Betrayal

What the hell is Obama thinking?

Excerpted from his speech:
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

Seriously? Carve up Israel to appease the Arabs? Nevermind that there's no such thing as Palestine or a Palestinian. The concept of such things did not even exist until Israel's neighbors created it. I realize Obama is a lousy diplomat and an even worse student of history, but surely he's heard of what happened to Poland and Czechoslovakia before WWII, right? Please tell me he's just being an ignorant clod and doesn't really believe attempting to appease the Arabs will work.

He's already as much as admitted it won't:
He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate -- an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy -- not what he could build.

That part is talking about Osama bin Laden, but put Hamas and Fatah in the place of "He" and you have exactly the same description. This is what Hamas and Fatah both want to do to Israel, wipe them out by killing all the Jews. Genocide. That's the solution they both want.

The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region.

Really? Then act like it. Making a land for peace swap won't produce the results you're looking for. These things never do. Not when one side of the issue is hell bent on genocide.

Netanyahu of course has already rejected any such plan involving a 1967 border setup, so this isn't going anywhere anyway. But God damn, this should never have been allowed out of a sitting US president's mouth!

To be fair, this bit covering Israel ruined what was otherwise a very good speech. He called out every major tyrannical regime in the region and told them essentially to knock their shit off. He even flat out told them Israel has a right to exist - before basically pulling the wink-wink nudge-nudge and signalling to them that he's ready to carve Israel up like a stuffed turkey.

This is all nothing short of an outright betrayal. It sucks ass that we have to wait until 2012 to get rid of this treasonous bastard.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

       
« Facebook Strikes Again!
Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings »

Posted on May 19, 2011 10:02 pm by Samson in: | 101 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
So, not that I've watched the speech yet (shortly, shortly), but these would presumably be the same 1967 borders that have been the basis for negotiations involving all US presidents since at least Clinton if not the dawn of time, right? Or was this a different set of 1967 borders that are somehow worse?

Which is not to take a side in the thing, as I don't really have one, just that that particular negotiating basis ain't exactly new.

       
They would be the same ones, yes. Though I cannot recall it ever having been the US position that Israel be asked to give up that much land. Even under Carter. Yes, Carter did try to prod the two sides into something. Yes, every time the whole 1967 border issue comes up somewhere Israel gives the same answer: Back the hell off.

If the "Palestinians" want their own country, they should be demanding the territory from the countries who kicked them out in the first place and caused them to become refugees. Namely Syria and Jordan.

There are consequences to war. One of them is that you may lose territory to the victor. Since Israel was not the aggressor in 1967, they have every right to hold territory they seized in order to make their defense situation more realistic. Returning to the pre-1967 borders would make the entire country indefensible from a strategic standpoint.

       
Then they're lucky I'm not negotiating the treaty. I'd put it at 1948 borders, which are the only internationally recognized borders Israel has. Everything outside that is "occupied territory". As far as the palestinians; I'd just repatriate them to Syria/Jordan. The fact they were able to defend, and expand upon the 1948 borders in 1967 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 1948 borders are perfectly defenceable. The only problem I might have here is whether the "occupied territory" should be returned to the previous owner (for lack of a better term), or if that should be a seperate entity to it's own.

       
If America keeps trying to do this, we'll just end up losing another ally. Why can we not get drilled in that the fundamentalists that dominate Muslim society are not interested in peace? Was 9-11 not enough? The only way America can ever "appease" them is to hand them the keys to the White House and enough dynamite to leave a nice crater behind. Peace is only possible when both sides want it, and although I'm sure Israel would be willing, the Palestinians are not.

At least Israel realizes that doing this won't solve a damn thing.

       
If you think this was defensible, you're crazy. The fact that the Arabs attacked immediately in 1948 proves beyond any doubt that it wasn't, and they knew that. It was only because we aided them that they weren't wiped off the map right off.

That orange space? The one with all the pinholes and snaky lines? There's no way that could possibly be defended in any meaningful way in 1948 and certainly not now in 2011. If you were negotiating the treaty along these lines and I were Israel, I'd send the Mossad out to assassinate you.

       
Actually, the fact that Arabs attacked does not prove it wasn't defence-able. Countries attack defence-able countries and positions all the time. The United States is a perfect example of that: we prefer to hit our enemies most defence-able positions; then the rest is easy. If the Arabs had WON instead of LOST; then there might be an argument about indefensibly. But even then, it would actually only prove that the defences that were present at the time were inadequate for the job at hand (which we are very good at proving to others); not that the position itself cant be defended.

       
So far as I'm aware, the 1967 borders have been the basis of every set of negotiations since the 90s. I'm obviously not old enough to remember the earlier stuff, but wouldn't be surprised.

Also, I don't really disagree about the 1948 borders point - they're not really defendable well at all, and the only reason Israel didn't get obliterated in the first couple of wars is because the Arab armies were super extra levels of incompetent. So 1967 starts looking like a way better proposition from that standpoint.

Beyond that? I continue to not have much of an opinion.

       
You can jargon on as much as you want about dangerous Arabs and Israel being America's best ally, but the reality is that Israel has demonstrated itself to be no better than and of the Muslim states when it comes to oppressing people. The main distinction is that Jewish fundamentalists hurt Arabs rather than American's though since they tend to be richer and better educated, you don't really get many Jewish fundamentalists.

Anyway, I'm doubtful that Obama actually wants these borders. What he seems to be doing is putting out some terms for negotiation beyond what he knows the Israeli's will accept, so it'll be easier to work things down to a reasonable compromise.

Samson said:

Nevermind that there's no such thing as Palestine or a Palestinian.


Your effective attitude is that Palestinians don't have a right to form a country or be recognized as people. Someone's been listening to a bit of Israeli propaganda, haven't they? But no, I've been misled by all this 'Arab propaganda', haven't I?

Don't get me wrong, I have no more love for Arabs than I do for Israel. Their governments are a bunch of bad people, but then, we're living with the consequences of centuries of western interference, propping up proxy leaders time and time again for hundreds of years. But Israel need to learn to stop acting like these Arab countries themselves. I'm not going to respect the interest's of a nation who respond to having one of their children injured by a Hamas rocket bombing a Palestinian residential district and killing several Palestinian children. Y'know, not very good looking there. Or demanding that the Palestinian army in the west bank that has suppressed militant activities and bought relative peace and order to the region be disarmed because they feel threatened by the west bank's meager army. Apparently they were more comfortable fighting an eternal war against militants. Who wants peace now? Or perhaps they just want an excuse to grab more land. Between that and funding dodgy archaeology that supports the existence of 'King Davids empire' there probably won't be any of Palestine left soon.

       
The 1967 border do come up in every negotiation we've ever had, but it's been pretty clear that that's not the starting point. Every time they get mentioned, Israel makes it crystal clear they will not accept any proposal which results in those borders being the final result. Israel appears to be receptive to some sort of land swap, but I'd imagine they'll want to be brutally specific about how it plays out so they don't have to defend a twisting snake of a border or have to deal with giving the Golan Heights back to Syria so that the people in Galilee have to deal with being shelled all the time.

The one thing I'm just not getting at all is why the Israelis left Gaza. The place is so god damn small that they should have been able to sweep it clear of any Hamas presence 30 years ago and not have to deal with building massive security barriers there.

These negotiations would go a lot smoother if Hamas were wiped out of existence. Without them, Fatah wouldn't be nearly as militant. Abbas might actually be able to get a handle on things and start bringing some serious offers to the table instead of the ridiculous ones they do now.

prettyfly said:

but the reality is that Israel has demonstrated itself to be no better than and of the Muslim states when it comes to oppressing people.

On what planet? Surely not ours because the last time I checked most Israelis would prefer to live in peace with the Arabs rather than have to build walls to separate them. The Arabs haven't left anyone a choice in the matter. After all, they attacked first in 1948, and Israel has been defending themselves ever since. You continue to put forth the position that they have no right to do so, labeling it as oppression, but trust me, if Indonesia was repeatedly lobbing bombs at Australia and you guys took one of their islands in a war, you'd be screaming your heads off at everyone for suggesting you should give that back AND MORE.

Your effective attitude is that Palestinians don't have a right to form a country or be recognized as people.

Good job putting words in my mouth. They have every right to a state of their own. They should be badgering the right countries into forking over the territory for it though. Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. They're the ones that placed them all in the position they're in now. Not the Jews.

we're living with the consequences of centuries of western interference

You sure you're not in the Twilight Zone? WHAT centuries of western interference are we talking about here? last I checked, prior to WWI, the Ottoman Empire ruled the area that's in dispute now. That was no western country. Before that, Arabs dating clear back to the Persians and Babylonians occupied that land, with the Romans offering a brief respite. It was however orginally Israeli territory after the Exodus. The Jews are merely reclaiming land lost long ago. Which negates any claim by a ficticious Palestinian state.

there probably won't be any of Palestine left soon

See above, your slam against legitimate archaeology aside, there was no Palestine before WWI. So there can't be one to dwindle away to begin with. It's not my fault that "Palestine" is what the British named their mandate granted to them by the League of Nations.

       
Edited by Samson on May 20, 2011 2:27 am
Samson said:

On what planet? Surely not ours because the last time I checked most Israelis would prefer to live in peace with the Arabs rather than have to build walls to separate them. The Arabs haven't left anyone a choice in the matter. After all, they attacked first in 1948, and Israel has been defending themselves ever since. You continue to put forth the position that they have no right to do so, labeling it as oppression, but trust me, if Indonesia was repeatedly lobbing bombs at Australia and you guys took one of their islands in a war, you'd be screaming your heads off at everyone for suggesting you should give that back AND MORE.


The people that attacked Israel back then aren't the people you are oppressing now. Saying 'the Arab's started it' doesn't give you the right to oppress people today. I was under the impression that there was some distinction between the Palestinians you are oppressing today and the Arab nations that attacked Israel back then. Not that I defend the people that attacked Israel at the time; they got what was heading there way.

Samson said:

They're the ones that placed them all in the position they're in now. Not the Jews.


Those nations have certainly committed there own crimes in this mess, but Israel isn't innocent either, and further more, they are in a position where they could work a lot harder for peace with at least some of these Palestinians (and for that matter, Obama should be suggesting something practical rather than 'back to the 1967 agreement'...things have changed since then). However, they appear to prefer launching raids whenever (well, last time) a peace treaty is signed and when Hamas retaliates beginning another invasion.

Samson said:

your slam against legitimate archaeology aside


It's as legitimate as the work that suggests that the Kingdom of David didn't exist as the bible describes it (i.e. less gloriously). The distinction being that as it stands the balance of evidence isn't enough to vindicate the biblical description.

       
So I've seen the speech now. That was a good speech, by and large, and I'd like to see us actually live up to it. I have some skeptical points, starting roughly with Libya and Syria, but on the whole not shabby.

Samson said:


The 1967 border do come up in every negotiation we've ever had, but it's been pretty clear that that's not the starting point. Every time they get mentioned, Israel makes it crystal clear they will not accept any proposal which results in those borders being the final result. Israel appears to be receptive to some sort of land swap, but I'd imagine they'll want to be brutally specific about how it plays out so they don't have to defend a twisting snake of a border or have to deal with giving the Golan Heights back to Syria so that the people in Galilee have to deal with being shelled all the time.


I think the land swap part of Obama's sentence there was pretty key. Seems fairly clear to me anyway that there's a reason the 1967 borders aren't the 1967 borders anymore, and in any case it isn't 1967 anymore.

Samson said:


You sure you're not in the Twilight Zone? WHAT centuries of western interference are we talking about here? last I checked, prior to WWI, the Ottoman Empire ruled the area that's in dispute now. That was no western country. Before that, Arabs dating clear back to the Persians and Babylonians occupied that land, with the Romans offering a brief respite. It was however orginally Israeli territory after the Exodus. The Jews are merely reclaiming land lost long ago. Which negates any claim by a ficticious Palestinian state.


Re: the history, this. I guess you could make a case for the Crusader kingdoms somewhere in there, but that's pretty shaky and well past the statuate of limitations. You could also make a fairly good point that, decades rather than centuries aside, the legacy of Western intervention in the region is bad enough as it stands.

That said, I'm not really squaring the "Israel jacked the land and it's theirs by right of conquest" bit with the idea that it's not like the Palestinians or whatever you feel like calling them jacked it in their turn long before and have a certain amount of claim to the place. Then again, I don't find the wrangling over who conquered who when particularly relevant - only real way out of this is two states, and one of those states is going to have to come out of land occupied by Israel.

But, eh. As I say, this isn't one of those subjects I get really worked up about, so I'm probably done now.

       
Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #12 May 20, 2011 4:45 am
Based on a poll conducted by Arab media, 80 whopping % of the Arabs living in Jerusalem prefer that Israeli's be in charge of Jerusalem, and not the philistines. 80% of ARABS in JERUSALEM want Israel to remain in complete control of the city.

       
Actually, I changed my mind. Instead of the 1949 borders (which I still think are defendable[whether they're worth defending is another thing]) OR the 1967 borders: I have something entirely new in mind. Something so radical, the Palestinians and Israeli's would HAVE to talk to each other to reach an agreement to stop *everyone* from being skrewed. Plus, I wouldn't put it as a "Negotiation", I would put it as "This is the way it's going to be if you can't reach an agreement amongst your selves in X time.

That part didn't work as planned (the picture). What it amounts to is: All the parts that were Israel in 1948 are now Palestine. All the parts Israel took over in 1949, plus Lebanon, are now "The American Military Zone", and all the parts Israel took over in 1967 are Israel

       
Edited by dallen68 on May 20, 2011 5:14 am
Vladaar [Anon] said:
Comment #14 May 20, 2011 7:04 am
Obama doing this is a clear demonstration of the fruits of his actions. A Christian who has even read the Holy Bible would never suggest that to Israel.

       
I don't care what the Bible says; Israel needs to learn how to play nice and Hamas needs to pull its head out of its ass (or get some bullets in their heads) so there can be some negotiations and a peace treaty. Using the Bible to justify oppression isn't terribly Christian now is it? (unless the various religious leaders I've listened to in my time have been telling me fibs)

       
Keirath [Anon] said:
Comment #16 May 20, 2011 3:44 pm
I normally read and don't comment, but I really appreciated this post. In college I worked with AIPAC and other pro-Israel organizations/lobbies. I believe that Israel has a right to exist and I definitely side with them over Hamas/Palestine/whatever.

Anyone who thinks Israel is the same as its attackers needs to wake up. Go research how many civilians have been targeted and killed by anti-Israel forces. It's a pretty clear cut thing. If the United States was attacked on the level that Israrel is on almost a daily basis, you would be screaming for the government to do far more than Israel does. I think its fair to say that the Israelis have been far more than patient in these situations.

There will never be peace in the Middle East as long as Israel is there. I firmly believe that. You can't have peace when every country surrounding them wants to see them obliterated.

       
I don't care what the Bible says; Israel needs to learn how to play nice and Hamas needs to pull its head out of its ass (or get some bullets in their heads) so there can be some negotiations and a peace treaty. Using the Bible to justify oppression isn't terribly Christian now is it? (unless the various religious leaders I've listened to in my time have been telling me fibs)


Fundamentalists will use their religious texts to justify anything. They are completely blind to the truth, and they know they are. You should look up the Intelligent Design movement sometime to see just how bad fundamentalist Christians can be. They are nowhere near as bad as their equals in Islam, but they would see America dragged down an intellectual black hole and they would be proud of it.

The truth is they don't care about the teachings of their religion, nor the morals. Fundamentalists simply use the vagueness of the text to their advantage as best they can. They are the very worst religion has to offer, and the are extremely dangerous. They know they cannot answer the questions a person who looks to God may want answered, and they know this, too. Anything they claim to have answers for, they are lying.

They will also never admit they were wrong, either, and this is where Islam gets really bad. When you have a religion where the fundamentalists call for the mass genocide of all who do not follow, they would sooner die themselves than admit that what they are doing is morally bankrupt and abhorrent in every way possible. They simply go by "The Qur'an says it, so it must be right!"

Do not underestimate how far a fundamentalist religious zealot is willing to go. Hamas are, and the only way we can stop them is to lock them away or kill them. Negotiations are not possible with people like this.

       
Edited by ThomasKaira on May 20, 2011 4:07 pm
Vladaar said:

A Christian who has even read the Holy Bible would never suggest that to Israel.


A christian who has read his Bible would understand that it was GOD who kicked the Jews out of the land of Israel/Jerusalem and it will be God who restores them to this land, and the actions of man cannot change this fact. The Jews betrayed God and this is how God has paid them back. But, stupid Christian nations think they can play God and give the Jews back what God took away from them, and so we have a situation that is untenable, Jews occupying a land that God kicked them out of.

Maybe this is a case of the US/UK actually reading their bibles, because when God gives the Jews back Jerusalem, it will be the end times, and in the mean time there is too much money to be made, so lets do all we can to not have peace in the middle east, it will mean that my kingdom on earth is safer for another few centuries.

ThomasKaira said:

Blaa Blaa Blaa Spiel, Negotiations are not possible with people like this.


Said with all the vigor of a true fundamentalist.


prettyfly said:

but the reality is that Israel has demonstrated itself to be no better than and of the Muslim states when it comes to oppressing people.


Could not agree with you more, both are to blame, Israel and Palestinian, and both are going to have to be part of the solution. The whole argument that Israel is right because of US might is just plain dumb, for the last 60 years or whatever its been you bombed me, i bombed you, you rocket me, i tank you, its been tit for tat for so long that the only way to fix things is to start with a clean slate, maybe we just nuke all the fuckers and start again.

       
Edited by The_Fury on May 20, 2011 4:52 pm
Said with all the vigor of a true fundamentalist.


Really?

Understand clearly that I am not talking of religion in general here, but of the people who bastardize the teachings of their scripture to their own insane agendas. THESE are the fundamentalists, and these people are the blight to this world which I refer to. If my comments were fundamentalist in any way, I would be lumping in every last other religious person and declaring them the same and that they all need to die, too. NO, THEY DO NOT. Naivety is not a vice. It is simply how the destructive minds of the real extremists take advantage of them.

These people account for a very small number, and include (on the Muslim side) Osama Bin Laden and the leaders of Hamas, and (on the Christian side) Kent Hovind and Ken Ham.

Please get your facts straight before you make such accusations. Islamic extremists have already made it clear that they have no intentions of negotiation with us, and until they do, we cannot expect any negotiations to work.

       
Edited by ThomasKaira on May 20, 2011 5:14 pm
Vladaar [Anon] said:
Comment #20 May 20, 2011 5:13 pm
@the Fury
Then let God solve it not some Muslim U.S. Pres.

       
Islamic extremists have already made it clear that they have no intentions of negotiation with us,


So we support Zionists instead? Those same Zionist extremists who have no intention of negotiating anything at all? See, now, what my little troll comment was all about, is that you were denouncing Islamic Extremism with your own form of fundamentalist extremism. All extremism is bad, not just the one on the side we disagree with.

And this is the current trouble in Israel, tit for tat crap by people who are driven by ideology, dogma and fundamentalism, this is not a problem of one side, it is the problem of both sides.

vladaar said:

@the Fury: Then let God solve it not some Muslim U.S. Pres.


For sure, to man what is man's, to god what is god's, and the nation of Israel, the city of Jerusalem etc etc is gods problem, not ours, only god can restore Israel, so lets stop meddling.

       
@The_Fury:

What can I say, I learned from the best. :tongue: :whistle: :unclesam:

Anyways, I see your point, and I hope to... well, maybe not God, as I am atheist, but I really do hope things do not come to that. What was that old saying again? "Expect the best, prepare for the worst?"

I never said we must act, though. :innocent:

       
"Expect the best, prepare for the worst?"


LOL yeah, i have a couple of friends who have taken to some end times type preacher, AKA LOON and they are looking to sell up and move out into the bush to be hermits and do a little farming and become self sufficient, because the US dollar has tanked and its going to take out the entire world economy, well atleast thats the excuse.

I have a lot less pessimistic view on the world, i think we can get something workable with an Israel/Palestine states, but it will never be something that is going to be all that peaceful, Zionists will always be wearing black hats and growing beards and killing Arabs and Arabs will be digging tunnels under Israel just to import food, cigarettes and rocket supplies to send back over the fence.

Im not quite sure that we are at the point where we need to be like Conner (god we miss him around here) and my friends here in Aus and turn country bumpkin and start growing corn and building bomb shelters tho.

       
prettyfly said:

The people that attacked Israel back then aren't the people you are oppressing now.

I sure would like to meet these people Israel is supposedly oppressing. As I've said before, you're swallowing far too much Arab propaganda for me to even take you seriously on this issue.

The suggestion that Israel should give up what is theirs now is ludicrous and always has been. It was a mistake of epic proportions when they abandoned Gaza. They should instead have wiped out Hamas and dealt with the harsh words Europe would have had for them. Yep, only harsh words, since Europe's solution to Europe's genocidal antisemitism was to send the Jews to be slaughtered by the Arabs.

As for your slam against biblical accuracy, good luck with that. The historical value of the Bible is unmatched for that time period. Yes, some things might be a bit exaggerated, but then so are all the other overhyped historical accounts of the era from all the other places too.

Anonymous said:

Based on a poll conducted by Arab media, 80 whopping % of the Arabs living in Jerusalem prefer that Israeli's be in charge of Jerusalem, and not the philistines.

Well at least I'm not the only one who knows this. Amazing isn't it? I've seen similar polls out of Gaza that say the people there would rather have Israeli control than Hamas control. They're mostly too afraid to say so publicly though. Probably because those evil Israelis are oppressing them :roll:

prettyfly said:

Israel needs to learn how to play nice

No. They need to stop playing nice and play hardball. This is why there's even still a problem there to this day, because they keep foolishly listening when liberal president after liberal president demands they show restraint in responding to those who seek their deaths.

ThomasKaira said:

You should look up the Intelligent Design movement sometime to see just how bad fundamentalist Christians can be.

Actually you should probably try harder to separate Christian fundies from those of us who believe Intelligent Design. The kind of folks I think you're alluding to do not value science and technology, nearly every actual supporter of Intelligent Design Theory does, and they use the scientific methods taught to them in order to properly advance their work.

Negotiations are not possible with people like this.

This however is true, because of the very fundamentalism you're getting at. Only it's Hamas and the Islamic clerics who are pushing it. Not the Jews, not the Christians. All one needs to do is listen to what the Muslims are saying to know what they want. They're not shy about it.

The_Fury said:

i have a couple of friends who have taken to some end times type preacher, AKA LOON

Is that some more of this liberal/progressive tolerance I keep hearing about?

Also I'm pretty sure that Conner isn't a paranoid freak hiding in a bomb shelter in the middle of nowhere. Rather, he's more like the kind of actually productive, useful, citizen this country needs right now to get us back on track. Not one of these welfare sponges who absorbs 50% of our federal budget for no good reason.

Oh, and holy crap, you guys have been prolific! This is what I like to see :)

       
Edited by Samson on May 20, 2011 8:14 pm
Yes, I think I should clarify who I'm talking about. Here are a couple names:

Kent Hovind
Ken Ham
The Discovery Institute
Jonathon Wells
Lee Stroebel
Janet Folger

The content of the Book of Genesis is not the subject, in this case, it is that these people have been caught numerous times lying about the content and how it relates to science.

Please note that I am not attacking those who believe the Book of Genesis (you have every right to believe what you wish to believe), I am attacking the people who consistently try to get it forced into our education system as science. They usually turn out to be morally bankrupt and deliberately ignorant of how science works. I do not want to see the Bible taught as Science, as not only is that a direct violation of the Scientific Method, it also undermines a person's right to choose their beliefs. The Discovery Institute does not have the best interests of Christianity at mind with their consistent attempts at pushing through Creation Science, they are only going to hurt everyone involved by doing so.

Simply put, I think that people like the above are a blight upon Christianity, and frankly, it's a good thing practically none of them have any credibility any more.

       
Edited by ThomasKaira on May 20, 2011 8:28 pm
<< prev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31