Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Crocker About Iran, Riyadh al-Nuri's Letter

I've been a bad blogger at such a crucial period, much is going on and I have much to talk about, I really want to blog more but I just don't have the time to do it.
So I'll just scribble a few things, here's US ambassador Ryan Crocker trying to describe Iranian influence in Iraq:

REP. SMITH: I think [our presence] clearly motivates Iran to cause more problems in Iraq than they otherwise would, because if we're not there, Iran doesn't have much interest in Iraqi instability. But if we are there, given the conflict we have with Iran and the very real threats that Iran poses, they have to be worried about what our military would do if it got too secure in Iraq. So do you factor that in terms of how we reach ultimate reconciliation with Iran? And also with the various Shi'a factions -- because what happened in Basra and Baghdad recently could be simply dismissed as the government versus unlawful militias, but if you dig very deep down, you find out that there's more to it. And it's basically rival militias fighting out. The Badr Brigade seemed to be more closely allied right now with the Iraqi government, but the Badr Brigades also to some extent are allied with Iran. So what's our long-term strategy there? Are we really choosing sides between the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi Army?
Clearly, they are motivated to try to put pressure on us. That's obviously part of it. But having watched this dynamic for a number of years in the region, I think what the Iranians are doing is pursuing a policy, if you will, of Lebanonization, doing what they did in Lebanon. And they, in conjunction with Syria, have pursued a policy of backing more than one militia in Lebanon for the last quarter of a century. And we haven't been there in Lebanon as a military force since 1984. So I think they would be pursuing these kinds of efforts in Iraq.

also, a few words about Riyadh al-Nuri, it seems to be that this is an inside job, I don't have really much to say because our blogger colleague Eye Iraki is blogging extensively and in excellent detail about the topic directly from Najaf, Eye Raki used to be in London and seems to have classical middle-class Shi'i tendencies (i.e. Sistani, Hakim.)

One of the more ironic details I have learned from Eye Raki blogging is that, while reading about al-Nuri on a few websites you'd see that he is saintly described as a "moderate who wanted to disband JAM." Eye Raki says that Riyadh al-Nuri is a drillfuck murderer who used to ran sharia courts for chewing innocents in Najaf, he also talks about the struggle between al-Nuri and Ahmed al-Shaybani, an extremist JAM leader who was released from prison by the direct orders of al-Maliki a while ago, it was televised by government Sadr TV al-Iraqiya as a big deal. Speaking of al-Iraqiya, it seems that al-Maliki has finally fired its chairman, the infamous Habib al-Sadr (a family member of al-Hakim) because of his laughable "everybody is nice" coverage of the Cavalry Chaaaaaarge operation.
Eye Raki also posted a letter written by Riyadh al-Nuri a week before he died, with a summarized translation, here is a more literal and complete translation:

To the Eminence of Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr, Long be your glory.
May God's peace, mercy and blessings be upon you.
Praise be to Allah, the Mightiest Lord, and peace and blessings be upon my master and leader, the Prophet of Allah and his progeny, and peace be upon the martyr of the nation, the Holy Leader(=Sadr II, Qaddo's dad) (God Protects His Secret)
It is certain that your Eminence realize the difficult and critical circumstances the Mujahid Sadrist Trend is going through for various reasons and factors that could perhaps pose an opportunity for the enemies of this honorable trend, and for those seeking to eliminate it and weaken it.
Hereby, we think that to make those miss their opportunity and to protect this entity founded by the Holy Leader to defend the domain of Islam requires steadfast and quick decisions drawing from past experiences, I have mentioned in more than one occasion the mistakes and violations of some elements of the Imam Mahdi (may Allah hasten his reappearance) Army which gave the agents of the occupation a pretext to distort our reputation and denounce us.
Those corrupt elements which infiltrated the Army of Imam Mahdi (A.H.R.) have found itself a position to administer [incorrect spelling] army legions under various titles, they have carried out kidnapping, robbery and murder operations which negatively affected the populist image of the trend of the Holy Leader and its goals...thus, we see that you take into consideration the following matters so as to preserve the righteous path of the Mujahid Sadrist Trend:
1. The need to quicken the cleansing of the Sadrist Trend from corrupt elements which are commiting crimes under the protection of the Sadrist Trend and the Army of Imam Mahdi (AHR)
2. Internal, regional and international pressures force us to seriously consider the dissolution of the Army of Imam Mahdi (AHR), the recent events in Basrah and other governoates have brought undesirable effects on our popular base and so we believe that you take the incentive to dissolve the army quickly so as to preserve the eternal legacy left behind by the Holy Leader (God bless his secret)

and the final say goes to you in all that we have suggested
and may Allah's peace, mercy and blessings be upon you.

Riyadh al-Nuri
24 Rabi Awwal, 1429 AH

SOURCE: al-Rafedain.net, an especially anti-Sadrist Shi'i website.


Eye Raki said...

As I mentioned earlier in a comment on IBC...A "moderate" in the Sadr Movement is one that does not kill for fun. When you hear that one of them is "moderate" you need to take it with a pinch of salt.

annie said...

eye raki A "moderate" in the Sadr Movement is one that does not kill for fun.

what is your definition of the sadr movement. last i heard there were 2 million people in sadr city (now on it's 2nd week of constant assault by the occupation forces). are we too believe there aren't regular normal people there?

sorry if this is a stupid question. are you referring to their militias, or the movement?

with the exalted use of propaganda exhibited over the course of this war, please excuse me for taking all info w/a grain of salt.

wrt crocker...a more western view

Never in this breathing world have I seen a person clog up and erode his speaking — as distinct from his reading — with more “uhs,” “ers” and “ums” than poor Crocker. Surely he has never seen himself talking: “Uh, that is uh, a, uh, matter that we, er, um, uh are carefully, uh, considering.” (Not a parody, an actual Crocker sentence. And not even the worst.)

and the shocking revelation..

have pursued a policy of backing more than one militia

no shit sherlock

Eye Raki said...

annie the Sadr Movement is a political body, I am not referring to the inhabitants of Sadr City, or even the supporters of the movement/trend (call it what you like).

Of course there are normal people living there, its just that the area is a stronghold of the Mehdi Army, which is the military wing of the Sadr Movement/Trend.

They are infamously feared because of their history of "chewing" opponents.

Al-Sadr himself wants to turn Iraq into an Islamic state and enforce sharia law and his militia is feared in Iraq, so all I am pointing out is that when one of them is called a "moderate" it is not in the sense that regular folks would typically understand. It simply means he isn't as extreme as the others.

annie said...

the Sadr Movement is a political body, I am not referring to the inhabitants of Sadr City

thank you for this explanation. unfortunately in the tactics of 'soft partition' it is incumbent all the actors (including civilians in iraq) become defined as belonging to one group or another, therefor also falling into categories for the purpose of perceptions regarding accepted targets.

an interesting feature is that the original definition of target by the the puppet government and the invaders was NOT a political body, either in basra or sadr city, nor did the press mention what that political body stands for in terms of political identity ie 'nationalist', which is really why they are targeted. the definition is 'criminals', or 'rouge militias'.

so there becomes a blur or fog which creates a justifiable context. interestingly, and i am not contesting the truth of your assertions (wants to turn Iraq into an Islamic state and enforce sharia law ), an islamic state nor sharia law is NOT why sadr is feared by the occupying powers, it is the political dimension of nationalism.

so while most/many iraqis may fear or loath sadr and his militias because of that reason, that is not why they are a target (in my opinion). for if sadr was on board w/the occupying army and their goals of federalized state and 'free trade' economics, all religious aspects (as opposed to political) would be overlooked, just as the drilling was overlooked when it met the aim of the occupier (cleansing sunnis from baghdad).

another interesting feature.. it is hard to imagine the timing wrt the elections. obviously eliminating 'criminals' is not going to make a dent at the ballot box, not unless masses of people are eliminated.

my guess is we are looking at a long summer ahead (similar to the summer of 'operation forward together')because to succeed at the ballot box there will have to be continued sustained 'targeting' with lots of collateral damage. the only way that could be achieved in a short period would be to simply carpet bomb sadr city, and that wouldn't look too good for the hearts and minds crowd, now would it.

political solutions are best dealt with thru negotiations. when gates says 'anyone who joins the political process will not be considered an enemy', that is not what he means. not at all. because the 'political process' is supposed to be democracy. what he is saying is 'anyone who does not come on board w/our political goals (not process but federalization) we will target as we would an enemy ie we will kill you. and that is what we are seeing. maliki is the face, the army bombing sadr city is the US.

and, they aren't killing just 'criminals' as gates makes clear, they are killing those who won't acknowledge the rights of the occupier to control the process.

now, if they really wanted sadr to be part of a democratic iraqi political process, they (the US) would stand down and i think sadr has made clear he would deal w/an iraqi process. unfortunately for the US a democratic solution for iraq would probably not deliver the rewards the invader (or their puppets)are seeking for if they did, there would be no need to kill off the competition.

i am certain iraqis are perfectly capable of killing themselves on their own. the problem is that the puppet governing body does not have enough troops (just like they likely don't have enough votes) to win in battle against their political adversaries. otherwise they wouldn't need the invader to carry out this slaughter.

very sad indeed.

Maury said...

[Eye Raki] They are infamously feared because of their history of "chewing" opponents.

Al-Sadr himself wants to turn Iraq into an Islamic state and enforce sharia law and his militia is feared in Iraq"

[Annie] maliki is the face, the army bombing sadr city is the US.

and, they aren't killing just 'criminals' as gates makes clear, they are killing those who won't acknowledge the rights of the occupier to control the process."

Clear proof that Annie is brain dead. Someone please pull the plug.

annie said...

and, they aren't killing just 'criminals' as gates makes clear, they are killing those who won't acknowledge the rights of the occupier to control the process."

Clear proof that Annie is brain dead.

oh really? well why don't you explain to all of us how gates statement wrt 'joining the political process' cleanses one of criminal activity????

WHAT criminal activity? obviously all sins of the sunni 'insurgents' were forgivn when they joined the 'political process' no? actually they haven't! because maliki doesn't really WANT them, now does he?

so it wasn't ever about 'joining the political process' it was joining the 'american porocess'.

uh huh

how many times have we heard on these blogs.."wait until the elections..bla bla.. who will you vote for.. bla bla..so if they were really interested in DEMOCRACY, they would just friggin hild their horses and see what the 'democracy' came up with. but they cannot afford to do that, because of the numbers.

and no matter what kind of spit and polich you put on what happened in basra, i think if was fairly clear the badr brigades is no match for sadr. precisely because of the numbers. otherwise they wouldn't have had to call in the troops(meaning the american troops)

so while you may want to put me out of my misery (pull the plug), i think you may have some explaining to do.

btw, what exactly is your 'clear proof'. i am really looking forward to your debunking which you oh so transparenly evaded.. lol.

also, if they were targeted because they were criminals , why would gates 'invite' them to join the political process? this more than implies not 'joining' is tantamount to being a criminal.

sadr has said he will join the iraqi process, just not the american /occupation process. in other words...

they are killing those who won't acknowledge the rights of the occupier to control the process."

so back it up big shot, maybe it is you who needs a plug pulled.

Anonymous said...

US inflaming the civil war further :

annie said...

thanks for the heads up on badger's excellent post anon. Another lesson in civil-war creation: The Gaza model in Sadr City

The Americans are starting another phase of the "civil war".

speaking of which. it seems the americans are having a little trouble getting the iraqi army to be cannon fodder for their plan.

Iraqi Unit Flees Post, Despite American’s Plea

A company of Iraqi soldiers abandoned their positions on Tuesday night in Sadr City, defying American soldiers who implored them to hold the line against Shiite militias.

this cracks me up. oh maury??? i am really looking forward to you backing up your assertion, it seems i am not the only one saying maliki is the face for american aggression... from the nyt...

That approach was intended to build up the Iraqi military’s fighting capacity and put an Iraqi face on the operation in Sadr City

ha ha hahahahaha

an iraqi face? why would it be an iraqi face if 'iraq' wanted to pursue this little escapade into further violence and chaos and bloodshed????

here's the propagnda morsel for the dumbed down american public..

This episode was a blow to the American effort to push the Iraqis into the lead in the struggle to wrest control of parts of Sadr City from the Mahdi Army militia and what Americans and Iraqis say are Iranian-backed groups.

did someone say iran?? iran iran iran. we are being trained like pavlov's dogs to froth everytime we here that name. not that i am a fan of iran. i just think it is extremely hypocritical and stupid to pretend .. oh never mind...

what bs

oh maury.... where are you? maybe he can't respond because he's brain dead.

anony90 said...

Hi Abbas,
What is the secret behind your good english, any tips for me as a new learner, where do you get those vocabularies?
keep on writing please

Maury said...

"i think you may have some explaining to do."

eye raki keeps trying to get into your pea brain how bad Al Sadr is,but you're too stuck on how bad Amreeka is to hear him. Amreeka evil. Everyone opposed to Amreeka good. You're brain dead Annie. The sad thing is,it's so damn obvious to everyone but yourself.

Bruno said...

[maury] "eye raki keeps trying to get into your pea brain how bad Al Sadr is,but you're too stuck on how bad Amreeka is to hear him."

The Sadrists are not a bunch of nice guys, but compared to the alternative, which is the Iranian created and US - supported BADR brigades that kicked off the sectarian violence through their death squads, I'd pick Sadr any day.

Especially seeings as the Sadrists constitute a genuine mass movement that wants a united Iraq and the Hakim bunch a far more marginal group of exiles that want to break Iraq up.

who cares said...

Bruno, who cares what your ass would pick for Iraq?

annie said...

eye raki keeps trying to get into your pea brain how bad Al Sadr is,but you're too stuck on how bad Amreeka is to hear him. Amreeka evil.

right, i get it. you don't want to even address the dynamics of who is waging this battle between the US sadr and why? (i think i have provided ample evidence from quotes and news sources the US is attacking sadr).

your soul agrument is sadr (iran) bad US good. at least that is the propaganda battle otherwise they wouldn't continually use say 'iranian backed sadr'.

you entire argument boils down to

annie: Amreeka evil

you are completely unable and unwilling to address ANY of the (political) points. your entire argument is

maury: sadr evil

and you call me brain dead.

i'd say your 'side' is a wee bit hypocritical since it supposedly stands for democracy, yet it is not willing to deal democratically.

you got the ol zionist tactic goin for ya. the tactic of 'you are so evil we can't talk to you. we don't deal we 'evil ' people. you acknowledge our superiority, and our right to rule you and kill you, and then you can play. and when you call a cease fire, we will bomb the crap out of you anyway because you are evil.

you can't face democracy because the numbers aren't on your side.

actually i represent democracy. i am america, i am what america stands for. i know america is not evil. i know the overwhelming majority of americans are not evil. not for a minute do i think the tactics and strategy of lying and thieving truly represents what this country stands for or what my constitution stands for.

it is YOU who doesn't respect democracy, for your only argument is: sadr evil.

there is a MOVEMENT behind sadr. a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT. why don't you tell me why you feel this movement threatens iraq. the media is not telling us, they are lying (sadr= iran) why do they need to lie to us? or do you think iran is the threat behind sadr?

come on maury, step up to the plate, say something. or does your entire argument revolve around name calling?

RhusLancia said...

annie, Iraqis are telling you that Sadr is a thug and a criminal. Please consider listening to them, or at least try to figure out where they're coming from in saying those things.

Anonymous said...

Eye Raki is probably Hakim's nephew or something.

annie said...

Iraqis are telling you that Sadr is a thug and a criminal. Please consider listening to them, or at least try to figure out where they're coming from in saying those things.

yeah, i get it rhus. i responded to this comment earlier.

so there becomes a blur or fog which creates a justifiable context. interestingly, and i am not contesting the truth of your assertions (wants to turn Iraq into an Islamic state and enforce sharia law ), an islamic state nor sharia law is NOT why sadr is feared by the occupying powers, it is the political dimension of nationalism.

maliki didn't have a problem w/sadr drilling holes in sunni heads. i remember screaming about those police driving up to houses and kidnapping people. for more than a year you apologists wouldn't acknowledge the police were infiltrated.

rumor has it maliki, who didn't want 'awakened to america' troops in his army, now will take them if they agree to get revenge on sadr city. oh, pardon me.. not revenge.. just ya know, kill the shia.

so is this how its gonna be? we have pockets of iraqi soldiers task to kill of other iraqis depending on whose capable in case we can't get shia to kill their cousins?

nice arrangement rhus. you live in some fairyland like if everybody just follows the rules (not the democratic rules tho, we kill our competition) we can all go home and have a nice rest of our lives.

U.S. sees Iraqis in control in Baghdad in a year, April 17, 2008

Iraq PM says security forces can take over from U.S., Jul 15, 2007

PM Al-Maliki: Iraqi Forces Could Take Over Security in '07, December 01, 2006

Top U.S. general: Iraqis can take over security within 18 months, August 30, 2006..Gen. George Casey said Iraqi troops were on course to take over security control from U.S.-led coalition forces, a move that would bring the foreign forces a step closer to withdrawal from the country.

Iraq 'can take over in 18 months', February 2, 2005
Iraq's security forces could be ready to take over fully from foreign troops within 18 months, the country's interior minister has said.

Falah al-Naqib said he was "confident" that Iraq would be able to handle its own security in that timeframe


don't tell me to listen YOU LISTEN. you think i'm going away? I'M NOT. this BS is never ending. around every corner is a bad guy and killing them will bring untold callateral damage and this will never end.

i suggest iraqis learn to GET ALONG their thugs and criminals because take a look at iraq, this is what you get when you listen to rhus.


Iraq president upbeat on security, August 2, 2006
Iraqi forces will take over the security of the entire country from US-led forces by the end of the year, President Jalal Talabani says.

who cares said...

anonymous, you are probably the nephew of a dog or something.

Bruno said...

What excellent arguments from "who cares". Sounds like a clueless US warmonger that can't debate the facts because he doesn't know them to start with. Why do these losers infest the internet?

whocares said...


As an idiot who has never set foot in Baghdad, who are you to "prefer" a mass murderer like Sadr and decide what is good for Iraq?

annie said...

excuse me but is it possible to discuss any options other than 'kill the bad guys'?

mass murderer mass murderer!!!!!

is that the extent of your argument? how is this any different than 'we don't deal w/terrorists' and now i am taking my marbles and going home? how's that working for gaza?

The tactics that Washington is pursuing in Iraq appear to be exacerbating several long-term trends that risk destabilizing Iraq even further and may well also undermine U.S. influence.

Washington’s militant intervention into intra-Shi’ite factional politics is pouring gasoline on that dispute, fomenting civil war between the two most powerful Shi’ite militias in Iraq by encouraging (or ordering?) Maliki to suppress Moqtada’s Mahdi Army. Washington is simultaneously laying the groundwork for a civil war between Iraqi Shi’a and Sunni by funding the organization of numerous local Sunni military units (e.g., the Awakening groups), which could evolve rapidly into a Sunni militia that would challenge the Shi’a since these units are gaining power without a commensurate move toward satisfaction of Sunni grievances. Washington is also fighting Iran’s war in Iraq by intervening in Shi’ite factional disputes on the side of the pro-Iranian Badr faction that constitutes Maliki’s main support. And finally, since Moqtada represents the poor urban Shi’ite underclass beyond the reach of government services, Washington is making war on the poor, a bad foundation indeed for building democracy.

A policy of marginalizing the poor by emphasizing the use of force to suppress their representatives, not to mention collective punishment against the poor themselves through both neglecting to provide services and turning Sadr City into a blockaded ghetto, sets up society for a long period of conflict. (For parallels, check out the impact of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which provoked the formation of Hezbollah; the half century-long civil war against the rural poor in Colombia; and of course the endless sad saga of the mistreatment of the population of Gaza.)


do you have anything to say besides sadr evil america good dead brain pull plug pea brain.

anything at all? do we have any takers??

annie said...

btw in case you are interested, here is the permalink
to the entire post which recommends some solutions other than the kill your enemy approach.

An alternative exists: Washington could encourage inclusiveness by working to open the political system as wide as possible.
........keep reading

onix said...

point is for us, outside iraki, sadr seems no lesser reasonable then any other 'partner'. For example abbas himselfs admits he has always been discriminating the people that associate with sadr.
(and he still likes to joke about them.)

Okay we know sadr is a religious bigottist, but so seem they all,
even the flag is promoting islamism.. and stricly spoken sunni have worse burkas, wich makes them more bigotted.
(what it does to the people and not what it says being determinant.)

so yes, for the antimilitarist eye, the internal problem of irak seems a militia one, and the solution would be the different groups starting cooperation and dialogue.
However there is the occupation in between that (practically as prohibiting dialogue through fighting for badr.)
And there is ancient bias and differences. These can be overcome, but it is a lifelong task, and equality will become real only in 2 generations.

Untill reconciliation we should take care not to promote new genocidal activitys, and as such respect the wishes of the regions to make their own political and strategical choices.

Setting aside this or that major group of irkais will increase the chances on prolonged bloodlet.
It can never be a good idea.

The madhi army 'problem' is exactly regional, and green-zone could have proven good faith. Attacking sadr city (after basra) proofs bad faith. A political agenda foregoing the interest of millions.

This is the problem of the southern shia they don't feel like being the next target for genocide and ongoing discrimination. Since indiscriminate eliminations and overpowerfull military attacks are the modus operandi of the irak collaborators (the government)
ofcourse they feel slightly safer when they have the option of arms, to wreak chaos so that the horror and havoc feel fear and limit their attacks.

Abbas, you have fled from irak,
from shias, but also from badr.
Targetting sadrists... what will it deliver?
a new refugee stream? a bond of southern irak with iran , as their only refugee? another million dead? an excuse for another year of occupation?

don't be so divided. One thing i am amazed , how can basra have both been religiously monkeybrainedly and criminally organised.. answwer.. it can't. So your just supporting a bias when you call them criminals also when u call it a religious rule.

In fact ofcourse every state, so even an ad hoc basra, should be secular. But that is a thing irakis (and most muslims) dont know what it means, so perhaps it wasn't.

keep up the good work annie.
ur brave in trying to be objective and voice for all repressed groups, still keeping the overview of the military industrialist complex at hand.
i wish you have a hard head, because you will be bothered a lot when u dont deserve it.

In the end i believe the attacks on basra and sadr are caused by exactly this: The fear of the occupiers to loose all, really all, credibility of their support of maliki at a next elections.

Eye Raki said...

"Eye Raki is probably Hakim's nephew or something."

LOL yeah...or something.

Maury said...

Here's what you don't get Annie. The Iraqi people don't give a flying crap what you or I think. They could care less about your vendetta against the amreekans. They just want a normal life. They want a government that can provide basic services. Muqwaq stands in the way of that. He has to go. Never mind the coalition troops he's killed. I don't care to argue that. But,he's killed a lot of Iraqi government police and soldiers too. No man is above the law,no matter who his daddy was. He got less than 10% of the seats in Parliament. That means 90% of Iraqi voters rejected his fat ass. You don't get a vote Annie. This isn't about you. When will you get that into your thick head?

Coach Factory said...

nike free, air max, oakley sunglasses, tory burch outlet, michael kors outlet, chanel handbags, michael kors outlet, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton handbags, coach factory outlet, longchamp outlet, ray ban sunglasses, louboutin, kate spade handbags, louboutin shoes, true religion outlet, prada outlet, louis vuitton outlet, longchamp handbags, burberry outlet, louboutin outlet, tiffany and co, nike shoes, louis vuitton, jordan shoes, true religion jeans, michael kors outlet, coach outlet store online, coach outlet, burberry outlet, kate spade outlet, gucci outlet, michael kors outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, louis vuitton outlet stores, michael kors outlet, louis vuitton outlet, air max, ray ban sunglasses, polo ralph lauren outlet, coach purses, true religion jeans, longchamp handbags, oakley sunglasses cheap, christian louboutin shoes, michael kors outlet, prada handbags

Coach Factory said...

chi flat iron, reebok outlet, marc jacobs, canada goose jackets, lululemon outlet, valentino shoes, bottega veneta, ugg boots, canada goose, asics running shoes, canada goose, moncler, rolex watches, ugg, instyler, ferragamo shoes, birkin bag, air max, moncler outlet, north face outlet, soccer jerseys, north face jackets, beats by dre, canada goose, p90x, new balance shoes, hollister, jimmy choo outlet, ugg australia, timberland boots, ghd, uggs outlet, celine handbags, canada goose outlet, iphone 6 cases, baseball bats, babyliss pro, ugg boots, nfl jerseys, herve leger, mont blanc, giuseppe zanotti, wedding dresses, mcm handbags, moncler, insanity workout, ugg pas cher, canada goose uk, soccer shoes, moncler

Coach Factory said...

ray ban sunglasses, nike free, michael kors, vans shoes, ray ban pas cher, hollister, sac louis vuitton, sac louis vuitton, nike roshe run, nike roshe run, abercrombie and fitch, nike blazer, new balance pas cher, nike air max, nike roshe, nike free pas cher, barbour, oakley pas cher, louboutin, louis vuitton uk, hollister, vanessa bruno, nike huarache, hogan outlet, sac guess, polo lacoste, lululemon, north face, air force, timberland, nike trainers, ralph lauren, mac cosmetics, converse pas cher, polo ralph lauren, mulberry, longchamp, hollister, vans pas cher, longchamp, michael kors pas cher, north face, louis vuitton, sac hermes, michael kors, sac longchamp, air max, abercrombie and fitch, nike tn, sac burberry