Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Oklahoma City Looks Mighty Pretty

The idea that Timothy McVeigh was a dittohead driven to violence by "hate filled rhetoric" is not new, but the evident hysteria of tea-party America has revived the notion in certain segments of liberal America. McVeigh was in reality as far from the Fox News demographic as an American can get, a veteran of the Gulf War who forswore American imperialism in the starkest possible terms, a man of extraordinary dispassion--some would say sociopathy, although I'd disagree--and extreme seriousness of purpose, a man whose grievances against the federal government were far more similar to those held by America's left than by conservative tax complainers. Of course, the left is still largely unable to admit that their political leaders are equally culpable when it comes to the crafting of an overseas hegemon, less yet laying the foundations of a domestic surveillance state. Waco is a tragic accident, and those who see in that Gaza-style assault the creeping of a militarized security apparatus are taken to be mere gun nuts. Bill Clinton, the man who held that you cannot love your country and hate its government, is still revered by the rump left that forms the motivated primary base of the Democratic Party, who don't seem to appreciate the irony of holding up Clinton, a southern conservative, as an exemplar of the popular liberal president.

Now. I have promised, full of fear and trembling, not to say mean things about Digby during these days of awe, so let me offer some modest praise instead. She has plainly recognized that however abhorrent you find the actions of al Qaeda et alia, dismissing Islamic militants and anti-American insurgents as plain "evildoers" without recognizing their full bank of legitimate and illegitimate grievances, without acknowledging a commensurable history of Western violence, is folly and propaganda. They have their reasons. She understands that they aren't motivated by blind hatred, by disdain for "our freedoms," or by anger at "our way of life." Indeed, I suspect she knows as well that many militants, including most suicide bombers, are drawn from the ranks of the educated, from the ranks of professionals . . . that they are, in other words, people able to appreciate the consequences and moment of their actions, not merely brainwashed trash from the slums.

And so I suggest to Digby and to everyone that Timothy McVeigh likewise cannot be understood except by allowing for an understanding of his motives, which were not so-called "eliminationism" nor yet some tawdry mixture of talk-radio vitriol, but rather a serious and evolutionary process whereby a young man of unusual intellectual sensitivity came to believe, not without reason, that the United States Government so traduced that ideals of freedom and liberty, was so violent and unaccountable, that he quite literally went to war against it. It is not to condone his acts to admit as much, and it is a tawdry act of political propaganda to pretend otherwise.

75 comments:

Anonymous said...

"whereby a young man of unusual intellectual sensitivity came to believe, not without reason, that the United States Government so traduced that ideals of freedom and liberty, was so violent and unaccountable, that he quite literally went to war against it."

A study comparing his trajectory to that of the original John Brown might be instructive ... very

John Brown was traduced for years before he was lionized, and his deeds in the MidWest (if accounts are to be believed) make him as morally ambiguous a figure as McVeigh ...

IOZ said...

Grad thesis for the taking.

Christopher M. said...

John Brown was traduced for years before he was lionized

Hell, any number of liberal historians will still rant and howl at the odiousness of John Brown.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but as Thom Freidman was just saying the other day: "So, I ask yet again: Who are the real cheese-eating surrender monkeys in this picture?"

Jenny said...

He was also in the military too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McVeigh#Military_career

And for a man apparently against the government, he seemed pretty damn war happy.

Jenny said...

Oh, and did I mention he owned a copy of The Turner Diaries?

IOZ said...

Jenny, when was the last time you met "a veteran of the Gulf War" who wasn't in the military. For the record, I own a copy of The Turner Diaries.

Inkberrow said...

Jenny---

You've repeated a common mistake about McVeigh's inspiration---in fact, it's so often referenced that I wonder if a little progandizing by you-know-whom isn't behind it. Synchonous orbits with the John Brown comparisons here: avid reader McVeigh pored over his copy not of the execrable "Turner Diaries" but Styron's "Confessions of Nat Turner". Draw your own conclusions.

Anonymous said...

Ah, IOZ, Robert Maynard Hutchins is looking down and beaming at your little university here ...

(well, down is a little parochial ... for all we know it might be sideways ...)

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Jenny hasn't time for reality, she's busy keeping lib-wools safe from Evil Teabaggers and pwoggies safe from Nasty Elephants. Call the number Tommy Tutone gave us for Jenny ... 867-5309 ... and you will get Markos Moulitsas Zuniga's cell phone.

Anonymous said...

"Of course, the left is still largely unable to admit that their political leaders are equally culpable when it comes to the crafting of an overseas hegemon, less yet laying the foundations of a domestic surveillance state."

is this some sort of a pose? do you really think that obama=cheney on civil liberties issues? what a load.

Anonymous said...

Anyone can own a copy of the Turner Diaries. I read it one afternoon on the web.

mac said...

unusual intellectual sensitivity

Wasn't he arrested driving without a license plate on his car as a protest against the heavy hand of the mighty DMV?

I bet the bastard didn't even have full coverage

IOZ said...

do you really think that obama=cheney on civil liberties issues

I think he is worse.

Jenny said...

Where did it say he read confessions of nat turner? And I didn't know we were supposed to love Glenn beck now, thanks Foxtrot. And Ioz, may I ask why you own a copy of the turner diaries?

Jenny said...

Where did it say he read confessions of nat turner? And I didn't know we were supposed to love Glenn beck now, thanks Foxtrot. And Ioz, may I ask why you own a copy of the turner diaries?

Cüneyt said...

That's pretty well thought-out, IOZ. If we're going to consider what creates third world terror, we might consider where it comes from with us. Many an IRA sympathizer has looked at the PLO as a distant cousin, a child of the same hypocrisy of modern state power. Likewise, we look at McVeigh, even as we might reject his actions. I hate the terror, but acknowledge the humanity of the terrorist. To do otherwise is to voluntarily ignore relevant information.

Anonymous said...

"I think he is worse."

do you, like, um, follow the news and stuff?

IOZ said...

Where did it say he read confessions of nat turner?

In pretty much every one of the voluminous current histories of the OK City bombings, the books on McVeigh and Nichols, Gore Vidal's widely circulated correspondence and essays with McVeigh, etc.

romerocker said...

"do you really think that obama=cheney on civil liberties issues?"


Why not visit Guantanamo and ask someone there what the difference is between Obama and Cheney.

Michael Dawson said...

Wow! Thanks for reminding me why I hate libertarians, IOZ. McVeigh is a huge symptom of the disease, not the health, of this deeply rotten imperial society. To the extent Vidal condoned him, that's a stain on Vidal.

Hating McVeigh is not the exclusive property of liberals.

Kafka said...

Cheney doesn't wrap it in a bow and smiley faces. I give him points for serving it cold.

la Rana said...

"do you, like, um, follow the news and stuff?"

You're out of your element Donny.

Anonymous said...

romerocker, michael, and the two anons:

IOZ is nothing if not consistent.

So I wouldn't be at all surprised if he considers the 14th Amendment far worse than Dred Scott.

Which is a comparison you might want to undertake sometime ...

periscopedepth said...

McVeigh is a huge symptom of the disease, not the health, of this deeply rotten imperial society.

That's not a point inconsistent with IOZ's post. You might say that deeply rotten imperial societies produce intellectual sociopaths like McVeigh, who strike back against (the wrong) institutional targets and take innocent lives.

periscopedepth said...

If IOZ had been writing about the Unabomber, would his point have been clearer?

Christopher M. said...

I have to say, I'm skeptical of any attempt to claim McVeigh for "our" side, whoever "we" happen to be. It's not like he just happened to be Radley Balko with truck bombs; it's pretty clear that the guy was genuinely off his rocker. Alongside all the stuff about war and the security state you had the UN black helicopter bullshit, the white power crap, and the laughable overgrown-boy-playing-soldier mentality he took to his grave (and 168 others). You can talk to the average Larouchie and find any number of things to agree with them about war, imperialism, and the security state, until you get to all the stuff about the queen of England controlling the heroin trade. Crackpots are like that - a lot of sensible stuff they got from other people, piled under a lot of random crazy shit they got from somewhere else - and McVeigh was a crackpot. Oh, yes, and a mass murderer, although I know your post went out of its way not to condone his mass murder.

Inspector Lee said...

John Brown was a premature anti-Slaver. A couple of years later and everyone was doing it on a compulsory, round the clock basis. How does Brown's action compare with Sherman's March, the burning of Atlanta etc?

Bill Ayers blew up a few government offices in his time too. Didn't have the guts to kill anyone though.

Inkberrow said...

Jenny---

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but what do you mean "it" as in "where did IT say"? And why do you do believe it was the infamous Turner Diaries, not Confessions of Nat Turner, which inspired McVeigh? Coincidence, I suppose, that McVeigh's favorite painting was "The Burning Of The Houses Of Lords and Commons"....

anonymous2 said...

Had a subscription to the village voice throughout the 1990s and they did a ton of great reporting on the militia movement. It would be useful to go back and reread some of that stuff.

Anyways, McVeigh was turned on by the Turner Diaries which makes it hard to parse his motives and underlying morality as anything other than a lunatic. Creating the Mosaic of McVeigh is as difficult as a portrait of Oswald. Always shifting depending on lighting changes. Very similiar characters in my opinion and both might be patsies.

Digby et. al. of course is intent on reducing everything for partisan gain. GOOOO! BLUE TEAM! YEAH!!! the absolute irony of posting a picture of the OKC federal building as some sort of talisman. All it needs is a photoshopped Clinton in the rubble with a bullhorn shouting that the perps will pay before writing into law sweeping legislation that limits civil liberties.

Essential McVeigh;
http://www.geocities.com/gorevidal3000/tim.htm

Michael Dawson said...

Even if it's legitimate to say that McVeigh "went to war," he did so by committing a huge and radically counter-productive war crime against the most peripheral of all possible targets.

anonymous2 said...

I've read the Turner Diaries as well. Altough better written it's about as useful as Atlas Shrugged. Shit lit.

Vidal didn't condone McVeigh anymore than Executioner's Song condoned Gary Gilmore. Writing portraiture isn't "condoning".

NutellaonToast said...

I don't know much about McVeigh, but I'd have to say the biggest difference is a lack of any kind of constituency, so to speak.

When one person talks about violent overthrow and blows up a building filled with innocent people, I call him crazy.

When a large portion of a country does it, well, then there might be something underneath it.

The fact that you divorce McVeigh from his alleged compatriots makes that even more stark.

la Rana said...

Michael Dawson, you'd do well to notice that the terms of your debate have been chosen by others. What, for instance, differentiates a war crime from war non-crime? From a non-war crime?

wavydavy said...

Bill Ayers blew up a few government offices in his time too. Didn't have the guts to kill anyone though.

Inspector Lee --

I would like to think that that paragrah is intended ironically or sarcastically, but there is nothing else in your comment to indicate that you were being anything less than serious -- which leads me to conclude that you think Timothy McVeigh had more "guts" than Bill Ayers because he (McVeigh) killed someone (actually, 168 "someones").

Yeah, nothing demonstrates "guts" (you appear to be stating that as a positive quality) than blowing up a day care center (talk about your lackeys of the government -- nothing worse than a 3-year-old not yet in possession of the capability to reason) and running away from the scene to avoid any personal damage.

Say what you will about the 9/11 perpetrators, but at least they had enough courage of their convictions to die for their cause. McVeigh, on the other hand... eh, not so much.

To the extent that he was not clinically insane, McVeigh was a gutless chickenshit who murdered small children in large quantities and then ran like a coward. Yeah, that really "sticks it to the man".

And IOZ: explain to me how killing children is going to "war" against the US government, and what possible "ideals of freedom and liberty" you think his actions were designed to defend.

Anonymous said...

Even if it's legitimate to say that McVeigh "went to war," he did so by committing a huge and radically counter-productive war crime against the most peripheral of all possible targets.

Right. What's your point again?

Mr.Fundamental said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Dear immature, myopic Jenny --

I never said anyone should be a fan of Glenn Beck.

I merely made fun of you for thinking that by pointing fingers at the likes of Glenn Beck, you are engaged in meaningful political analysis or activism. I know how you Digbybots love to think that the Mighty Donkle would be sailing the good ship Uncle Sam to Valhalla if not for Glenn Beck's "forcing" the Congress to "listen to him". Yes, I have read your juvenile comments around the WebToobz. They make me wonder why a 10-year-old girl bothers to try to engage people from the perspective of Barbie's Malibu Beach House.

Mr.Fundamental said...

And IOZ: explain to me how killing children is going to "war" against the US government, and what possible "ideals of freedom and liberty" you think his actions were designed to defend.

lol @ wavydavy. substitute IRAQ for the US Government, and our actions for his actions.

ever thus to fucking deadbeats on the Internet.

Jeff in Texas said...

Whatever you may say of his political stance (and I agree with IOZ to the extent that I think McVeigh certainly had a point in contrasting American indifference to the slaughter of foreign civilians for American purposes and American sensitivity to its own dead for other people's purposes, and calling bullshit on it), at heart, McVeigh seems an awful lot like the fitness center killer in Pittsburgh. A loser, a loner, a angry geek frustrated by his inability to connect with women, who ultimately explodes in the most violent way you can imagine. McVeigh had a more articulate intellectual and political veneer to his psychopathology than the gym killer, but in the end he was just killing out of spite, frustration, and sexual fucked-uppedness.

Anonymous said...

"just killing out of spite, frustration, and sexual fucked-uppedness"

As opposed, I suppose, to "just" killing for Lebensraum or (as we know it on this side of the pond) Manifest Destiny.

periscopedepth said...

but in the end he was just killing out of spite, frustration, and sexual fucked-uppedness.

Call me a filthy reductionist, but I think that's why most people kill (or accept orders from uniformed superiors to kill).

Jenny said...

Charlie: Well, through your sarcastic labeling of the teabaggers as evil and the republicans as nasty, I assumed you supported them. Which wouldn't surprise me as you seem to happily use the namecalling tactics of O' Reill and Beck. And for the record, I think Michael Dawson had the right idea.

Christopher M. said...

substitute IRAQ for the US Government, and our actions for his actions.

What the fuck has anything got to do with Vietnam? What the fuck are you talking about?

Inspector Lee said...

Killing marks the point of no return: once you cross that line you've got no way back to where you started. You've done something irreversible. Ayers made sure he had a future that didn't involve a gas chamber or the inside of concrete cell for the rest of his life. His plan worked out for him. McVeigh set himself up to be a hunted man forever, with no possibility of pardon.

Jeff in Texas said...

"Call me a filthy reductionist, but I think that's why most people kill (or accept orders from uniformed superiors to kill)."

Right. He was just a killer. The rest was window-dressing, and not particularly original window-dressing.

holocaust scholars are nazis said...

"And Ioz, may I ask why you own a copy of the turner diaries?"

Well, there's the whole thing. You're not supposed to know what it is firsthand -- you're just supposed to hate it.

Imagine doing both? Nah.

anonymous2 said...

great point Jeff.

Michael Dawson said...

Are you serious la Rana? A non-criminal act of war is violence done against an enlisted combatant in a war effort that meets the requirements of United Nations Charter.

"War crime" is a concept of the left, not the right. It's ours, despite muddlers like you.

Mr.Fundamental said...

well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude.

TGGP said...

The John Brown analogy is interesting. Whatever you think of Brown's motives, all he wound up doing was killing a bunch of people and then getting himself executed. The lesson I take (whatever you goal) is that defeatism is the most sensible course of action. Most of you didn't think much of that when I was promoting it before here, but it's still my view.

Michael Dawson, like others have said, nobody is claiming McVeigh is a symptom of "health", and its not about whether he's on "our side". I don't favor the establishment of a caliphate, so I'm not on "al Qaeda's side", but I call foul when people spout bullshit about how "they hate us for our freedom" without mentioning all the actions our government has taken which contributed to the conflict. I try to apply similar standards to Hitler & Stalin, that doesn't make me a CommuNazi.

"War crime" strikes me as a somewhat funny concept. War itself is organized killing & destruction. It's crime writ large. Crime comes in shades of badness, so we can prefer some more civilized kinds of war to others, but then we've just got especially heinous acts of war in the first degree.

Did he strike "the most peripheral of targets"? He claimed to be responding to Waco, and it contained the regional offices of the FBI and BATF. It isn't the J. Edgar Hoover building, but as terrorist attacks go it beats the World Trade Center. I'd note that his response when told about the daycare center, "collateral damage", is the term our government uses when it kills civilians in war. Wars are crimes.

Bill Ayer's friends blew themselves up when they were making a nail-bomb. The bomb was intended to kill. You might claim that it was not a war crime because it targeted servicemen, but it was to be used at a dance and would have also taken out civilians there. Their hands were kept clean by their own incompetence, though I suppose that counts for something as long as we apply lower standards for mere attempted murder.

Anonymous said...

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle

So, um, it's possible to kinda-sorta grok McVeigh without, like, wanting to blow up children of government agents. Which isn't really the point anyway.

Enron said...

Yet John Brown, in his own way, led to the Civil War. So his death was not entirely in vain, and the defeatist logic is not entirely accurate.

nony said...

If you're cool with your actions leading to a four-year war in which half a million people die, then I guess you're right Enron.

Anonymous said...

O for the queer love of Christ. Yes, McVeigh had his reasons and yes, they were bullshit. Sorry, all you deskbound paintball commando assholes, if you want to protest the way the state behaves, it just ain't good enough to do the same thing in miniature. "The state is evil! It kills innocents and takes away everyone else's freedom! Watch me prove it! I'm a-gonna blow up some innocents and give the state a reason to crack down even harder on civil liberties!" Stupid motherfucker.

Solar Hero said...

Dudes, the U.S. controls the heroin distribution networks now, at least after the "war" in Afghanistan is "won."

Fuck the Queen.

Anonymous said...

do you really think that obama=cheney on civil liberties issues

I think he is worse.


I'd actually like to see a serious, thoughtful argument attempted for this thesis (or, at least pointed in the direction of one). You know, something more substantive than the 'wolf-in-sheep's-clothing is better able to pull a fast one on you' line. Or, do we think that Obama really has more dastardly anti-liberty plans than even Mr. Vader himself?

Please advise. Sure would be useful for something or other.

Mr.Fundamental said...

try this one, nony@2:02pm.

Obama, meanwhile, has all the marks of a man with an integrated and coherent view of the central issues to the maintenance of American hegemony, and he should be expected to pursue the project of American dominance with more focus and more success. I won't make bones about it. By the standard American-history-text measures, I expect an Obama presidency to be a successful one, surely at least a gradual reversion to mean. This will please his partisan supporters and most progressives (read: Restorationists), who will remain blithely oblivious to what precisely it represents: the more skillfully executed subjugation of other peoples to the needs of the American empire. To those who claim to oppose the American imperial project, that should be the focus of opposition.

Michael Dawson said...

TGGP, you have a very positive talent for illogic.

Wars are not crimes.

Of course, libertarianism cancels out the very concept of crime, doesn't it? That point doesn't seem to faze you, though, as you proceed on your dervish dance of sophomoric error.

McVeigh attacked a building full of civilians who knew nothing of the FBI's efforts at policing the murdering, child-raping scofflaw syndicate in Waco.

John Brown fought militant slavedrivers and attacked a military post, from a coherent, informed position.

IOZ said...

Here's an interesting point of comparison: John Brown undertook his militancy in attacking what he plainly understood to be legal actions, i.e. slaveholding, whereas Timothy McVeigh did so in response to what he understood to be illegal actions on the part of the government.

Anonymous said...

M. Fun:

I dunno, that sounds more like an argument for Obama as a more effective imperialist than Cheney, which I tend to agree with (as did Wall Street), but remains to be seen (Will he ignore the Taliban and concentrate more on Al Qaeda? Will he reform the SEC and the regulation of the credit rating industry in time to thwart another banking collapse?? Will that save The Empire???). But it doesn't necessarily follow that his imperial intelligence will lead to worse-than-Cheney restrictions on civil liberties back home. Maybe "the issues of American hegemony" will lead him to a small moderation of Cheney-like domestic issues, for fear of a short-term political backlash. You know, cuz maybe it's easier to subjugate non-Americans if you've got the Americans on your side.

Nevertheless, I find it difficult to dissuade lefty's from the belief that, on the magical left/right scale, anyone located closer to the left is inherently less evil than anyone located closer to the right. Seems like a major obstacle to whatever it is we're trying to do here.

Kafka said...

Democracy at home and empire abroad generally don't go together well. If Obama proves to be a better manager of empire than Cheney, he will probably be better at propaganda at home and more successful appropriating wealth and other resources for the empire effort. Loss of civil liberties isn't far behind once WWIII really get's underway.

Mr.Fundamental said...

But it doesn't necessarily follow that his imperial intelligence will lead to worse-than-Cheney restrictions on civil liberties back home. Maybe "the issues of American hegemony" will lead him to a small moderation of Cheney-like domestic issues, for fear of a short-term political backlash. You know, cuz maybe it's easier to subjugate non-Americans if you've got the Americans on your side.

he'll make it more palatable, re-direct our eyes and ears from what's going on, and tighten the belt, so to speak. ain't not much functionally going to change. and for the most part, he'll shut up the progressives, so that once more they'll have that "down on their hard luck, why won't Congress pass this really sweet legislation, we will have to get more of the right people voted into office" look about them, which had disappeared during the rule of W Bush, replaced with the "OMG CAN'T YOU SEE that you're killing the nation that I love so dearly!11!! my children!" scowl.

Anonymous said...

In originally drawing attention to Brown as a possible precursor of McVeigh, I was actually more interested in the comparative internal states of the two, because something in IOZ's sketch of McVeigh suggested to me that whatever led Brown to step over Eliot's shadow fom idea to reality, from emotion to act, may also have led McVeigh to do same.

Of possible relevance is the following quote from Nietzsche, to be found here:

http://www.studiocleo.com/librarie/nietzsche/excerpts.html

"... think of a man tossed and torn by a powerful passion for a woman or a great thought: how his world is changed! Glancing backwards he feels blind, listening sideways he hears what is foreign as a dull meaningless sound; what he perceives at all he has never perceived so before, so tangibly near, coloured, full of sound and light as though he were apprehending it with all his senses at once. All evaluations are changed and devalued; there is so much he can no longer value because he can hardly feel it: he asks himself whether he has been fooled the whole time by alien words and alien opinions; he is astonished that his memory so tirelessly runs in circles and is yet too weak and too tired to leap even once out of this circle. It is the most unjust condition in the world, narrow, ungrateful to the past, blind to dangers, deaf to warnings, a little living whirlpool in a dead sea of night and forgetting: and yet this condition -- unhistorical, contra-historical through and through -- is the cradle not only of an unjust, but rather of every just deed; and no artist will paint his picture, no general achieve victory nor any people its freedom without first having desired and striven for it in such an unhistorical condition."

Anonymous said...

sorry "motion" and "act", not "emotion" and "act".

erin4iraq said...

Me, I am just glad that capital punishment took its natural course with Mr. McVeigh.

Jenny said...

"McVeigh attacked a building full of civilians who knew nothing of the FBI's efforts at policing the murdering, child-raping scofflaw syndicate in Waco."

Again Dawson's on target here. If you're going to bomb something, make sure it's related to your cause.

The Promiscuous Reader said...

"If you're going to bomb something, make sure it's related to your cause."

Well, of course, Jenny, which of course the US government always does. (And governments in general.) By definition, anything We bomb is related to Our cause, or We wouldn't have bombed it. That's why Our wars have been so successful.

Janet Reno said...

Good read all - lots of different mind-sets, very enlightening.

Interest pull from the above:
Al Queda > McVeigh > Ayers/Weathermen
in the 'Who's got Balls?' category.

Anonymous said...

IOZ lights firecracker, trashes Digby. Hillarity ensues as Timmy McVey is lionized, John Brown continues to moulder in the grave, and the Weathermen still don't know which way the wind bloze.

IOZ said...

I would like to note that I did not trash digby. Hashem, are you listening?

Steven Augustine said...

Lee Harvey McVeigh. Those grassy knolls just keep on getting bigger.

Anonymous said...

"I would like to note that I did not trash digby."

Well, OK. Damning with faint praise is a whole lotta' different, neh?

Noumenon said...

In pretty much every one of the voluminous current histories of the OK City bombings, the books on McVeigh and Nichols, Gore Vidal's widely circulated correspondence and essays with McVeigh, etc.

I was little back then. It would've been good for me if the post had had some kind of link in it that would show how serious McVeigh's thought process was.

Anonymous said...

[url=http://firgonbares.net/][img]http://firgonbares.net/img-add/euro2.jpg[/img][/url]
[b]student discounts on adobe creative suite 3, [url=http://firgonbares.net/]store manager software[/url]
[url=http://firgonbares.net/][/url] sales order software buying software
i buy oem software [url=http://firgonbares.net/]buy business software[/url] 2 Mac
[url=http://firgonbares.net/]2000 oem software[/url] oem software safe
[url=http://firgonbares.net/]windows xp service pack 2 free download[/url] best adobe software
software for selling online [url=http://firgonbares.net/]nero update[/b]