic , exemplu pe care ar trebui sa-l urmam , numai k nu avem cum .

Dintr-un film am luat asta:
Ei ne ucid un om , noi le ucidem 10.
Ei ne distrug o casa , noi un orash intreg.
Ei ne distrug un orash , noi ii shtergem de pe fatza pamintului.

Nu uita , pentru orice fapta - e rasplata.Nimeni nu scapa uscat din fintina.

#42 BlackCross, eu nu-s fan boy , mie imi place natziunea mea shi cu asta basta.

Oare de ce totzi dau vina pe SUA shi nimeni nimic nu face impotriva lor ?

The 7 December 1941 Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was one of the great defining moments in history. A single carefully-planned and well-executed stroke removed the United States Navy's battleship force as a possible threat to the Japanese Empire's southward expansion. America, unprepared and now considerably weakened, was abruptly brought into the Second World War as a full combatant.

Eighteen months earlier, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had transferred the United States Fleet to Pearl Harbor as a presumed deterrent to Japanese agression. The Japanese military, deeply engaged in the seemingly endless war it had started against China in mid-1937, badly needed oil and other raw materials. Commercial access to these was gradually curtailed as the conquests continued. In July 1941 the Western powers effectively halted trade with Japan. From then on, as the desperate Japanese schemed to seize the oil and mineral-rich East Indies and Southeast Asia, a Pacific war was virtually inevitable.

By late November 1941, with peace negotiations clearly approaching an end, informed U.S. officials (and they were well-informed, they believed, through an ability to read Japan's diplomatic codes) fully expected a Japanese attack into the Indies, Malaya and probably the Philippines. Completely unanticipated was the prospect that Japan would attack east, as well.

The U.S. Fleet's Pearl Harbor base was reachable by an aircraft carrier force, and the Japanese Navy secretly sent one across the Pacific with greater aerial striking power than had ever been seen on the World's oceans. Its planes hit just before 8AM on 7 December. Within a short time five of eight battleships at Pearl Harbor were sunk or sinking, with the rest damaged. Several other ships and most Hawaii-based combat planes were also knocked out and over 2400 Americans were dead. Soon after, Japanese planes eliminated much of the American air force in the Philippines, and a Japanese Army was ashore in Malaya.

These great Japanese successes, achieved without prior diplomatic formalities, shocked and enraged the previously divided American people into a level of purposeful unity hardly seen before or since. For the next five months, until the Battle of the Coral Sea in early May, Japan's far-reaching offensives proceeded untroubled by fruitful opposition. American and Allied morale suffered accordingly. Under normal political circumstances, an accomodation might have been considered.

However, the memory of the "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor fueled a determination to fight on. Once the Battle of Midway in early June 1942 had eliminated much of Japan's striking power, that same memory stoked a relentless war to reverse her conquests and remove her, and her German and Italian allies, as future threats to World peace.

#10 Umbreakko, nu erau nevoitzi , asta cum vroiau ei , au vrut sa se extinda la sud, shi au primit-o.

#9 BlackCross, nu mai shtiau ei din timp , n-aveau de unde sa shtie

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#47 by Andrusa (Power User) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-06 01:17:55 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]

Măi flooderilor poptoliţi-vă! Tema pentru ce a fost creeată? Pentru comemorare, nu?! Nu că se găsesc deştepţi, că iată "au meritat-o"(aş fi vrut să vă văd cum aţi fi vorbit, dacă de ex.: SUA avea să arunce o bombă atomică peste Chişinău), că "după faptă şi răsplată", că " ia uite ce au făcut japonezii în China,SUA"; aici nu merge vorba de ororile comise de japonezi, Ci De Comemorarea Celor Duşi din urma bombei atomice. Nu plin că sunt unele persoane care pur şi simplu le place foarte mult să se mai scormonească în fund. Левые!

Mesaj util ? Da 0 puncte

#48 by Lunatic (Kreatiff) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-06 01:19:23 (903 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link]