Is it one of the membership rules of the League of Anti-Muslim Ideologues that you have to use the Genovese Syndrome to make a trite political point at least once a year? Because most of the other members have already got their card stamped on that one already.

I already knew about the monthly quota of maliciously defaming France, and I see you managed to check that box here, too.

Mork, you're acting like a twelve-year old. Again. You are this '' close to being shown the door. This movie review has nothing to do with Muslims. The "malicious" anti-France line links to the Guardian, is mentioned in the movie (so it's relevant), and is balanced by an "anti-American" comment to boot. And I only know of one other person who has ever referenced the Genovese Syndrome.

This is your last warning. Grow up or get out.

Oh, nevermind, Mork. You're banned for accusing me of racism yet again for no reason whatsoever. Your IP Address is blocked, and if you switch computers to post again your comments will be deleted. I have better things to do than babysit you.

Very nice bit of writing, Michael. I think its one of your best pieces.

Nice piece - that's always been something I was ashamed that no-one did anything about. I don't really know why no one cared (plenty of theories out there), a good media campaign would have made people care but it never happened.

It met my litmus test - one side has a clear moral superior position. If two groups want to commit genocide helping either side will result in either that side winning or them fighting for many many years. I would just assume leave them alone as there is no good solution, in fact allowing one side to commit genocide is probably the least amount of suffering and death, though every effort should be made to get people who want out - out. It's like a question - do you want killed by decapitation, disembowelment, or a long terrible disease and you gotta choose one.

But in this case we could have stopped it, saved many lives, and enforced some level of piece and eventually stabalised the region. To continue with the above analogy: when given the choice of dieing or living the world choose to die.

"But he can't do much to stop it - the UN apparatchiks won't let him. His men are not allowed to fire their weapons. All they really can do is stand there and watch. "We're here as peacekeepers," he says, "not peacemakers.""

Why do so many people still glorify the United Nations? This organization is next to useless. America should not hesitate to act “unilaterally.” The hell with waiting for the rest of the world to do the right thing.

Mike --

Nice review. The only thing I'd add is that most other reviewers take America to task for not intervening, and building an "international coalition" to stop the violence yet ignore the power (France) that had reasons to want to support the genocide.

If I can look back in my "attitude time machine" my memory seems to say that most people were appalled about what was going on, but had no will to stop it. Remember this was after Mogadishu, when Clinton's response had us all convinced that the US had no military power to speak of, and could only look on idly by, particularly in Africa. The genocide was VERY well covered, but there was ZERO appetite among ANYONE in either party to use force to stop it. IIRC the US essentially sailed away from Haiti after some thugs threatened our peacekeepers around that time.

Clinton later went to Africa and gave some self-serving "apology" yet he was the one who as C-in-C could have ordered troops in to stop this. Unfortunately for most of my Party there is an allergic reaction to any use of ground troops or real military action.

I think you can draw a line from our failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda to 9/11; both happened when evil had no opposition with force.

Oh, nevermind, Mork. You're banned for accusing me of racism yet again for no reason whatsoever.... I have better things to do than babysit you --MJT

Oh,I know I should not but I just can't resist.
The fact that it took this long to deep-six Mork,indicates how far you are willing to bend over backwards to be "fair".It speaks well of you,as I would have banned him,the first time he showed his true colours.
No-one should have to put up with this type of drivel,especially on his own blog.It's like allowing a complete stranger to barge in and trash your house simply because he has no manners whatsoever.Enough is well past the point of being enough.
And being petty ------- YEAH !!!

Lessons on how to behave don't only apply to individuals. They also apply...to institutions and nation-states.

That's right. Take the famous Milgram experiment, in which individuals separated from the group and forced to think on their feet about whether to follow authoritarian orders to torture someone often failed to resist. The experiment teaches not that people are wicked. It doesn't even show only that people are sometimes unable to resist commands to do evil. Rather it shows that social institutions of moral deliberation and traditional tendencies to uphold exemplars of virtue, such as the "extraordinary" Oscar Schindler you mention, are crucial and invaluable. Indeed, what the Milgram experiment proves is not that there is something awful about humanity but, rather, that there is something obviously very right about our societies institutions and traditions. Upon deliberation and reflection upon moral exemplars, we by and large choose not to torture one another.

I remember a “Frontline” production where a French speaking Tutsi woman [a school teacher] came up to a Belgium Paratrooper, an officer loading his men on a plane who asked if she and her little girls could go with them. He said, “no, it wasn’t allowed.” She said, “ behind those tree’s over there are killers and they will kill us, leave your guns so that we can protect ourselves.” The officer said, “I can’t do that either” and she said, “They will rape me and my little girls and chop us up with machetes, please shoot us before you leave.” He couldn’t do that either. I’ve always hoped that he had the decency to kill himself for his lack of compassion.

OT, FYI, are you going to go see the Ghaddafi opera?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050117/ap_en_mu/gadhafi_opera

Michael, does the Nick Nolte "Colonel Oliver" character represent Romeo Dallaire? I don't recall a person of that name in the UNAMIR.

To others, when doing the usual UN-bashing about the failure in Rwanda, please remember that the only outside group that very bravely did anything to try and stop this genocide was the UN mission in Rwanda. UNAMIR tried to get the mission escalated from peacekeeping to peacemaking (IE - from allowing military action in self-defense only to actual proactive defense of the victims), only to have several security council members, including the US, obstruct them.

If this was a UN failure, then it was a UN failure to ignore the political maneuverings of its member nations. The actual UN mission had fourteen soldiers killed in a most horrible way while trying to accomplish their mission, and the gloating about the UN's failure in Rwanda cheapens their sacrifice. This wasn't a UN failure, it was humanity's failure. That may not play as well in the partisan sniping, but it's true nonetheless.

Double, it WAS the UN failure, including the US portion. And yes, because humanity is sinful, it is also humanity's failure. Like Sudan, today.

Every death in Sudan is the UN's failure. The US has called it genocide; but Amnesty has not; HRW has not. The UN has not; Kofi has not. The CS Monitor recently said it is NOT a "humanitarian crisis".

Michael, great article. (Thanks for banning Mork, even though some 10% of his critiques had some thought.)

I don't really know why no one cared

My question for you: if caring meant action, and action included invasion and occupation and manning prisons, and there were "very very likely" Stanford Prison Experiment type abuses to occur by the invader/ liberators, would you favor invasion action caring?
I would, and I'd complain a little about the abuses. But I'd focus on stopping evil.
Just like I do in Iraq.
Stopping government by Death Squad.

The (unintended?) result of hyper-criticism against the US taking action in Iraq is a higher political cost in fighting gov't by Death Squads.

The US has called it genocide; but Amnesty has not;

Aside from calling it genocide, what action has the US government taken to prevent it?

And what is Amnnesty International calling it?

Barries to action in Rwanda don't differ much from than those that inhibited Ms. Genovese's potential helpers. And they've been put in place by the same type of people. Ms. Genovese's rescuers had been reduced to inert dependents. With the strictest gun control outside D.C, the only option was to call the police. Here its the UN. And self help is legally risky: Use excessive force and its a crime and a tort. The US knows this too. While hardly an inert dependent, Police Chief Kofi Anan clinks champagne glasses in a tux and classifies the removal of Saddam as illegal. Our wealthy neighbors refuse financial help and troops and lecture us. Someone in Belgium tries to sue Bush (not Saddam) for war crimes. Yes, the one country that could really do something has been sensitized allright. The people in the cheap seats crabbing about US action ought to step up in Rwanda: they've obviously made sure that no one else will.

Barries to action in Rwanda don't differ much from than those that inhibited Ms. Genovese's potential helpers. And they've been put in place by the same type of people. Ms. Genovese's rescuers had been reduced to inert dependents. With the strictest gun control outside D.C, the only option was to call the police. Here its the UN. And self help is legally risky: Use excessive force and its a crime and a tort. The US knows this too.

Those that ignored Ms. Genovese's cries for help were not doing so because they were afraid of the legal consequences. To state so is stretching an already thin metaphor to beyond the breaking point. And to state that the US is afraid to help against genocide in the face of world inaction because of the legal consequences is ludicrous beyond imagination. How would you explain the invasion of Iraq, where no genocide was occurring, or the intervention in Bosnia, where it was?

Our wealthy neighbors refuse financial help and troops and lecture us.

The US administration, faced with the reluctance of most of the world to invade Iraq for what they considered dubious reasons, and the hawks said "we don't need allies." Well, you don't have them now. Stop complaining.

Those that ignored Ms. Genovese's cries for help were not doing so because they were afraid of the legal consequences. To state so is stretching an already thin metaphor to beyond the breaking point.

According to psychologists, people in a crowd are less likely to help someone in trouble because they think that someone else (an authority, another onlooker) should take charge.

If a person is in a crowd they are less likely to help someone than if they’re alone with the person in trouble. The group offers a chance to avoid responsibility.

Pretending that the US is all powerful is also a way of avoiding responsibility. It’s a fairly transparent tactic. This metaphor and the UN’s history (the genocide in Rwanda, the genocide in Cambodia, the current genocide in the Sudan, etc.) are proof that the UN is more concerned with stopping war than genocide. As long as an atrocity is taking place within recognized borders, the UN-group is willing to stand by and peacefully watch people die.

The war in Iraq proved that the US does NOT control the UN. We are not all powerful, we are not the world’s parents and we cannot solve everyone’s problems without help. Whining is not help.

The US is trying to classify the problem in the Sudan as genocide. This is in contrast to Canada, whose corporations actively participated in the genocide and are currently being tried for it.

"Those that ignored...were not doing so becaue they were afraid of the legal consequences."

Sure they were. The "don't get involved" syndrome is familiar to anyone alive in the 1960's. Burgulars allowed to sue homeowners that resisted with "excessive force" finally forced corrective legislation in California. A cabdriver that pinned a violent mugger agaist a wall in SF was sued by the mugger: a $25,ooo verdict and lawyer's fees was his reward. The US public has a "memory" too: its less supportive of involvement in Rwanda after being scolded and left to hold the financial end alone in Iraq (where any of Saddam's victims might differ--if they were alive--with your airy dismissal of his polcies as "no genocide"). Enough of our blood and money. Rwanda? Let the UN look to France, Spain or Belgium.

"Stop complaining."

I'm not. Just noting a fact. Police officers and judges (all with immunity to lawsuits; all entitled to carry guns or who have armed guards) "couldn't understand" why unarmed people at risk for lawsuits or excessive force indictments didn't help Kitty Genovese. The same types want the US to intervene absent any direct US interest and oppose it when the US has an interest. They're complaining. Like 1964, "they just don't understand."

I think it is safe to blame George W. Bush for the Rwanda genocide. Not because he had anything to do with it, but because in this media climate it is safe to blame George W. Bush for anything and everything.

Global warming? George Bush's fault.
Global Islamic terrorism? GWB's fault.
Indian Ocean Tsunami? GWB's fault again.
Vietnam war? GWB's malicious hand again.
14th Century Plague? May as well blame dub.

I heartily agree with your point that people in safe countries all too easily turn off their televisions and get on with their safe lives, and that what happened in Rwanda was unspeakably horrendous.

I would only like to address using Kitty Genovese as a metaphor: apparently there were many fewer witnesses than first reported, and the there is evidence that no one other than the killer actually saw the murder take place. It's not your fault that you made this analogy: it's what has been reported for decades now. But apparently what really happened during the murder was not as simple: 38 people did not watch her die without helping her. Here is an article to that effect: http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:GTc-i3WFw0MJ:www.middlesexcc.edu/library/images/kitty.pdf+kitty+genovese+new+york+times&hl=en

In any case, I do not mean to detract from your main argument about the genocide in Rwanda. I recognize that this is something of a trivial point in relation to the main thrust of your article. I only bring it up because the Genovese murder has been such a seminal case for the fields of psychology and law that it seems it would be best to understand what actually happened, and to acknowledge that some of the initial reporting may have been flawed.

Keep up the great writing in your blog!

For the poster who asked for no UN bashing, well it WAS Kofi Annan who directly ordered the UN Peacekeepers to "preserve the neutrality of the UN" and not intervene. A pattern repeated both before and since.

The UN, as an institution, regardless of the bravery of somem individuals within it, is simply incapable of fighting evil. The best they can do is hold a conference in NYC, Geneva, or some other junket spot.

Amnesty, HRW, Doctors without Borders do good work, they often publicize atrocities no one else will touch. [To be fair, they also are filled with PC-ness to the absurd, and go out of their way to make America's enemies look good and America look bad]. However, their mode of action might work with a moderate tyrant like Castro or Mahathir, who might release a well known intellectual who is no threat, but fails completely when confronted with the men with guns or machetes.

Against this evil, Amnesty, the UN, and the EU have no answer. ONLY military force will work and ONLY the United States has the ability if not the will to use military force.

Rwanda as Kitty Genovese? The unspoken thread here is fear. Urban legend has it that no one "wanted to get involved." I.E. face retaliation from those killing Kitty Genovese. In less than ten years NYC had essentially changed from Genovese's time to "Taxi Driver" NYC, but early on you could see the reasons people were afraid. The criminals ruled the streets and the police and people did not.

The reason we did not intervene in Rwanda was fear there too. A reasonable fear. Clinton was afraid. Afraid troops would die and he'd be criticized, for letting American boys die for foreigners. He'd had enough of Africa in Somalia, and cut and run. In Rwanda he pretended not to hear because he didn't want to get involved.

The sole voice for denying the thrust of the Genovese story bases his conclusions on "research" performed 38 years later. The NYT does not reach a conclusion and notes "Charles Skoller, the former assistant district attorney, supports part of Mr. De May's conclusion. "I don't think 38 people witnessed it," said Mr. Skoller, now retired. "I don't know where that came from, the 38. I didn't count 38. We only found half a dozen that saw what was going on, that we could use." But Mr. Skoller is far less willing than Mr. De May to forgive the neighbors. Even if not all saw the crime, Mr. Skoller is convinced they heard it. "I believe that many people heard the screams," he said. "It could have been more than 38. And anyone that heard the screams had to know there was a vicious crime taking place. There's no doubt in my mind about that."

So this is where that "Squirrel of Discord" stuff comes from:

Ratatosk (swift-tusked). In Norse mythology, the squirrel that runs up and down the cosmic or world tree, Yggdrasil, carrying abusive language from the dragon Nidhog at the bottom of the tree to the eagle at the top, and vice versa.

Mary: This metaphor and the UN’s history (the genocide in Rwanda, the genocide in Cambodia, the current genocide in the Sudan, etc.) are proof that the UN is more concerned with stopping war than genocide. As long as an atrocity is taking place within recognized borders, the UN-group is willing to stand by and peacefully watch people die.

Then why oh why was the UN actively seeking a change of role for the peacekeepers so that they could be proactive, and why were they shut down by a number of nations, including the US?

And why, if the UN was "willing to stand by and peacefully watch people die," were UN peacekeepers being killed? Why were they even there?

I think you should read a bit more about what happened there before so casually dismissing a group that was doing everything they could within the mandate given them by the rest of the world.

Wiping out the Marsh Arabs of Iraq is considered a genocide and the draining of the marsh that was their home for thousands of years also wiped out many diverse types of creatures and was/is considered an ecological disaster of major proportions. Saddam committed genocide, there is no question about that. There was a very sad story in National Geographic about the people murdered and the draining of the marsh.

why was the UN actively seeking a change of role for the peacekeepers so that they could be proactive, and why were they shut down by a number of nations, including the US?

Just wondering - Which nations in the UN were supporting a change of role for the peacekeepers? I bet there weren’t many

The fact that the UN was unable to stop the genocide in Rwanda (and in Cambodia, and in the Sudan) is just proof of the theory that belonging to a large group of nations offers each nation a way of escaping from responsibility. Scapegoating an imagined 'authority' (ie: America) gives them a better chance to do nothing.

I’m willing to bet that most nations in the UN didn’t want to get involved in the Rwandan conflict.

They still don’t want to get involved, and the same problem is happening again. It’s true, I haven’t read as much about Rwanda as I have about the Sudan.

Oh, and by the way, the UN oil-for-food scandal is heating up

There's quite a lot here about what we could have done in Rawanda or Sudan or other places past or future. And its certainly true that a hefty dose of force or perhaps even a combination of diplomacy and aid could avert many crises.

What I don't see any discussion of is Africa as a whole. In the middle East I can see some faint glimmer of hope for overall improvement if we keep pushing, and I can see a real need because those countries are such a threat to us, or will be soon. At the same time many of them have good educations, stable economies, stable borders - all lacking in Africa, in the main.

So I know why we're in Iraq - to make the world safer for our grand children and simultaneously for its own people by proding the region into the 20th century, at least, and I have some hope we can do it.

Is there any hope for Africa? Must it go deeper into the pit before it can climb out the other side? And if that's true, then how much harder is it to justify intervention: lives and treasure lost, good works and necessary actions not undertaken elsewhere in the world because we can't be stretched so thin?

I suspect that Africa can generate so many crises that even our wealth and fortitude will be spent with little impact. I think I see a 'plan' emerging among some in our government, as articulated by MJT and some others here, for channeling and, where necessary, blocking middle-east energies. Africa is a lot different. Are we doomed,at best, to endless police work there, or is there a more intelligent, long-term idea out there?

Frankly, the entire continent is damn depressing.

ScottM: Frankly, the entire continent is damn depressing.

Yes, most of it is. My tiny flicker of hope is that the Arabs of North Africa will one day help their neighbors to the south. That may sound like a crazy idea, but it didn't seem crazy when I was in Tunisia. That country has its act together at a pretty high level, despite the fact that it still isn't democratic. I think most Westerners who show up there are surprised. I certainly was, and I already had high expectations.

MJT: My tiny flicker of hope is that the Arabs of North Africa will one day help their neighbors to the south

Is that an argument for sitting out things like Rawanda? I'm not being facetious. Is getting involved before the Africans are ready to do anything themselves just a waste of our soldiers lives?

I have great admiration for people like Schindler and Rusesabagina, but I'm not sure American policy should force our soldiers to risk their lives if the cause is hopeless.

Do we have to write off the present generation of Africans?

No, the present generation ought not to be "written off." Its obscene, isn't it, that we have to even ponder if people wallowing in such pronounced and enduring misery can be helped now of if we havve to wait (and I understand you don't mean they should). One way to reverse course is to end the idea that the UN must control aid, especially by setting up adminiistration facilities in the local equivalent of the 4 Seasons. This has been the approach since I was 10 if not before and it doesen't work. Neither does handing out crisis bags of rice. The US ought to aid countries with free market economies that won't channel the aid into grotesque armies, palaces and swiss bank accounts; economies that will grow and comepte with the Korean/Chinese/Indian economies in exporting textiles and low precision goods instead of standing in line for rice bags. Basic health care can be encouraged and maintained. Armed conflcits could be brought to a halt if the US/and others get enough leeway from the carping crowd and the UN to do it w/o needlessly risking their soldiers and increasing their deficits to benefit internationsal freeriders. Local armies developed and paid. We all need this to be done: another decade of this is just unthinkable. But the US isn't about to jump in "UN style" or risk it alone. Maybe large countires need to "adopt" one or more places as temporary protectorates as colonially distatseful as that sounds. But the "tasteful" feel good remedies haven't worked in 50 years. It can't keep going like this.

Drebbin,

I can agree with all of the 'shoulds' you list, but there has to be a cost benefit analysis.

In this case, I'm afraid the cost may be effectively infinite: no matter how much time and money you pour in, you don't have any effect at all.

Secondly, where is the political will, from the first world countries, to come from for these multi-year commitments? We already hear that a couple of years in Iraq is an intollerable drain on our resources and attention span.

I don't think it will happen in Africa. The UN stinks, but if it leaves I don't believe it will be replaced.

Perhaps the focus needs to be not on correcting the problem, but on somehow strengthening or speeding up whatever natural processes must surely restore Africa eventually. Sadly, this may mean tolerating or even assisting the North's exploitation of the sub-Saharans (to twist Michael's suggestion).

My tiny flicker of hope is that the Arabs of North Africa will one day help their neighbors to the south.

What you're describing is already happening in the Sudan, though I think you had something else in mind.

Drebbin:

There's more than one person who has questioned how many people heard the screams. Also, you seem to think that because it is one person (and not many) who's done research after the fact, there's obviously no reason to question the old story. Personally, I'll take a well-researched account that examines all the eyewitness reports over a news story tossed together in the next day or two after an event. In any case, I do not mean to say that anyone knows exactly what happened, just that there is some evidence to show that Genovese wasn't mudered right in front of 38 people who did nothing, as it is usually presented. As usual, reality is more complicated than that.

Hearing someone screaming does not mean there is violence. Hearing the screams has been a way to get counted as a 'witness' to the Genovese murder, but how much does one really know about what is happening when one hears a scream? I have worked next to a day care center: you would not believe the shrieks and howls we hear all day long, and yet not one of them is the result severe bodily harm. My old apartment complex used to have the odd screaming fight out in the parking lot, yet there was never a murder while I was there. It is possible to hear someone screaming and to not assume that there is any crime going on? Yes.

Genovese was indeed seen moving outside in the street, and she was indeed killed in the staircase. What were the residents to have assumed? If the witnesses didn't see her with their eyes while she was being physically attacked, how were they to know she was being killed? To witnesses that glanced out of a window to see her on the street, the situation did not seem that alarming.

One of the most interesting things about the case is how people can make terrible assumptions when they only have limited facts.

Scott:
It is indeed asking a lot for the US which has spent its "fall of the USSR peace bonus" on deficits and the Iraq war to get involved elsewhere. Proposal: Jettison the method used for last 40 years (endless aid will help) (it cripples local industry); Offer to one list of target countries: be our protectorate; US to provide training and Basic security; drinkable water; sustainable food production; opportunities for the intellegensia and the crafty ones to accumlate wealth w/o losing it to a mauraders down the road. Co-opt the smart ones; build schools; Supernationalists decide its better with us than w/o us; they keep flag, name, etc. The US gets a place to compete with china/India etc in textile or minor electronic mfrg; or farming for export to SE Asia. low tax zones for the industries we've lost here anyway. We have to be invited in; run it like a colony till our "lease" is up. Mutual renewal rights; Brits/French/Russia will probably want one area too. Perfect? Hardly. Smacks of--is--colonialism of the olden times? Yes. (but India, Austrailia and US didn't turn out so bad). Rsik of superpower confrontation? Yes. But it worked for the Romans. Kind of like finding a smart kid in the bad area of town and asking if he/she wants a ticket out-with conditions. Would be rejected out of hand by the UN. But like ending dual language instruction here in California, it might surprise: "activists" opposed it; 67% or more of the Latino parents supported it. Anyway, it beats another 40 years of the same or worse. The psychic and real bill will come due one day for all this neglect.

[PS: to January: enough already. If i hear screams for help I look. If I'm old, unarmed and scared of people out on parole the next day, I tell the police I saw nothing.]

PPS: thanks to Totten for allowing this debate. Let's all check back in 40 years.

The Rwanda massacres were totally about the government going after Muslims, weren't they?

Why isn't THIS the central point of discussion?

It's not called "Genovese Syndrome", it's called "The Bystander Effect".

In other words, what is the psychology behind by groups of people will just do nothing and be bystanders, when something awful is going on?

The woman who was murdered was named Kitty Genovese, but the phenomenology of people standing around and doing nothing to stop something was not named "The Genovese Syndrome" in her honor... it's called simply "The Bystander Effect".

Check out How to Gamble in America :: Poker Index :: Poker Room Review :: Sports Index :: Sports Book Review :: Casino Index :: Casino Review :: Craps :: Blackjack Strategies :: Roulette :: Let It Ride :: Three Card Poker :: Video Poker :: Gambling Quotes :: Online Gambling :: Online Poker :: Draw Poker :: Poker Hand Rankings :: Texas Hold’em :: Seven Card Stud :: Seven Card High/Low :: Omaha :: Omaha High/Low :: Guide To Sports Betting :: The Basics to Wagering on Sports :: Parlays :: Teasers :: Half Point :: Sports Betting Tips & Tricks :: Money Management :: Sports Betting Terminology :: Horse Racing Tips :: Free NFL Pick :: Other Sites Index :: Past Featured Sites :: Other Sites :: Other Sites 2 :: Partner Sites

Also check out 100 Best Poker Rooms for all the best up to date online gambling sites.

And How to Gamble Online for all the best up to date online gambling sites.

klimatyzacja
projektowanie wnętrz
jiddu
3d
reklama
projektowanie stron
nieruchomości
forum ludzkie
poezja
swietlica
psycholog
agroturystyka
opony

praca za granicą

18 latki filmowana we dwoje @ 18 latki filmowana wyrosniete @ 18 latki filmowana za forse @ 18 latki filmowana za kase @ 18 latki filmowana za pieniadze @ 18 latki filmowana zgabnie @ 18 latki filmowana zgrabne @ 18 latki filmowanie @ 18 latki filmowanie 2 pary @ 18 latki filmowanie 2pary @ 18 latki filmowanie brutalnie @ 18 latki filmowanie cycate @ 18 latki filmowanie darmo @ 18 latki filmowanie doswiadczone @ 18 latki filmowanie fetysz @ 18 latki filmowanie fetyszystki @ 18 latki filmowanie forsa @ 18 latki filmowanie free @ 18 latki filmowanie grupowo @ 18 latki filmowanie latwo @ 18 latki filmowanie lesbijki @ 18 latki filmowanie lesby @ 18 latki filmowanie lezbijki @ 18 latki filmowanie lezby @ 18 latki filmowanie na zywo @ 18 latki filmowanie nietrzezwe @ 18 latki filmowanie niewolnice sexualne @ 18 latki filmowanie od tylu @ 18 latki filmowanie odurzone @ 18 latki filmowanie ostro @ 18 latki filmowanie ostry @ 18 latki filmowanie pieniadze @ 18 latki filmowanie pijane @ 18 latki filmowanie pizda @ 18 latki filmowanie pizdy @ 18 latki filmowanie podryw @ 18 latki filmowanie podrywacze @ 18 latki filmowanie podwiazki @ 18 latki filmowanie podwojnie @ 18 latki filmowanie przerosniete @ 18 latki filmowanie przystojne @ 18 latki filmowanie przystojny @ 18 latki filmowanie rajstopy @ 18 latki filmowanie rozjebane @ 18 latki filmowanie siksy @ 18 latki filmowanie szybko @ 18 latki filmowanie w 2 osoby @ 18 latki filmowanie w cipe @ 18 latki filmowanie w cipke @ 18 latki filmowanie w dupe

Greetings From NY !

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino

casino

asc
kraob
eves
akupunktura
freesz
puz
domy opieki
mopinsite
oppin