Seriously?

I just read White Noise a couple months ago (also on the advice of well-read acquaintances), and I found it a little disappointing. Still, a much more palatable brand of surrealism than Friedmania.

Ummm ... considering the changes in the balance of power in that section of the, well they aren't really woods, er, world, haven't we made it less likely for Rushdie, condemned as he is by hardline Shiite ayatollahs, to be able to safely give a lecture in Baghdad?

So by Friedman's argument, we lost the war as soon as it started?

See, the Moustache of Understanding knew all along that Iran would be running the show eventually, so Rushdie in Baghdad = no more Mullahs in Iran.

But he's a serious thinker. Just ask him. Can't you tell serious thinkingness when you read it?

So by Friedman's argument, we lost the war as soon as it started?

-------------------------------------------------------

Or will never win it?

.

Can't you tell serious thinkingness when you read it?

I believe you mean thinkitude...

The funny thing is that Rushdie can give a lecture in Bagdhad - he just will not be able to leave the Green Zone. Not that he would want to, as it seems no one else can.

This is just a hidden Friedman piety to technology. He means a VIDEO lecture. And that can happen as soon as power is stable again, in 3-6 more Friedmans.

The dumbest thing Kerry said in 2004 was that the war in Iraq was taking money away from fire stations in the Homeland, thereby playing the nationalist card.

The left recognizes global warming demonstates how interdepent all nations are. The globalizing economy (China, India, the oil market) shows this as well. 9-11 demonstrated there's no distinciton between "over there" and "right here."

It's like when conservatives say we must make the Hobson's choice between welfare recepient's and the working poor. It's a false choice.

As Juan Cole has said, OBL was pissed off that U.S. troops were stationed in the holy land. (This was before the toppling of Saddam started creating terrorists.) They were stationed there to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein (after he had annexed Kuwait, a sovereign nation and member of the U.N.). So in a roundabout way, Saddam did cause 9-11.

The NIE said moderate, democratic, pluralistic Middle Eastern governments will help reduce the appeal of jihadist groups as citiznes try to change things via politics instead of violence. This is what Friedman's saying.

The NIE said moderate, democratic, pluralistic Middle Eastern governments will help reduce the appeal of jihadist groups as citiznes try to change things via politics instead of violence.

And a pony!

It's amazing how many apologists for the war fail to understand this point. Of course it would be great if the Middle East was populated by pluaralist democracies. What this has to do with changing Iraq into a theocratic quasi-state I have no idea.

And the problem with Friedman's line is...what exactly?

Friedman's priority is to liberalize the Middle East, starting in Iraq. I think whether Salman Rushdie can give a lecture would be a pretty good indicator of when a Muslim-dominated country is liberal. Now, mind you, no matter what we did in iraq, liberalizing the country would have been a long-term project; ain't no way to liberalize Iraq in 3 years no matter what we did there. But all that tells us is that we should have expected a long war (of course, some of us DID expect a long war).

So, again, I ask Matthew what his point is.

Of course it would be great if the Middle East was populated by pluaralist democracies. What this has to do with changing Iraq into a theocratic quasi-state I have no idea.

The point is that you can't go directly from Saddam's totalitarian state to a liberal democracy. There are stages along the way. The fact that there are stages along the way doesn't make the journey itself wrong to take.

Salman Rushdie will be long dead by the time Iraq is liberalized enough for him to give any lecture.

So, again, I ask Matthew what his point is.

To the extent that (a) you're interpreting Friedman correctly, and (b) you're correct in assuming that it's reasonable for everyone else to interpret Friedman that way, MY might be saying that Friedman is an idiot who is so disconnected from this country that he thought that we (or, hell, even just the Republicans) were up for the blood and treasure required for a thirty-year pacification and institution-building project.

What was your point, again?

I caught a bit of an interview he had with Byron Dorgan on globalization, where the Moustache of Wisdom said the Smoot-Hawley tariff gave rise to World War I.

Hey, Al, have you ever heard of a female Iraqi blogger named "Riverbend"?

Yeah, it's not the name on her birth certificate. But she has reasons for not wanting to write under her own. Very good ones.

Before Bush invaded in 2003, Riverbend had a job as a computer programmer. She took the bus to work every day and wore jeans and other Western clothing while she sat on the bus listening to tunes on her portable CD player.

The job was the first thing to go. The mullahs, freed to dominate the country now that Saddam was removed, made sure that women like Riverbend didn't have jobs to go to.

When she first started blogging, she would usually post several times a week, sometimes once every day. Now, months often go by between her posts; it's hard to run a laptop when you can only use home generator power to run it -- and you need that generator for things like basic human survival.

She used to be able to go shopping. Now, she can't go outside without a burqa and two male relatives escorting her.

Multiply her story by a few million, and you have the downward spiral that is life for women in post-invasion Iraq.

And she's one of the lucky ones. She has the wherewithal to leave, which she probably will, and soon. Most Iraqi women are chained in place.

Wanna tell her that Bush has been good for her? C'mon, I dare you: baghdad.burning@gmail.com But don't be surprised if she doesn't get back to you right away: She may already be on the road and out of Iraq. At least, I hope she is.

I've got a measure for Tom. There was this Iraqi woman, I'm sure you remember her, whom Bush paraded before Congress and the nation in the SOTU speech just after the 'purple finger' election. She stood up, and tearfully hugged a dead soldier's mom, and held up her purple finger.

Wasn't long after that that she made a statement: due to the utter curtailment of women's rights in southern Iraq, she was leaving. Of course, the MSM barely covered it, and has never followed up.

When she feels she can go back to Iraq, Tom, how about then we START talking about a new dawn of freedom there? 'Til then, how about we keep our mouths shut?

Peter K., if I understand you correctly, your chain of causes of the deaths on 9/11/01 goes something like this. The Hijackers - Osama - US troops in Saudi Arabia (among other grievances) - Saddam Hussein against the threat of whom the US troops were deployed.

So while it is true to say that in a roundabout way Saddam caused 9/11, that way is more roundabout than it would be to say that the US caused 9/11. While both of these constructions may be true, is either one useful?

the blood and treasure required for a thirty-year pacification and institution-building project.

Hey, that's only 60 Friedmans!

The larger point is, the Bush Administration has never been serious about turning Iraq into a peaceful, liberal democracy. That would have taken serious, non-fantasyland planning, resulting in a bigger military footprint.

Instead, the administration floated along on best-case scenarios, all of which have -- unsurprisingly -- blown up in our soldiers' faces.

Let's strip away the Busch co.'s rhetorical bark and see this whole enterprise for what it actually is: a way to transfer a lot of money into Richard Cheney's pockets.

To the extent that (a) you're interpreting Friedman correctly, and (b) you're correct in assuming that it's reasonable for everyone else to interpret Friedman that way

But of course!

MY might be saying that Friedman is an idiot who is so disconnected from this country that he thought that we (or, hell, even just the Republicans) were up for the blood and treasure required for a thirty-year pacification and institution-building project

A reasonable objection, I suppose. Presumably, though, a pre-war hope would have been that military action would have wound down a lot sooner and at this point it would be a lot more nation-building and less military. After all, we've been doing the same in Kosovo for, what, 8 years now (of course, after Clinton said we'd be out in one - not that I object to our actions in Kosovo; I don't)? I don't think that Republicans would have objected to doing the same in Iraq - especially given that we support a much more difficult expensive policy there now. I realize that it didn't turn out that way; it's been a lot harder than was hoped. That it turned out more difficult than was hoped doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Al, there are several points here.

1. Expecting the United States Marines and assorted defense contractors to build a liberal society in Baghdad, where none has previously existed, and where no significant movement exists to create such a society, was blindingly naive.

2. When the President pushed Congress for the authority to invade Iraq, this was not the mission he advertised. The President said he was going to war to prevent Saddam Hussein from giving his hypothetical weapons to the terrorists he hypothetically supported. Assuming that the American public was actually committed to waging a long guerrilla war in Iraq, and that the President would set politics aside and do everything possible to build a liberal society in Iraq, was blindingly naive.

3. I've met teenagers who have a better grasp of the way the world actually operates than Thomas Friedman does. A lifetime of drinking cocktails with third world elites has given him a deeply distorted view of foreign cultures, which he passes off as expertise. It's as if a Frenchman were to mingle with Wall Street bankers and Hollywood scenesters, and then pose as the world's great expert on how to solve all of America's problems. It would be laughable, if the real-world impact of the attitudes he embodies weren't so disastrous.

Most would agree that if the goal is to get Rushdie a lecture gig in Baghdad, we're running the wrong way down the field. But does no one else here think it's morally indefensible to wage war against a country for the purpose of liberalizing their society? I'l as left of liberal as anyone here, and free speech and womens' rights are central to my cannon. But even if you could (and you can't) use military force to change a culture that profoundly, who the hell are we to make that choice for them and then impose it by violence?

I thought the reason this latest gamble in Iraq was supposed to be a cinch was because the place was, in fact, for decades, the most liberal, highly educated, secular country in the Middle East. Plenty of corruption like most everywhere else in the world, but lots of female doctors, lawyers, engineers, good economic growth, etc., etc.

You gotta believe that there were other plans on the table to keep the Middle East oil under "enlightened" control, but the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Bush team thought they could easily finesse the situation with their big brains.

Phoenix Woman, yes I am aware of the blogger named Riverbend. I understand why she feels the way she does; Sunnis are a lot less powerful than they used to be. But understand that she is not representative of Iraqis as a whole (although she is likely representative of the formerly more powerful Sunnis). According to the latest poll listed on the Brookings Iraq Index that asked the question, 77% of Iraqis thought that ousting Saddam was worth it (although I acknowledge that the poll was taken earlier this year and could have changed since then) - including 90+% of Shia and Kurds.

Since the educated and professional classes are fleeing Iraq as soon as they can get an exit visa and transportation, Rushdie wouldn't have much an audience anyway.

I think we should all bone up on the works of the more prominent Izvestia columnists of the Soviet era. Only then might we begin to understand the reasoning of our contemporary pundit class.

But all that tells us is that we should have expected a long war (of course, some of us DID expect a long war).

Unfortunately, most of the people who did not seem to expect a long war were in the Bush Administration, which has underfunded and undermanned it from the very beginning.

It's nice that you expected a long war, Al, but you're not running things, are you? Donald "We'll be out by Christmas" Rumsfeld is running them.

White Noise is pure genius from start to finish. If I had to pick out one part that I particularly like, it's the one the father-in-law asks "Were people this dumb before television?" The part about Genghis Kahn contemplating death is a stand-out too.

What annoys me more than anything about Friedman -- more than the moustache, more than the constant refrain of "we'll know in another six months" even -- is how he thinks he's a talented phrase-maker. He actually thinks "the world is flat" is a great catchphrase. He thinks calling the print edition of the Times the "dead tree edition" is funny. And he thinks saying that we'll know we won in Iraq when Rushdie can give a speech in Baghdad is profound. Its his aesthetics that bother me more than his misguided sociopolitical ideas.

Al,

Your complaint about Sunnis is so too Friedmans ago. Now we hate Shi'ites. Jeez. Keep it straight.

Huh, I thought I had a bunch of DeLillo but not White Noise. (I suppose that that's now actually the case.)

Most liberal beside Israel, that is, it goes without saying.

According to the latest poll listed on the Brookings Iraq Index that asked the question, 77% of Iraqis thought that ousting Saddam was worth it

Two questions:
1) Did they say they were happy he was gone, or did they actually say it was worth it? Two different things.
2) How many of the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed in the invasion did that poll include?

The dumbest thing Kerry said in 2004 was that the war in Iraq was taking money away from fire stations in the Homeland, thereby playing the nationalist card.

Pete misquotes Kerry, like most everyone else who wants to make a point a la Chris Hitchens. The "firehouses" comment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html) came in the middle of a series of points about how the administration was misspending money for homeland security: on police, on transportation security, container security, airline security, chemical and nuclear plant security. He even touched on loose nuclear materials in that answer. That's not a nationalist statement, that's a questioning of the way in which the administration chose to protect the country.

Of course, if you suck from the Hitchens hose, you're going to get a mouthful of bad.

Rushdie's chances of lecturing were probably a whole lot higher under Saddam. Didn't he fight a war against the mullahs that fatwa'd Rushdie? And, as most others have pointed out, the whole enterprise has made Iraq less of a secular, modern state. So by Friedmans own (retarded) definition, the war was wrong to begin with, and got a whole lot wronger when a government was installed/elected/whatever that had close ties to Iran and the shiite fundamentalists.

That's what galls me most about the "liberalization of iraq" excuse for war: Iraqis had a lot of personal freedoms under Saddam. What were most lacking were the freedom to speak out against the government, freedom from kangaroo justice, and freedom from torture; all things this administration has been cheerfully chipping away at here at home. Oyyy.

Riverbend: For me, June marked the first month I don’t dare leave the house without a hijab, or headscarf. I don’t wear a hijab usually, but it’s no longer possible to drive around Baghdad without one. It’s just not a good idea. (Take note that when I say ‘drive’ I actually mean ‘sit in the back seat of the car’- I haven’t driven for the longest time.) Going around bare-headed in a car or in the street also puts the family members with you in danger. You risk hearing something you don’t want to hear and then the father or the brother or cousin or uncle can’t just sit by and let it happen. I haven’t driven for the longest time. If you’re a female, you risk being attacked.

I look at my older clothes- the jeans and t-shirts and colorful skirts- and it’s like I’m studying a wardrobe from another country, another lifetime. There was a time, a couple of years ago, when you could more or less wear what you wanted if you weren’t going to a public place. If you were going to a friends or relatives house, you could wear trousers and a shirt, or jeans, something you wouldn’t ordinarily wear. We don’t do that anymore because there’s always that risk of getting stopped in the car and checked by one militia or another.

Al: yes I am aware of the blogger named Riverbend. I understand why she feels the way she does; Sunnis are a lot less powerful than they used to be.

How readily we trivialize the problems of others.

I don't think that Republicans would have objected to doing the same in Iraq - especially given that we support a much more difficult expensive policy there now. I realize that it didn't turn out that way; it's been a lot harder than was hoped. That it turned out more difficult than was hoped doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Al, you've got to be kidding me. You lot aren't willing to commit massive dollars over massive years to try and address urban blight in an already democratic country that we control. Do you really think Republicans would be up for a massive government project to bring democracy (and the necessary attendant institutions) to some other people, especially under cover of gunfire? They might have said they were up for it at the time, but there is exactly no chance that their will would have been sustained. Already the right wing is the place to look if you want to see shouts of "Abandon them. They're animals!"

And, yeah, you should have known that it would be more difficult than Kosovo. For one thing, the rest of the West backed us in Kosovo. For another, why does anyone really care about Kosovo? It doesn't have oil or any other assets that make it peculiarly attractive, AFAIK. Which means fewer foreign powers infiltrating to spread their influence. You wouldn't think it would be necessary to tell a Republican that assets are likely to attract competitors to bid for them. Or that competitors are likely to increase the necessary price.

Does Friedman actually understand what democracy is? For the theocractic movements to abandon violence in favor of electoral redress, they'll actually need to feel that they can achieve at least some of their agenda through the process. As these people don't want to live in an open, secularized liberal society, it just doesn't make sense that they would buy into a government that achieves this.

I know that Friedman believes we can corrupt their ideology with our tasty Big Macs and flashy iPods, but even if you buy into this overly simplistic and optimistic view of carb- and techo-addictions as a key lever in societal change, getting them to accept that degree of secularization will take decades, if not centuries.

I'd say his "friedmans" are off scale by at least a factor of 100.

Al- I wouldn't be quoting polls taken of Iraqis right now. If you support the Iraqis' freedom within their own country and the continued presence of American troops, you are objectively supporting the killing of American soldiers. If you support a complete American withdrawl from Iraq within 12 months, then you support the Iraqis' right to freedom and self-determination.

to return to first principles, the reason that we know that friedman has evolved into a totla idiot is that he still thinks that there's something "we" could have won in iraq.

this is what confuses so many of the stay-the-course crowd: they keep thinking that "we" have something that we can win....

The Friedman line is just a slogan for "mañana".

When the world is perfect, we won't need soldiers in Iraq.

All right, Matt, I get it. You read books. I believe you.

Actually Friedman is lying. He used to say we'd know we won the war when you could go up to the drive-through at the Baghdad McDonalds and order a McRibs sandwich.

The inimitable Al -- "The point is that you can't go directly from Saddam's totalitarian state to a liberal democracy. There are stages along the way."

Like the savage and bloody civil war stage, then the theocracy stage, then...

Strikes me that Iraq could have found its way to those "stages" without our help.

Gotta respect Al for hanging in there and continuing to make his circa 2003 bizarro-world arguments. Although on the internet you can't see whether someone has a straight face.

For my money, Mao II is way better than White Noise. Betcha Kriston has it on his shelf, too.

Hey Al...

If you want to post polls, how about this one:

A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the US military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the US made a commitment to withdraw, a majority
believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on US-led forces has grown to a majority position-now six in ten. Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the US government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.
http://www.pipa.org/

Did you catch that? 60% of Iraqis SUPPORT attacks on U.S. troops.

I do! And it is! MY left uncharacteristically early this morning or I'd've convinced him to take that one.

darrelplant, i'm glad you provided a link, because Kerry does say what I remember:

"Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do. And there are a long list of thing. First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you have $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq, and the president is cutting the COPS program in America?

What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq, but we're shutting firehouses who are the first- responders here in America."

Is he proposing to do both? I don't think so, he saying Bush is screwing over Americans and givinng away money to foreigners.

Now, I'm all for cutting of foreign aid to, say, Egypt, where the dictator's son and heir apparent is making noises about going nuclear. Or maybe even threaten to cut Israel's aid until they get serious about a two-state solution.

But the Sunni blogger and her friends need the help. (Actually I don't much sympathize with the Sunnis, who while only 20% of the population used to lord over the other 80%) And after we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, we boxed him with no-fly zones, and Clinton's sanctions (which Albright admitted killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi kids) Iraq was our responsiblity. And it deteriorated a lot during the 90s under sanctions, I think we greatly underestimated how bad it had deteroriated.

From what I understand many Iraqis are afraid of what will happen if we leave. I always think Iraq was politically risky for the Republicans, and I think the upcoming elections will prove it.

And for more current polling data we have this.....

September 27, 2006

POLLING IRAQ....The Washington Post quotes three different polling firms today who say that by a wide margin Iraqis want American troops to leave:

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

....Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year.

....The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal.

The PIPA poll suggests that Sunnis are a little less likely than Shiites to want U.S. troops to withdraw, which isn't surprising since they're the ones who would be massively outnumbered if we left. The State Department poll, however, doesn't appear to bear this out, showing a stronger desire for U.S. withdrawal in mixed areas than in predominantly Shiite areas.

Overall, though, the results are clear and discouraging for "stay the course" fans. The Iraqi leadership may be reluctant to see us go, but what are the odds that an occupation force can succeed in quelling violence if three-quarters of the population wants them to leave?

The entire article, complete with pie charts and additional analysis is here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009578.php

Look at it very carefully, and then try to say that a foreign Christian occupier will ever be able to impose their desires on Iraq, not even at the current $2,000,000,000 per week it's costing the American tazpayers.

Peter K., if I understand you correctly, your chain of causes of the deaths on 9/11/01 goes something like this. The Hijackers - Osama - US troops in Saudi Arabia (among other grievances) - Saddam Hussein against the threat of whom the US troops were deployed.

So while it is true to say that in a roundabout way Saddam caused 9/11, that way is more roundabout than it would be to say that the US caused 9/11. While both of these constructions may be true, is either one useful?

Depends what you mean by "caused." I'd argue Saddam was morally wrong to invade Kuwait and annex it, a sovereign nation and member of the United Nations.

Doesn't matter that Iraq and Kuwait were creations of European imperialsm, war doesn't solve anything.

I think it was reasonable to station troops in Saudi Arabia, at the Saudis' request. So while Saddam probably didn't plan on this happening, his invasion of Kuwait caused it, which caused OBL to become upset at all the blasphemy, which led to 9-11, Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, etc. So, yes, Saddam's *bad behavior* caused a lot of other bad things to happen.

Oddly enough, Bush did capitulate to OBL and pulled the troops from Saudi soil. He just moved them next door.

DeLillo is not to everyone's taste, but I highly recommend Mao II. It contains no answers but a lot of what it suggests about the subjects of terrorism and the friction between western culture and the middle east seems quite prescient, now.

White Noise is probably my favourite novel of all time, because (IMO) it is so very fucking funny.

Wow, that Al is a real piece of work, and apparently he's got a soul brother in Peter K. To those two, the problems of Riverbend are uniquely Sunni problems and karmic payback, respectively. It must be so much easier to live in such a simple world, where real people, people who just want to live their lives, to kiss their families, to go back to the way it was when they could leave the house in blue jeans without such an act being a life or death decision, can be so easily dismissed.

Safe for Rushdie? LOL. The place isn't even safe for the people that want to live there. The majority of Americans know Bush is a fool. The media is making it seem a lot closer than it really is (thanks to support of Diebold et.al.).

The VAST MAJORITY of AMERICANS were schooled that torture (Inquisitions et.al) and we all spent at least a few days on habeus corpus.

No, the vast majority of Americans are dead set against this fascism. It may take flooding the streets with Orange to wrestly control back from the few hundred who are in control, but there is strength in numbers and we defintiely have that.

Enjoy.

White Noise is probably my favourite novel of all time, because (IMO) it is so very fucking funny.

But it's nowhere near as funny as, say, As I Lay Dying, or Winesburg, OH.

Damnit, Hex, you totally beat me to recommending Mao II.

I read that book 2 months ago after having it sit on my shelves for well over a decade. It was like feeling someone walk over my grave.

Matthew and everyone else (even you, Al): read it. Seriously.

Poco Ritard asks, " . . . even if you could (and you can't) use military force to change a culture that profoundly, who the hell are we to make that choice for them and then impose it by violence?"

My own answer, and that of other readers of this blog, might not be of much consequence. Here is the answer given by George W. Bush in October 2000 in a presidential debate moderated by Jim Lehrer: "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. we can't be all things to all people in the world . . . I'm worried about over committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use . . . I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission. And it was not very successful. It cost us a couple billions of dollars and I'm not sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before. I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be . . . I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you."

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
turkiyemirc
mircturkiye
mirch
mırch
mirc indir
mirc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc indir
mırc yukle
mirc turkiye
turkiye mirc
turk mirc
mirc turk
türkçe mirc
türkce mirc
türkçe mırc
turkce mirc
turkçe mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mirc
mirc chat
mirc sohbet
mirc ara
muhabbet
chat
blog
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkiyeforum
türk forum
mirc
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
sohbet
chat
bedava sohbet
turksohbet
turkiye sohbet
sohbet odaları
bedava chat
chat odaları
türk chat
türkiye chat
turkada
turkmirc
mirc inndir
karar

slm

Plaket
Seks Shop - Seks Shop - Penis Büyütücü
Plaket
Kostüm
Fotokopi
Matbaa
Fuar
Reklam Ajansı
Evden Eve Nakliyat

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet

penis büyütücü hap

harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com

sex shop