The Institute for Traditional Korean Studies, Citizen Alliance for the Korean Studies Movement and other civic groups are pledging cyber attacks on Chinese websites claiming that the ancient Korean kingdom of Koguryo was an administrative region of China. On Tuesday, the groups let portal sites know of their plans to crash the websites of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Beijing Municipal Government, Xinhua News and the People’s Daily five times on Thursday by bombarding the sites with traffic. Calling the hack attack the “E-click Movement,” the group described its move as “an important event for ethnic and human peace that tells the world of China’s outrageous plundering of history.”
Not all view the plan in a positive light, however. Park Gi-tae of the cyber-diplomacy group VANK said, “It’s not that we don’t understand how these groups feel, but in order to set Chinese historical distortions straight, I think it’s more effective to correctly inform major overseas media and academic sites.”
Sphere: Related Content
41 Comments
Seriously though. How do the Koreans justify their own tradition of calling Koguryo and Palhae “Korean”?
Ok, Koguryo I can almost see. If for no other reason than the name of the state itself rings out as Korean.
However, is it simply the rule that any kingdom occupying territory on the peninsula is Korean by default?
For both the aforementioned states, you can find similarities in architecture, burial ritual, art, and other customs that lend credence to both the current Chinese position and the Korean position.
Curiously however, what is known of their ancient languages supports neither position.
Little is known about Koguryo language, but what is known reveals that their language was as close to Mongolian as it is to modern Korean. Even Korean history/mythology teaches that the Koguryo founders came from the “Puyo” state, probably somewhere in present day Mongolia.
Palhae language is an even tougher nut to crack, but whatever the language of the ruling elite class [mostly Koguryo refugees] was, the languages spoken most frequently by the commoners [the other 98% of the population over whom the Koguryo class ruled] were most likely Khitan and Jurchen, not Korean and not Chinese. These people were the ancestors of Manchurians, unfortunate enough to have been ruled over by foreigners. But they were not the ancestors of modern Koreans, at least not linguistically.
It only follows [or at least makes sense on a rudimentary level] that since China has long been associated with Manchuria [without criticism form Korea, by the way], that Palhae is as much a part of modern China’s history as it is Korea’s.
Koreans will never believe this, but then they get all their history from the propaganda machine that runs their national museums.
In the same sense, for Koreans to stubbornly hold onto the idea that Kaya was Korean when it was quite clearly Japanese in almost every conceivable way, is as bad [and hypocritical] as China laying claim to Koguryo.
The fact is, none of these ancient states have clear lineal descendants straight through antiquity to today.
Professor Christopher Beckwith of Indiana University, widely considered THE expert in this field, has recently published the definitive work on Koguryo language. His conclusion, it’s Japanese, not Korean.
Excerpted from the Amazon blurb…”This is the first in-depth study of the extinct Koguryo language, which was once spoken in Manchuria and northern Korea. It covers the ethnolinguistic history of the Koguryo nation, philological treatment of the sources for the language, Koguryo phonology, and a complete glossary of all Archaic Koguryo and Old Koguryo words. Special attention has been given to the theory and practice of lexically-based historical-comparative linguistics. The genetic relationship of Koguryo to Japanese is shown to be secure, unlike the non-relationship of either language to Korean or ?€?Altaic?€™, and much light is shed on the ethnolinguistic origins of Japanese. The special phonological features of the underlying transcriptional language, the archaic northeastern Middle Chinese dialect once spoken in Korea, are also analyzed.
From “linguistlist.org” on the Korguryo language…
“A possible language once spoken in NE China (Liaoning), Manchuria, and Korea, 1st century to mid-8th century A.D. The earliest solid historical reference to the Koguryo people (1st century A.D.) has them in the Liao-hsi area (now part of Liaoning province, northeast of Tientsin) of China.
The evidence for this language lies almost solely in toponyms rather than texts, and is thus unreliable.
The Archaic Koguryo corpus dates to the third and fourth century A.D. and consists of about a dozen identifiable lexemes recorded in Chinese historical and geographical accounts of the Koguryo kingdom.
The Old Koguryo corpus, largely dating to the seventh and eighth centuries, consists of over a hundred lexemes found in the form of glossed toponyms, plus a small number of words recorded in Chinese historical and geographical accounts.
The language, if real, may be related to Japanese.”
How could Parhae and Koguryo have had a strong Korean identity without a U.S. embassy on their terrorities to protest in front of?
‘koguryo language ‘quite’ different from language of shilla. japanese came from koguryo, therefore, japanese has no relationship to korean.’
quite different? what does that mean? does that mean like russian and german are quite different? or does the phrase mean something like italian and spanish are quite different? if japanese came from the land of koguryo, then, we can conclude that the grammer of the koguryon language was virtually identical to the language of shilla since modern korean and japanese grammer are virtually identical to one another. that can’t be said when we talk of other languages that exist in ne asia. mongol and manchu are similar in grammer to korean and japanese but are far from being virtually identical. for instance, the only languages i’ve ever seen use ‘??€/??”’ are korean and japanese. why is that? is it just coincidence? look, korean and japanese are most definately related languages. it would defy logic to think otherwise.
more later on this subject.
ps if the machus are the children of koguryo and the koreans are not, then why is manchu not like japanese? for instance, the manchus conjugate their verbs while the japanese do not. why is that? hmmmmmm…..
‘????³???? ?Œ€?³? ?™”?’€??´ ?????”?¼´??´ ???°€ ???????’€?????”?°€ ?³´??¤…’
??? Huh? What?
Sin jong il,
Could you have twisted that explanation any more than that?
Did anyone say that Manchus were the children of Koguryo? Nope. Manchus lived in Manchuria long before there ever was a state known as Koguryo. They weren’t known as Manchus at the time, but the direct lineage is clear through several different, but converging lines of evidence.
Koguryo is not.
We know that Shilla most closely represents the ancestor language to modern Korean, and we also know from historical records that Koguryo [and hence Palhae rulers] spoke a different and mutually unintelligible language from either Shilla or Baekje. We also know that the founders of Koguryo immigrated into the peninsula from the northeast.
All around, to the impartial observer, there is no compelling archaeological, linguistic, or even genetic evidence to convince one that the average Koguryo person from 1,500 years ago and the average modern Korean have any direct connection.
Koreans are just going to have to learn to deal with that and start strengthening their ties to ancient Shilla and the glorious era it represented.
What is it about Koguryo, other than the name of the kingdom itself and the fact that their armies occupied much of Manchuria, that makes modern Koreans want to claim it as part of their cultural heritage?
notsoslim, what lines of evidence? you didn’t say.
mandarin and cantonese are quite different. does that mean they’re not chinese? the language of koguryo and shilla were related to one another. that was my point. did you catch that? did you see the thing about japanese? did you miss that too?
you’re an impartial observer, notsoslim? i don’t believe you.
‘there is no compelling archeological, linguistic, or even genetic evidence…’
could you tell me where i can find this information? i’d like check your sources. notsoslim, have you ever seen a toomooli? do you even know what one is? can you understand the reason i ask?
and btw, the elite of paekche spoke koguryon. does that mean paekche is not korean either?
and no, notsoslim, the koreans don’t have to get used to only having shilla as part of their history since koguryo and paekche are also part of their heritage.
lastly, do you speak korean or japanese?
Anyone ever read THE INVENTION OF TRADITION, edited by Eric Hobsbawm? It’s about European history, but the general attitude toward all nations and their “histories” I find to be spot-on.
To whit, Goguryeo doesn’t “belong” to any nation. It was a state that used to exist and exists no longer. It occupied territory where China and Korea now exist. It spoke a language that has some historical roots to Korean and Japanese. But so what? States come and go, culture changes… it is silly to get in a huff about possessing the past, and any connection to today’s nation-states is mostly coincidental. It is doubly silly to derive any sense of personal accomplishment or satisfaction from some random events of the distant past.
‘there is no compelling archeological, blah, blah, blah evidence to convice one…’
that’s not what the (mostly western) professors at koreaweb say.
‘manchus children of koguryo…’ shin jong il
‘these people (in reference to the people of koguryo)
are the ancestors of the manchurians.’ member of aeb
‘did anyone say they were children of koguryo? nope.’ notso slim
‘well, yes, someone did, slim.’ shin jong il
see y’all good ol country boys. i’ll be back, now, ya hear?
Besides the history…..
How exactly is it that clearly defined civic groups can openly announce their intention to launch criminal activities, however patriotic the intention, across international borders?
Besides the clearly criminal intention to destroy the property of strangers, there is another disturbing ring to this. That is, the “we shall silence all who disagree with us” mentality. Let China and Korea put forward and debate their respective postions. No actual territory is at stake, so let scholars of both countries do their best to convince the global academic historic community.
Gagging your opponent is not universal academic spirit. It’s facism.
‘convince the global academic community’
no need; the global community of korea scholars is esoteric and they already say what we already know- koguryo is korea’s heritage.
Ok, so, given that the global community of Korean scholars is already convinced….what is the need for attacking another countries websites? What is the need for silencing tactics? If Chinese academics are making absurd claims, don’t they just make themselves ridiculous? If they’ve won,what are these Korean civic groups so afraid and angry of they have to call for criminal acts?
Marmot, in regard to DOS attacks and “cyber-terrorism,” you may be interested in taking a look at this article that was published years ago on the Ddanziilbo:
http://www.ddanzi.com/ddanziilbo/63/63sc_4001.html
Wow, that’s awfully intelligent of them. “Rational discussion is beneath us, so we’ll just engage in illegal activities to shut those guys up!” What a thing to tell the international community.
As for Koguryo, I was under the impression that it was considered Korean because of the historical impact that it had on the cultural outcome of the penninsula, moreso than whatever ethnic ties they could have on modern-day Koreans - rather like how ‘outside’ tribes that invaded and displaced the original Han tribes in China were eventually absorbed into that culture, and are thus regarded as Chinese. I mean, yeah, Shilla DID conquer Koguryo, but the people of Shilla back then are not exactly the Koreans of today, since modern Koreans are more a result of everything that’s happened on the penninsula anyways…
Wow! Sin jong il, you can really be an arrogant a-hole, can’t you? I must have struck a nerve. Good. Now, let’s look at reality for a second.
Using your line of —uh-humm–logic, we could [and probably should] replace the words “Koguryo” and “Korea” with the words “Kaya” and “Japan” and say conclusively that the Kaya states were in fact Japanese and not Korean. And of course, we could pull up this “global community of Korean scholars” to support this conclusion, too.
But you don’t do that, do you? Because of Korean nationalism.
Are you happy with that?
Fact of the matter is, as others have pointed out, ancient states don’t belong to anyone. They didn’t think of themselves as Korean or Japanese, but as Koguryo or Kaya. You and your insultingly loud countrymen’s efforts to lay claim to them is as blind as it is historically inaccurate.
Get over it.
Besides which, granting, for argument’s sake, that Koguryo was as Korean as they come, don’t you know that in the intervening 1,500 or so years your once ethnically uncorrupted blood has been repeatedly mixed with Jurchen, Khitan, Chinese, Mongol, Manchu, Russian, American, and a helluva lot of Japanese genetic material to the point that if a Koguryo person returned from the past he wouldn’t recognize you as a brother. It’s a fact of life. There ain’t no pure minjok, especially in Korea.
Oh and one more point, while Mandarin and Cantonese are very different, it doesn’t take either a rocket scientist or a Ph.D in linguistics to tell that that they bear a very close relation to one another. So don’t try pulling that one. If that’s the best you can do you shouldn’t even try. It only shows how little you know about the subject, and if you can’t speak intelligently about adult level topics, then stay out of the discussion and just read others’ comments, ok?
And, by the way, in answer to your previous question, I do speak four Asian languages–Korean, Japanese, Mandarin, and Mongol [both modern and ancient]. I also had some graduate school training in Manchu, but won’t claim to have any real proficiency in that one.
And if it’s “lines of evidence” you are seeking, I reckon you are as able to do a Google search as anyone else, but just too lazy to do it on your own.
Start by looking at the graduate programs at Harvard, Indiana, and a few others. They have lists of the well repsected professors in this field, as well as the relevant works on this subject that they have published over the years. Then try reading some of those works. In fact, as pointed out above, why not begin with Chris Beckwith’s new treatise on the Koguryo language? I know it’s new, and mine cost me over a hundred bucks, but it will enlighten the nationalistic pride right out of your veins.
Why don’t you do that, and then get back to us later, eh? And stop trying to blow smoke up our arses with your “global community of Korean scholars” BS.
That’s about as ridiculous a claim as anyone has ever made here.
Any further questions?
Asia by Blog
Swinging our way across Asia blogging again: Hong Kong, Taiwan and China Tom at DTL finds more proof that Hong Kong’s autonomy has been diminished by the central Government. He also says criticism of Google, Yahoo, Nortel and Cisco in “bowing to Chin…
The good old Kaya/ Mimana discussion again. The “Mimana theory” of a constant foothold of pre-Yamato Wa Japanese on the Korean peninsula was a ridiculous distortion and deliberate misinterpretation of Imperila Japanese scholars and archaeologists to supplement the Japanese robbery/ occupation of Korea’s national identity and history. And for the reputable & prominent international community of scholars of Korean history: translated, it means mostly American or Euro-centric scholars, influenced by Japanese scholars and their works from a time, when Korea had no acceptable scientific/ academic power (matching up to Western standards & expectations of scholarly works) to prove the Japanese theories right, wrong, distorted or bias.
Chinese, Korean & Japanese hirtosical chronicles are full of errors, exaggerations, distortions and propaganda. The linguistic research of Koguryo, Paekche and Shilla languages and their relations to modern Korean or Japanese or Mongol or pre-Mandschu nomad tribes’ languages aren’t crystal-clear bullet-proof or unanimously accepted. We could continue this semi-academic discussion until judgement day without any useful results.
You are correct, and perhaps at this point we should simply let it rest.
I suppose I will never convince you that Korean views are hopelessly full of nationalistic wishful thinking without reliable evidence to back them up, and you will never convince me that the bulk of post WWII western scholarship is somehow biased and unreliable because of the grandiose pre-war theories of a handful of Japanese Imperial scholars.
We all know that this is a difficult field of study and one that is loaded with many dead ends and mazes, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth to be found in there somewhere by those who can steer clear of political motives. Let’s keep digging.
Yes, Kaya/Mimana was a distortion, but like the Yamato/Baekje connection that Korean scholars can’t seem to let go of, it was not a distortion completely without support. The error was not so much in the archaeology because although it was sloppy, it was hard evidence. The real injustice was rather that the Japanese used twisted and far-reaching interpretations of their finds as political ammo to justify their ambitions in Korea. That was wrong.
But it was wrong in the same sense that modern Korea laying claim to ancient Koguryo is wrong, only to a greater degree in the suffering it caused to Koreans of the early 20th century. The fact that modern Korean scholars are not causing anyone to be enslaved or die because of their faulty nationalstic scholarship does not lessen their errors.
By right, Sin jong il should have the last word on this topic, but I suggest we all move on to more interesting topics such as Miss Pietro.
Thanks for your views.
can you give me any sources outside of the nihon shoki or nihongi that support your contention that kaya was japanese? please don’t tell me to do a search, you make the claim, tell me who your sources are. give me a specific title rather than telling me to look for books by people you do not name, though i notice you do name the one name mentioned in this thread.
‘korean nationalism…’
nationalism? you mean to disagree with you and chinese attempts to steal korean history is due to nationalism? what drives you to make the contentions that you’re making? is it nationalism? why would you spend time discussing this? why do you care?
‘chinese mandarin and cantonese are different but any fool can see they bear a close realtion.’
yes, and any fool can see that korean and japanese bear a close relation. tell me, you allegedly speak mongol and know some manchu, how similar are these two languages to korean and japanese? are their grammers identical like korean and japanese grammer are to each other? you didn’t seem to catch what i wrote above. the languages of shlla and koguryo were different but they were similar. you only need to look at japanese to see that.
‘koreaweb…global community of scolars BS.’
well, at that website, you’ll find the writings of many of the korea scholars that exist in the west. you only need to look at their biographies to see that. folks can have a look for themselves. http://www.koreaweb.ws
‘many of them are distinguished scholars.’
really? who are they? do they have a website like manchuweb or something?
‘no compelling archeological, linguistic, or genetic, relation to modern koreans.’
again, i ask you for your sources for the fantastic claim you make above. please give me specific titles that i can reference. these books should be in your library. please give me a few titles. i don’t think that would be hard to do. don’t tell me to do a search, ok? i really am interested in the gentic aspect of your claim.
koguryo is part of korea’s histography, not china’s, notsoslim. and please take note that i never refer to the people of koguryo, paekche, and shilla as ‘koreans’. those three kingdoms form the foundation of a people we now call koreans. ??Œ?????¤?
‘hit a nerve’
well, yes, but you didn’t touch that nerve, the chinese did. and let’s also take note that korea has struck a nerve with you.
lastly, how about you try to answer me without your sarcasm? and can you tell me what an ‘arse’ is? and no, notsoslim, beckwith’s book wouldn’t drain the national pride out of me.
I may be a early, underfed, knuckle-dragging linguistic ancestor of notsoslim — the scholarship is thin and the jury is still out — but I think the Marmot-shoki (archives dug from the Marmot’s caves) will show that Shin Jong Il is a rennaissance man who brings the same knowledge and talents displayed in this thread to discussions on comparative political science, human rights, North Koreanology, diplomacy, and military affairs…….
[...] rding their servers with traffic. The cyber-demonstration was in protest of Chinese distortions of the history of the ancient K [...]
‘i speak mongol…’ notsoslim
you also write english well. you speak mongol and have an interest in korea.
is that you, mr marmot?
ps slim, you just can’t stay away, can you?
why not say things directly to me, mr marmot?
SJI — notsoslim isn’t me. Besides, my Mongolian is limited to basic greetings.
Anyway, some interesting points getting through around in this thread.
ok mr marmot, but i had to be sure. afterall, how many folks speak korean, mongol, japanese, AND write perfect english? i know you like languages and your wife is mongol-well, you get my drift. good day.
I suppose I will never convince you that Korean views are hopelessly full of nationalistic wishful thinking without reliable evidence to back them up, and you will never convince me that the bulk of post WWII western scholarship is somehow biased and unreliable because of the grandiose pre-war theories of a handful of Japanese Imperial scholars. - notsoslim
If you wanto to talk about views on history based or colored by ultra-nationalism and racism, then why do you pick out the Korean scholarship only, which is a diverse one and not a homogenous bloc as you like to pretend. Japanese nationalism of Imperial times formed their modern view on ancient East Asian history and this tradition still exists there among scholars and as public myths. And those “handful of Japanese Imperial scholars” had been the godfathers of modern Japanese archaeology and historical research. Huh, so much empathy for Nihon and Chungguo, notsoslim!
And the ancient Paekche-Yamato Wa connections from the 5th/ 6th century AC are partially based on archaeological discoveries of grave sites and tumuli on Yamato soil. Yes, historical relicts and ancient text sources are not protected from nationalistic interpretations, just like the controversy about the Korean-made gift of the Seven-Pronged sword to the Yamato court (and its inscription) and also the disputed different translated versions of the Kwanggaetto stele inscription among East Asian scholars shows.
You think you’re on the right side, because of your self-assumed neutrality and lack of nationalism-driven involvement in this dispute here, whilst indicating, that I (as a Korean) might be a victim of a nationalistic Korean education schedule. Don’t we agree, that the pure power of argumentation and ratio and not blood or nationality should count here? If not, any foundation for a further rationalized discussion would become obsolete to me.
“If you wanto to talk about views on history based or colored by ultra-nationalism and racism, then why do you pick out the Korean scholarship only…”
Uh, dude? Like, weren’t you two talking about Korea and Korean history? Isn’t this a place where people gather to speak about Korea?
Jeezusachekrist, what should the guy have talked about? The Friggin French enlightenment and it’s horrible nationalistic influences on poor little Ko-wee-uh?
If you want to call Koguryo Korean, fine. DO it. But don’t expect the rest of the world to just accept it at face value. You can’t pick and choose which linguistic evidence you accept and which you reject just because some agrees with you and some doesn’t.
For once try to see that the whole world doesn’t revolve around Korea.
areyouokay — The point of Sugar Shin’s comment was that notsoslim may emphasize the importance of neutrality and fairness in these historical debates, but in fact notsoslim himself may be biased, which then weakens his arguments and makes him less convincing.
Hey, areyouokay, I was referring to notsoslim’s sole picking about the alleged nationalism of the whole Korean historian scholarship on this issue, which involved a discussion about East Asian scholars from China, Japan and Korea and their Western colleagues. Reading, digesting… and then spouting my dear friend. It must be much easier for you, I’m not a native English speaker, so for Buddhatheenlightedbeing get your boot out of my butt. Thanks.
‘try to see the whole world doesn’t revolve around ko-wee-ah.’ areyouokay
well, at least we know YOU revolve around ko-wee-ah, notsobright.
‘pick and choose linguistic evidence..’
who’s picking and choosing? beckwith says that koguryon and japanese are related to one another but not related to shillan and korean even though korean and japanese grammer are identical to one another. how could shillan and koguryon be unrelated when their grammers were the same? that’s the wrench in the engine, areyouokay. perhaps you can clarify the situation rather than writing juvenile posts that really say nothing.
ps notsoslim, please remember to give me a title of a book that deals with the genetic aspects of this issue. okay?
Maybe all of you would like to think on how and why Chinese government lately have changed or whitewashed part of their ancient texts records that is acknowledging Koguryo as a separate kingdom with their own culture.
Now..I’ve seen some rather hilarious comments up there…Truth is, the identity of Koguryo IS related to Current Korea for one of the countless reasons that you people “forgot”. After unified Silla, the Koryo dynasty succeeds over the Korean Peninsula. The name Koryo directly comes from kingdom Koguryo and there are tons of historical evidence about that. This and more tells that our pre-ancestors even recognised Koguryo as our(”their” at that time), (Koryo = Korean) ancestors. Let alone the fact that they have succeeded Koguryo’s own cultures, etc
Now, I’m pretty sure you’ve heard where the word and term “Korea” comes from before.
Also the historical evidence about the existence of non-Chinese people in Manchuria
until the elimintion of Puyo, Koguryo,and Parhae, let alone the Xienbi, Khitan, Jurchen, Turks
and Mongols shows that the Chinese did not have an easy time with that region. This tells you that Manchuria region did not belong to Chinese.
Also if you didn’t know, till September 1909 Gando, most of North east Manchuria (Still is) belonged to Chosun Dynasty till Japanese and Chinese had their own treaty without Chosun to trade Manchuria. (If you want to see the proof of this have a look at French Du Halde?·1740 map, R.de Vaugondy?·1750 map, and English Wilkinson?·1794 map.)
Of course no one’s saying that here…but the thing is, Chinese is. And what gets me most is that by arguing with a prejudice that Koguryo and its culture is not current Korean with “that’s-possible-doubt”, you people are no different to what Chinese government is doing and by doing so, you people are actually supporting China’s East Asian project.
The language they spoke, (Historical evidence shows that people of Koguryo, Silla and Baekjae did not have difficulty in terms of communicating due to language barrier…), the food they had (People of Koguryo were masters at the fermentated foods…which Koreans are good at too),and the clothings, and the rituals and so on they had has been evolved and the current Koreans are the only “race” that have succeeded its evolved, concorded, yet original culture.
If that’s not the Korea’s real identity, then I don’t know what is.
First of all, Sir Notsoslim, did you know that the 80 or so Koguryo words found as toponyms conclude there is no linguistic family affiliation between Modern Korean and Koguryo? If anything, Koguryo was only a dialect. And, yes, these toponyms, based on the pronunciation by chinese characters prove the lexical similarities with Old Japanese. So what is your point?
Modern and Middle Korean ( I am sure you know this) have gone through alot of changes. Replacement of Korean native words from Chinese loan words happened on a continual basis since the three kingdom periods of KOREA.
FYO, there are plenty of cognates between Turkish,Mongolian, Tungusic/Manchu, Korean, and Japanese,,,,,,,,,,, IF you want information on those cognates, I will direct you to those websites……
I am assuming you have limited knowledge of these Macro Altaic Language family……
ps. Why have you not mentioned the Yaemek people of Korea, who spoke a dialect very close to Koguryo people,,,,,,
Let me remind you, NOTSOSLIM, being a multi-lingual person,,,,,,,,,Korean history, identity, and culture evolves around the three kingdoms of Koguryo,Paekchae, and Silla. All these kingdoms form a three piece puzzle to make a whole Korea. That puzzle piece never fit the nation of China, nor will it ever will.
Perhaps it is also necessary to research and study China’s internal struggle of suppressing their own minorities and the search of its own identity.
saaSas
You may find it interesting to check out the pages in the field of wmns hlth
…
Txs Hldm Pkr
Please check some relevant information on txs hldm trnmnt
effective diet pill
You may find it interesting to visit the sites dedicated to yellow jackets diet pills
flower power
You may find it interesting to check out the sites dedicated to peony
jgr ntrctv ln
Take your time to check some relevant pages on jgr sgr prtl wb
lns
You are invited to check out the sites dedicated to dscvr crd csh dvnc
Amphetamine Diet Pills
You can also check some helpful info on stackers II diet pills