Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Muslim "Blowback" 1786? Muslim Violence Against the US is Not New

Fighting the Barbary Pirates
A few posts back I wrote about the "blowback" theory of Muslim violence.  Adherents to the theory believe that Muslim violence is not related to Islam, or its teachings, tenets or beliefs.  They believe that Muslim violence against the west is merely a reaction to past American aggression, or "blowback."  Both Ron Paul and one of his former advisors, Robert Pape, believe this theory.  Pape wrote a book on how we can stop Islamic violence by not having any military presence or supporting any other country's presence in Islamic lands.  The book is called "Cutting the Fuse."

I believe the "blowback" theory is bunk.  While the presence of infidel soldiers in Islamic countries and the support of Western countries for the supposed "occupation" of Islamic lands (e.g., the very existence of Israel) may provide a further motive for jihad attacks, the fact is that the Koran commands aggressive war against infidels even in the complete absence of any infidel "aggression" against Muslims. Muslims attack us because of Islam, because they are commanded to do so by their prophet and holy book, the Koran. Our sin is merely that we are not Muslims, that we do not accept Muhammad as a valid prophet.

Muslim violence and aggression against the United States is not new.  In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Muslim pirates were attacking our shipping, stealing cargoes and ships and enslaving our sailors.  These were the infamous "Barbary Pirates," operating out of Tripoli (now Libya) and neighboring Islamic states.

Lawrence Auster of View From the Right wrote to me and supplied these facts:  In 1786, John Adams and Jefferson, then our ambassadors to Britain and France, met the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, and asked him why his government was so hostile to the United States even though it had done nothing to provoke any such animosity.  Adja answered them (as they reported to the Continental Congress):  "that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."  

Doesn't sound much like "blowback" does it?  There was then, as there is now, a religious reason for Muslim aggression.  President Jefferson sent the navy and the marines to fight the (Muslim) Barbary Pirates in Tripoli in 1804, to stop them from attacking and pirating our commercial shipping.  Our military response to Islamic states, then as now, results from Muslim aggression, terror and murder.  The "blowback" theory is false.

President John Quincy Adams, who was President from 1825 to 1829 didn't believe in "blowback" either.  He wrote this about Islam:
“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”
President Adams also wrote this about Islamic violence and aggression:
"….Between these two religions [Islam and Christianity], thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet [Muhammad] shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”


Old Rebel said...

I'd like to offer this in rebuttal:

I absolutely agree that Islam is incompatible with Western values, as I've argued here.

But does that mean we should be in their countries stirring things up by overthrowing their governments, propping up pro-DC puppets, and invading them?

Don't forget that the INEVITABLE result of every invasion is the importation of more people from the invaded countries. We're now giving immigration visas to many Iraqis and Afghanis.

Think they'll assimilate? See paragraph one.

And consider this: The people who yell the loudest for more intervention in the Muddled East are the biggest promoters of Open Borders. Think George W. Bush, Lindsey Graham, and Dianne Feinstein.

Don't like Islamic violence? Simple: Keep them out of our back yards.

Stogie said...

OR, I don't think there is much disagreement here. No, we should not be in their countries, nor should we allow them in ours. Separation and containment should be the strategy.

However, the key point is that we must protect ourselves from Islamic aggression, and deterrence requires a strong military.

Always On Watch said...

The theory of winning hearts and minds of Muslims has been shown to be a consummate failure. Some of those kids who, early on the Afghanistan War, were so sweet and loved the candy being handed out are now hardliners, I'm sure.

Historically, Islam has ever been incompatible with other ideologies.

D Charles QC said...

The problem with much of your work and theories is the simple word "context". You should try it.

For every example, that you assume must be based on Islam itself, there are countless more examples that clearly do not.

It is these numerous examples that are simply contary to such thoughts that are ignored - on purpose I suggest. That is why academics simply laugh at the layman's superficial and simplistic rants.

Your use of the Barbery Pirates as being Islam's thumbing its' nose at the West is a good start and example of such nonesense. The Barbery Pirates were simply that, a collective of Piracy often backed by a state that needed their protection and not having them as enemies. Modern day Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria were the nations that housed most of these Pirates of which, if you bother to actually study them, you will notice was at various times between 40 to 80 per cent manned and even controlled by non-Muslims - from Irish, Spanish, Dutch to even Scandinavian Pirates. This was also the time of British, Spanish and Dutch sponsered "buccaneers", Pirates under pay.

So the question is, why claim it as Islamic? Sure some of them claimed all sorts of things, like Terrorists today, but anyone with a bit of a brain knows that leaders will claim anything that often spurs support and allegences - religion and race being the first ones.

The next question is a simple historical one that throws your argument down the toilet. Which was the first country to recognize the fledgling United State of America? France? No. Britian? Of course not? Spain, Portugal or Russia perhaps? No. It was Morocco.

For every quote and claim from someone like Jefferson making comments about Barbery Pirates -remember there are countless others such as when he considered that generosity, piety and "sophistication" of Morocco's understanding of international relations as a "breath of fresh air" in comparison to those backward, archaic dictators on the Continent.

Then again, why am I writing this, considering you "support the EDL/BNP"......

Stogie said...

DC Charles, you are one of the worst cases of DENIAL that I have ever seen. You go to great lengths to insist that Muslims are just like everyone else and Islam just another religion like Mormons or Buddhists. However, both history and Islamic holy texts prove you very wrong.

You are always quoting "facts" which have no support beyond your biased opinions, e.g. "remember there are countless others" without telling who these "countless others" are and how you derived the information beyond your own fantasies. And when you are not citing pseudo-facts, you are citing irrelevant when Morocco recognized the United States, as if that in any way reverses 14 centuries of Islam's "War on All Mankind," as decided at the Pledge of Aqaba, i.e.:
Tabari VI p. 133
When they gathered to take the oath of allegiance to Muhammad, al-Abbas b. Ubadah said: "People of the Khazraj, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?" "Yes," they said. He continued: "In swearing allegiance to him, you are pledging yourselves to wage war against all mankind."

It was not just "Jefferson's opinion" as to the nature and goals of the Barbary Pirates, but that of an official governmental representative of Tripoli itself, one Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. Adja's explanation is very much in line with the example of Muhammad and the teachings of both the Koran and the Haddith, and the Pledge of Aqaba quoted above. Perhaps this truth is why Islam has killed approximately 270 million people since it was instituted.

Your posing as a greatly informed intellectual is laughable. You are a flaming ignoramus who lives in an alternate reality. Your opinions have zero credibility here.

D Charles QC said...


quoting individuals seems fine and looks great, but if we do the same there are a multitude of examples from even our own faith that would could use to condemn Christianity. So my question is why do you put one value on the words of Muslims but not on those of Christians?

Pope Urban II made it clear that Christianity is the only true faith and that there is no value in others at all and thus started the First Crusade of which for the first 13 months the assembled armies chose to purge South East Europe of Jews before setting off to the Holy Land.

If you want to play the game of quoting texts and individuals be careful, because the great bulk of examples will make us look the hateful barbarian murderers, as will the statistics of who was killed over the millenias in the name of God.

It is interesting that you use the word Denial. I deny what? That people die because radical Islamists kill and claim it in the name of their faith? No I do not. I consider radical Islamists to be a great threat, they delared war on us and thus I declare war on them (radicals not Islam) in response, no denial there either. I also blame moderate Muslims in the West for keeping their mouths shut and making a void so that bigots can fill them in. I most certainly reject the argument that their texts are a declaration of war, that is rediculous and either argued because people "wish it was the case" or "want it to be the case". The Old Testiment has more demands for death and examples of destruction than the Muslim's Koran, that is undeniable but people shurk from it. Of course somehow the argument is that it is parables and interpretation for the Old Testiment but somehow everything in the Koran must be read verbatum and there is only one interepretation. Such an argument is, of course, pure bull shit. That is the new game, support the radical Islamists that Wahhabi or Salafi is the only Islam and that everyone else are either not serious or not real Muslims.

The logical answer to such bull-shit is, of course, the reality on the ground. How many of the 56 Muslim countries have declared an Islamic war against the West? How many Muslim countries are joining in on the Caliphate band-wagon? None, but then that should not work if they are all obliged by their faith to do so? That they all must drop their laws, constitutions, political and diplomatic positions because Stogie cuts and pastes a part of Tabari VI p. 133 and declares that to be all important regardless of what the context it was written in.

Go pull another one. You like seeing your name on the screen and sounding tough and in the end all you have done is pretend to be Robert Spencer and made yourself look like a bigot.

Have you actually spent time in a Muslim country? I doubt it.

Stogie said...

DC, I am quoting what Muslims say about their own faith, and when those quotes are consistent with Muslim history, ongoing Muslim behavior and Muslim holy texts, then I would be a fool NOT to believe them -- as you do.

You are in denial as to the nature of Islam, its practices and teachings, its war on all non-Muslims, its intolerance and violence. There may be "moderate" Muslims, but there is no "moderate" Islam. Since Islam commands murder of infidels, it will always be violent and will always produce terrorists. That is why we can never trust it, why we should never allow large numbers of Muslims among us.

There will always be quislings like you who deny the obvious truth of evil, just as there were many who denied the nature of Nazism and Hitler. They refused to believe what was too awful for them to accept, so like you, they believed the nature of reality could be changed by simple denial. Those of us who present an irrefutable case for your error and wishful thinking are labeled "bigots." I am not a bigot, but you are a fool.

Once again, you make an unsubstantiated quote, saying the Old Testament "has more demands for death and examples of destruction than the Muslim's Koran," yet you produce no facts to substantiate your claim. Such scriptures do exist, but they are largely a one-shot command for a specific situation (a war), and never intended to be a command for "perpetual war against all mankind." Further, no Jews are flying planes into buildings, blowing up trains, or machine-gunning school children and airport passengers, as Muslims do on an ongoing basis. By quoting ancient Jewish scriptures, you have devolved into mere theory, whereas I am dealing with hard reality in the here and now.

How many Muslim countries want sharia law and a new caliphate? Probably all of them. Most of them, if not all, discriminate against women, practice honor killings and genital mutilation of young girls, stone adulterers, chop hands off of thieves and hang gays. In Darfur, we have ongoing Muslim genocide against Christians; in the early 20th century, there was Turkish genocide against Armenian Christians. Many, if not most, of ongoing wars and conflicts in the world today involve Islam or are because of Islamic aggression. You can view a list of those wars here:

No matter how you cut it, Islam is evil through and through, violent, murderous and totalitarian. We don't have to fight them, but we must separate ourselves from them as much as possible...for our own safety.

Violence, intolerance, war, genocide -- these evils are the nature of Islam.

So how many books have you read about Islam? Name five.

No, I have not visited any Islamic countries, nor do I wish to. How many have you visited, and how does that support your theory of a non-violent Islam?

Stogie said...

DC, by the way, my quote of the Pledge of Aquaba was very much in the context the pledge intended: for Islam to wage war against all mankind until all the world was Islamic.

There is no other context in which a different interpretation is possible. Once again, this is evidence of your extreme denial in the face of overwhelming facts.

D Charles QC said...


You are quoting some Muslims (the radical ones) whom will interpret in their fashion their texts. I should remind you of our own history of schisms and quoting what some thought what various passages of the Bible said to justify control or conflict. Yet, as I have said, you - which I should point out as a non-Muslim nor a scholar of Islamics - have somehow decided that only Wahhabist and Salafi interpretations are the only real ones. Not to mention your selective choice of history and again avoidence of conflict within them.

As you obviously not aware, let me give you the academic view and context of the "First and Second Pledges of Aquaba". First, you have to be aware that the Koran is accepted by scholars to be divided into three portions (mixed as is the style of the Koran). A historical example of events, examples that provide for a meaning and the actual "message" supposively from God. The two Pledges of Aquaba are interpreted by all, except the radicals, as an example of history of events and commandments at the time for the survival of the new found Muslims - whom were persecuted and hunted down. There are quotes, such as "kill them all" which when cut and pasted is just a meaningless condemnable stament of violence - but when it is a 7th century order by Mohammed in a battle, it is just an example of a war and what leaders at that time, previously and for many centuries afterwards globally did. No suprises then. The subject is context.

As for spending my time looking for Bible Quotes I will not. Joshua was given "God's permission" (in fact instruction) to destroy 7 entire tribes and wipe them from the face of the Earth. Judges is full of murder and orders to slavery.
"The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem and captured it, killing all its people and setting the city on fire." (Judges 1:1-8)

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22).

"You must destroy all the nations the LORD your God hands over to you. Show them no mercy and do not worship their gods. If you do, they will trap you. Perhaps you will think to yourselves, 'How can we ever conquer these nations that are so much more powerful than we are?' But don't be afraid of them! Just remember what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all the land of Egypt. Remember the great terrors the LORD your God sent against them. You saw it all with your own eyes! And remember the miraculous signs and wonders, and the amazing power he used when he brought you out of Egypt. The LORD your God will use this same power against the people you fear. And then the LORD your God will send hornets to drive out the few survivors still hiding from you! "No, do not be afraid of those nations, for the LORD your God is among you, and he is a great and awesome God. The LORD your God will drive those nations out ahead of you little by little. You will not clear them away all at once, for if you did, the wild animals would multiply too quickly for you. But the LORD your God will hand them over to you. He will throw them into complete confusion until they are destroyed. He will put their kings in your power, and you will erase their names from the face of the earth. No one will be able to stand against you, and you will destroy them all. (Deuteronomy 7:16-24)"

I can go on and on but that is as pointless as the quotes you give. I have seen the websites and Robert Spencers tactics enough.

///// continued

D Charles QC said...

//// continued from above

I can go on and on but that is as pointless as the quotes you give. I have seen the websites and Robert Spencers tactics enough.

Now, I have been to and work in Muslims countries and have done so over a periof of 32 years. Does it matter, absolutely, because what you picture and espouse is not present - simple enough! Iran and Saudi Arabia or Somalia is not Malaysia, Morocco, Tunisa or say Albania. You may wish that the entire Muslim world is reflected in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would be as gross an assumption as saying that East Los Angeles is the entire United States or that Westbro Baptists represent all of American Christianity.

I live 13 miles from Morocco (I am in Gibralta), I go there regularly since it is cheap and easy to. I have a second office in Ceuta (Spanish Enclave in Morocco) thus I go through the country. I have been to Algeria and Tunisa many times, was involved in Libya for ten years representing British nationals there for legal support. I have been to Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. More importantly I am a co-chair of an EU/ASEAN legislative review committee that meets twice yearly in Kuala Lumpur. The objective is to find similarities and discuss conflicts between EU and various ASEAN national laws.

On the other hand, you have never been to one and thus have no right to even talk about the habits and lives of Muslims and non-Muslims living in these countries and how much do they actually do as you want to.

Books. My degree in Islamics Arabic Language required me to read actual academic books as well as obviously the Koran and various Haddiths. From the top of my head (12 years later that is), I can quickly tell you that my main books were Riyad-us-Saliheen, Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah (Hanbali fiqh), Kitab al Miraj, Asrar al-Tawhid (actually from Persian). As for actual MSA (Modern Standard Arabic) I was of the first school to concentrate on using the Al-Kitaab fii Ta'allum al-'Arabiyya method. As I was close to Morocco, I actually had access to the Campus of Al Qarayouin in Fez (they say Fes) which actually is the oldest contigouis university campus in the world. Thus I learnt my Arabic pretty quickly with lots of hands-on practice.

I am not bragging here, it is you who asked. Let me guess, your books are Spencer's ....... not that it matters.

Stogie, I am not trying to take the piss out of you but you know the point that I am getting at. You have been caught out and you cannot back down and I know that. Simply put, your full of shit and your trying to take the tough stance for a complicated issue. You blaming and mixing politics with faith, your reading bogus hate sites whom are funded by interest groups and your trying to put a simplistic - it is their religion answer which is in fact the worst form of double standards (which is what I dislike) as your not willing to do the same with our own faith. I stand by my faith, I am a proud Catholic but after thirty plus years as a barrister, I work by facts and standing tall on merit - not schoolyard uneducated, mindless bigotry - commonly known as crap.

ps, you never responded to my message about what actual cigars you smoke, I am still curious.

Stogie said...

DC, at the risk of repeating myself, no Jews believe that they have been commanded to force their religion on the rest of the world by force. No Jews are committing terrorism, murdering innocents and invading other countries for plunder. Thus, your quoting 4,000 year old scripture is irrelevant and not at all comparable or morally equivalent to the bloody ideology of Islam, which has always been warlike from its inception to the current day.

I too have read the Koran and the more well known books of the Haddith, though in English, and both make it clear that Islam means constant war on all mankind, until all are Muslims or dhimmis or dead, and no amount of denial or wishful thinking by you will change that fact. All of the severed heads, stoned women, hanged gays, and machine gunned bodies of women and children refute you in blood and gore, and you should be deeply ashamed of rationalizing and denying such evil. There is a link in the sidebar of this blog that lists ongoing Muslim atrocities and you should review it. Modern terrorists, like the Barbary Pirates, quote the Koran as the reason for their mass murder.

You have made a lot of claims that you cannot support with facts, and it is you who are "totally full of shit." I have been "caught out" telling the truth which you have failed miserably to refute, and you look like the failed, pathetic quisling that you are. I do not "back down" because it is clear that I have won the argument.

Yes, I have read six of Spencer's books, but also "The Life of Mahomet" by William Muir, "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright, "Why I Am Not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq, "Sword of the Prophet" by Serge Trifkovic, and many others.

Since you have studied Arabic and aligned yourself with Moroccan culture, you have suspended critical thinking. I see your denial as a form of Stockholm Syndrome, someone who as lived among the enemy so long he has come to identify with them and make excuses for them.

You might be interested in the discussion of your denial at "View From the Right" at this link:

D Charles QC said...

Stogie, I have alligned myself with actually the bulk of humanity and academia. Since you have gone out of your way to read from Spencer (aka Horrowitz who pays him to do so) and those that have attempted to make profit from bashing Islam - you can only count yourself on sensationalism.

Additionally, you have again put one criteria on a group and a different on another. That makes no sense either way except to paint a fraudulent picture. Simply put, your cashing in on the fact that yes the world is being targetted and war waged against by radical Islamists. That you have chosen to side with them by pushing their view only is in fact morally repugnant and very Spenceresque.

We can add that the facts are actually against your presumptions. The fact is that you have neither qualifications nor valued source material in your attempt to push your view - you have simply swallowed hate and chose to vomit it out as well. You have neither been in any Muslim country and seen what the average Muslim thinks or does, nor have you even shown a willingness to do so.

Basically you have no leg to stand on or base to promote your view and thus it is worthless. I have counted your attempt to use cut & paste of what your layman's view of Islamic doctrine is by pointing out how worthless it is, simply put because OT has more claims to violence and ownership. You have also sadly ignored the fact that the Israeli Settler Movement claims that very right to annex more and more land from the Palestinians and though we all know they are fringe and dangerous - again somehow you cannot put that very same standard on Muslim radicals - and thus you must, again without qualification or any real justification, by claiming that it is their religious texts.

Before you claim apologetics, my condemnation of radical Islamists is clear and I wage war back on them, but I simply will not fall into the childish, bigoted and morally repugnant route of blaming their faith. To do so is obviously ugly hate and simply put I (and most educated people) are better than that.

Yes your caught out and your attempting to take advantage of the war on terror to sow hate yourself and I know that you know it as well.

Stogie said...

DC, once again you merely mouth generalities and unsupported accusations. Islam is evil and worthless to humanity, and I have many legs to stand on: 9/11, London, Madrid, Beslan, Mumbai, Fort Hood and the many failed attempts at Muslims to commit terrorism in this country.

You say you oppose "radical Islam" but the radical Islamists themselves point to their holy texts as justification for their terror and aggression. Indeed, the Wahabbis have correctly interpreted their holy texts, carrying out what their false prophet specifically commanded of them: conquest, plunder, rape and murder.

And as for the so-called Palestinians, they are more living proof of the evils of Islam. They want to wipe Israel off the map, kill all the Jews because of their vile religion, Islam. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is merely one of many examples of Islamic hatred, aggression and intolerance.

You are apparently a leftist academic, who believes all sorts of falsehood and fantasy. I'm sure your fellow "academics" are psychological mirrors of yourself, and that you and your colleagues constantly reinforce each other's attitudes, falsehoods and fantasies. What you need is a reality check that you are not getting with your crowd of pseudo-scholars.

I have read many scholarly texts on the history, beliefs and practices of Islam, and the Koran and haddith themselves, and those scholars and sources refute your naive views utterly and completely. The Muslims themselves have corroborated those hateful texts with their statements and deeds.

When sources are consistent and corroborative of Islamic history, beliefs and holy texts, then you are a fool not to believe them. Your beliefs are not corroborated by reality: they are wishful thinking and self-delusion, nothing more.

Yes, I do hate Islam, as it is an evil ideology that has killed millions of people and continues to kill and oppress them in the here and now. I hate a religion that confers on women the social status of cattle, that stones people to death for such natural inclinations as sex, that executes apostates and maims others. The religion is barbaric, bestial in the extreme.

You are an educated idiot, willfully ignorant of the violent nature of Islam, as expressed in Islamic holy texts themselves, as demonstrated in 14 centuries of war against non-Muslims, in modern terrorism and genocide, in the example of the mass-murdering, plundering, raping prophet.

The haddith is full of stories of Islamic murder and rape, of the assassination of Muslim critics and poets, the murder of Jews simply for being Jews. In one case there is the story of how the early Muslims tied an old woman between two camels and split her apart. The entire religion is worthless and evil and to be repudiated, now and for all time.

You are a fool, nothing more, a phony who pretends great knowledge but who is unable to answer my many arguments which have proven yours false and naive. You are what the communists called "a useful idiot."

You have nothing at all to impart on the nature of Islam or Islamic texts that is accurate or useful. You live in a kind of self-imposed dhimmitude, you have obeyed the Islamic command "to submit."

I do blame the terrorists faith for their evil, because I am informed and well-read on the subject. Once again, yours is one of the most extreme examples of denial that I have yet come across.

Since you have nothing new to impart here, this thread is now closed.

D Charles QC said...

Hiding behind closing the thread changes nothing. You are a self-confessed bigot with your support of the EDL/BNP, reading only hate-books by Spencer & Co and the botched cut & paste to somehow back you up. Worse, your support that only the Wahhabi and Salafi are the "true Muslims", whilst ignoring the majority tells a great deal.

Ultimately, the most condemning aspect is that you take advantage of real terrorism to push your hate and thus by proxy condone and support it, let alone dilute the real battles required.

You are exposed and you wish simply to bath in it like a pig in mud.

Stogie said...

DC, you arrogant, ignorant Marxist, I am not a "self-confessed" bigot, but you are -- defending the most anti-semitic ideology on the planet.

I have never supported the BNP; I hear that they are quite leftist on domestic issues. I don't really know nor care what they believe.

DC, you are a fraud when it comes to knowledge of Islam; you have not revealed any insights into the religion in this discussion that would support your supposed scholarship. You have not discussed any of the violent doctrines in the Koran or the Haddith.

Indeed, you are the one exposed, as an ignoramus, useful idiot and enemy of western civilization.

I am closing the thread, because outside of unsupported claims and insults, you have nothing useful or truthful to add. You are wasting my time and have thus achieved the status of a troll.

I have enjoyed kicking your butt in such a public way and I do hope my footprints on your ass will afford you fond memories of your thorough defeat on this blog.


Anonymous said...

[url=]Sacs Burberry[/url]
[url=]Sacs Coach[/url]
[url=]Coach bourse[/url]
[url=]Coach sac[/url]
[url=]Sacs Ferragamo[/url]
[url=]Sacs Giorgio Armani[/url]
[url=]Sacs Gucci[/url]
[url=]Gucci bourse[/url]
[url=]Gucci sac[/url]
[url=à-main-c-7_10.html]Gucci sac à main[/url]
[url=]Sacs Hermes[/url]
[url=]Sacs Jimmy Choo[/url]
[url=]Sacs Louis Vitton[/url]
[url=à-main-c-12_13.html]homme Louis Vitton sac à main[/url]
[url=]Louis Vitton bourse[/url]
[url=]Louis Vitton sac[/url]
[url=à-main-c-12_17.html]Louis Vitton sac à main[/url]
[url=à-provisions-c-12_18.html]Louis Vitton sac à provisions[/url]
[url=]Sacs Marc Jacobs[/url]
[url=]Sacs MIU MIU[/url]
[url=]Sacs Prada[/url]
[url=]Sacs ToryBurch[/url]

Anonymous said...

HjpVsr RkiPqc [url=]クロエ 財布[/url] XsxCrt GjkZiu [url=]ルブタン 財布[/url] GtqCsa QqzQqf [url=]mcm3806[/url] MqjDet JurGzm [url=]ルイヴィトン バッグ[/url] RsxGqc UhnCqc [url=]シーバイクロエ[/url] YybOhd SchRsa [url=]クリスチャンルブタン 店舗[/url] ZqdQlx NfxEgg [url=]GUCCI 帽子[/url] EfjExp PzfChy [url=]TUMI リュック[/url]