On the Front Lines of Islamism

While we in the West work to defend secularism against creationists, pro-lifers and other would-be theocrats, it’s worth remembering from time to time how good we have it. Our church-state wall may be an embattled boundary, but in most of the world, it’s nonexistent. This is especially true in most of the world’s Muslim-majority countries, where a few heroes of secularism are fighting against nearly impossible odds. Take Kuwait, where two courageous female MPs are refusing to wear headscarves in Parliament, in defiance of Islamist lawmakers who want to force all women to obey sharia:

“You can’t force a woman going to the mall to wear a hijab and you can’t force a woman going to work to wear the hijab,” the MP, Rola Dashti, told The Daily Telegraph. “This is not Iran or Saudi Arabia.”

Although Kuwait has taken some small steps forward as compared to its neighbors – women gained the right to vote and to run for office only in 2005 – the Islamist parties that still exercise major influence in its government are doing their best to roll back that progress. Granting women the vote was a major advance, since female Kuwaitis now have a say in how they are governed. Rest assured, however, that the Islamists will take away that power if they can. Their demands to impose sharia and the hijab even on elected female lawmakers are doubtless their way of testing the waters for more restrictive laws. Rola Dashti and her colleague, Aseel Al-Awadhi, deserve great credit for having the courage to stand up to them, but victory is far from certain.

And when Islamists can’t win at the ballot box, they’ve proven time and time again that they’ll eagerly resort to violence to get their way. Just so is this story, about a suicide bomber who targeted the Pakistani office of the World Food Program:

The bomb exploded without warning about noon, said Saadia Abbasi, a Pakistani lawyer and former senator who lives across the street. “There was a terrible blast, and everything shook and smoke started pouring out” of the compound, she said in a telephone interview.

…Five people — an Iraqi man and four Pakistanis, two of them women — died by early evening, said Wasim Khawaja, spokesman for the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences hospital.

Attacking hotels and embassies is bad enough, but this savage assault on a purely charitable organization shows that our enemy has truly abandoned any trace of humanity. The only thing the WFP had done was try to help hungry, homeless Pakistani citizens displaced by internal conflict. If that makes them a target for terrorism, then we can see all the more clearly how those who planned and carried out this attack have given their allegiance to a religious cult of death and mayhem.

Finally, I wrote in January about the Taliban takeover of Pakistan’s Swat Valley. Shortly thereafter, the Pakistani government found the will to launch a counteroffensive and drove them out, thankfully. Now they’re targeting the true power center of the Islamist insurgency, the tribal region of South Waziristan. But the coming battle may be a costly one, as reported in this article from the Telegraph:

“If the soldiers come to our land I am ready to fight them,” said one of them, a teenager called Ijazullah, who only had one name. “I am ready to die. I am even ready for a suicide mission if that is required.”

…”There are thousands more like me who have come here to join our Muslim brothers,” he said. “We are ready to fight these Pakistani soldiers who are doing the work of the American unbelievers.”

I’ve often said that beliefs can’t be defeated by force alone, that the only way to truly overcome an idea is with a better idea. I still hold that to be true. But when violent extremists of any kind come together in an organized center of power, when they terrorize the populace and seek to impose their way of life on everyone, then the use of force is necessary as a means of self-defense.

The Taliban, al-Qaeda and their allies can’t be permitted to have a safe haven or to exercise uncontested control over any region of a sovereign nation, and there’s ample evidence that trying diplomacy only gives them a chance to consolidate their power. This hornets’ nest has to be cleared out, lest the fundamentalists overthrow Pakistan’s fragile democracy or get their hands on the country’s nuclear arsenal. This isn’t a recommendation I make lightly, but if ever there was a just war to uproot dangerous extremism, this is it. Pakistan’s army has tried and failed to uproot them in the past; whether they will succeed this time is something that time will soon tell.

About Adam Lee

Adam Lee is an atheist writer and speaker living in New York City. His new novel, Broken Ring, is available in paperback and e-book. Read his full bio, or follow him on Twitter.

  • http://www.myspace.com/driftwoodduo Steve Bowen

    Ebon
    I think you and I share a motive for supporting the military effort in Afganistan that is not really a priority for our respective governments. It is true that they cite the denial of women’s human rights as “bad” thing that the Taliban do, but this is never an explicit raison d’etrefor the conflict, which is usually sold as a matter of national security.

  • http://www.myspace.com/driftwoodduo Steve Bowen

    In fact this from Priminister Gordon Brown today

    However, Mr Brown defended the UK’s continued presence in Afghanistan, saying a “safer Afghanistan was a safer Britain”.

    “When the safety of our country is at stake, we cannot and we will not walk away,” he said. “We have the right strategy and we will see it through.”

  • http://anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com Tommykey

    The only thing the WFP had done was try to help hungry, homeless Pakistani citizens displaced by internal conflict.

    That’s precisely why it was targeted. Can’t have poor Pakistanis thinking that infidel organizations can help them.

  • Thumpalumpacus

    Islam is particularly virulent for the explicit command to spread by violence if need be.

  • John Nernoff

    For some background try accessing PBS’s “Frontline” show aired last night entitled “Obama’s War” showcasing comments by top military advisors and strategists. Militant Islam is a worldwide threat, Alqaeda is interested in global jihad and Afghanistan is just one point of contact which many on the show thought was a lost cause. Militant fundamentalism. nevertheless, is a malignant brain virus that must be treated somewhere at sometime.

  • Polly

    Who will cause more human misery:
    A modern army waging a protracted war among villagers or the Islamists who tend to persecute even other Muslims?
    I lean toward the former but it’s a close call. Time will tell.

  • Jormungund

    Polly,
    These oppressive groups try to spread aggressively. If we don’t come down hard on them, they will spread and gain control over more people. Do we want our modern military warring with/among villagers or do we want more and more villages dragged under the control of the Islamists? This is a spreading influence that is dangerously approaching the ability to engage in war against nuclear armed Pakistan. At the moment they can only take some territory and try to resist the Pakistani military; but if they spread enough they could make an attempt to seize Pakistani nukes or perhaps even overthrow the Pakistani government. It is very unpleasant to fight villagers and to try and figure out which villagers you should be shooting at and/or bombing in the first place. But that is nothing compared to the possibility of these kinds of oppressive groups taking control of larger and nuclear armed portions of Pakistan.

  • Polly

    Jormungund,
    Is there any evidence that these groups have the strength to take over Pakistan? I don’t mean American politicians citing it as a theoretical possibility. I mean a hard comparison of weapons and man-power and training on each side. What kind of air-power and logistics are Islamists working with?

    Every country (including the US) has semi-autonomous backwaters that the government ignores until the crazies start causing trouble outside the asylum. That seems to be the case, now (actually has been for a while). Pakistan is defending itself which is their right. But, I wonder if some kind of negotiated containment scheme might be better now that the dick-measuring contest is under way. Successful strikes generate THOUSANDS of refugees and potential human disasters.

    And that’s just when things go right.

  • XPK

    “dick-measuring contest”

    I have a feeling that if this was how war was described on a regular basis there would be fewer wars. :-)

  • Jormungund

    I wonder if some kind of negotiated containment scheme might be better now that the dick-measuring contest is under way.

    So a region of the world that is being brutally oppressed by the most extreme form of theocrats being freed is a ‘dick-measuring contest’? Have you read about the kind of brutal oppression that these people are being treated to? The acid attacks on school girls, the gang-rapes used to punish women or the families of women, the suicide bombings, the beatings administered to women who dress as they please, etcetera. I could go on with the kind of daily horrible brutality that these people are subjected to. And the oppressors in this situation are trying to aggressively expand and make larger regions like this. They are working hard to brainwash the youths under their control into being suicide bombers and soldiers in order to build a military force capable of holding out against the Pakistani government.
    I don’t know anything a dick-measuring contest going on, but I do know about senseless oppression that is trying to aggressively expand and gain control of nuclear weapons. It boggles my mind that you call working to free people from this kind of brutality ‘dick-measuring’. I know that we aren’t really altruistic and that we only want them crushed so that they don’t eventually constitute a (possibly nuclear nuclear armed) security threat to us, but try not to marginalize this kind of suffering and the legitimate efforts spent combating it.

  • nogrief

    —(Polly said)… “or the Islamists who tend to persecute even other Muslims?”—

    Remember how the USA aided the Taliban to defeat the Russian invasion and then walked away only to see the Taliban’s oppressive take-over of Afghanistan followed by their giving Al Qaeda a haven for their plotting against the USA? BTW, it didn’t end with simply persecuting Muslims … those were Americans who died in the twin towers.

    —(Polly said)— “… I mean a hard comparison of weapons and man-power and training on each side. What kind of air-power and logistics are Islamists working with?”

    Unorthodox as it was, Al Qaeda’s crashing of American airliners into the twin towers was certainly a very effective use of air power.

    “Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.”

  • Polly

    Jormungund,

    You completely ignored my points about a)the huge displacements this causes in addition to the thousands of innocent bystanders that get killed and b)the negligible chances of rogue forces actually seizing control of the Pakistani government. The military and population of Pakistan are rather large and not inclined toward religious extremism.

    In fact, you ignored everything I said EXCEPT for one phrase which, to me, is an accurate description of the situation.

    But, since it bothers you enough to render you incapable of addressing my major misgivings about continuing down the warpath, substitute this instead: “demonstration of capabilities.”

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org Ebonmuse

    For what it’s worth, I supported the Afghanistan invasion initially. Unlike Iraq, that was a war with a clear necessity and a well-defined objective. But the longer it’s gone on, the more skeptical I’m becoming. I no longer believe the U.S. has a clear mission there, and credible intelligence suggests that most al-Qaeda members have left the country (they’re mostly in Pakistan now, which was one of the points of my post).

    Defending the rights of Afghan people, especially women, against religious fanatics was and is a noble cause, and I could be persuaded that this justified our continued presence – if there was good reason to believe (a) that Afghan women are better for our presence and (b) that this state of affairs would change if we were to pull out. I’m not convinced that either of those things is true. As Arianna Huffington recently noted, the supposedly Western-friendly Karzai government has just made sharia the law of the land, and violence against women is still routine.

    Even if we were to make it our mission to defend human rights in Afghanistan, that would require a sustained, on-the-ground policing effort. At the moment, our military presence seems to consist mainly of missile attacks from unmanned drones, which is not only not going to protect women, it’s produced some disastrous consequences for innocent people fired upon by mistake.

    I do think there’s one more plausible purpose for remaining in Afghanistan, though it’s not one I’ve seen mentioned: when the Pakistani military launches its assault on South Waziristan, if they’re successful, there’s going to be a mass exodus among defeated jihadis fleeing the army. It would be helpful if there were American forces waiting on the Afghan side of the border to cut off their escape and prevent them from taking refuge there. But this is a short-term goal at best.

  • Jormungund

    Polly,
    You completely ignored my point that these groups are aggressively expanding. You don’t even acknowledge my arguments and then get in a fit about me ignoring your’s. Take a deep breath and settle down. I focused on that one comment of yours because it was extremely callous to call these difficult military operations ‘dick-measuring contests’. I believe that you are so clearly in the wrong on that comment that you shouldn’t feel mad at me when I point it out.
    The Pakistani government claims that half a million people are going to flee the Taliban controlled regions. So too bad about the displaced people. It is just going to happen. The Pakistanis could either allow the fanatics to hold these regions and continue their bombing campaigns in an attempt to spread, or they can attack and deal with the displaced people. The Pakistani government has already made refugee camps for the half million people who will likely flee the Taliban. It is not nice that they have to flee, but it is worse to sit back and get suicide bombed until the local police and military are helpless and the Taliban takes your town over.

    These groups suicide bomb or set off remote bombs in area to destabilize local military and police. Then they move in with soldiers and force young men in the region to join their military. Then they do that to the next town over. Pakistan is unable to stop this since it can’t stop the bombings and it’s military would rather sit around than prevent these groups from gaining control over towns. We should be glad that their military is finally doing something about this.

    “since it bothers you enough to render you incapable of addressing my major misgivings”
    Sorry, for a while I thought you wanted meaningful discussion on this matter. My mistake. Backhanded comments are apparently more your caliber.
    As for these groups actually taking over Pakistan: I know that they aren’t going to be able to any time soon. But they are wearing at the Pakistani government and they are expanding in Pakistani territory. They could wear down the government enough and spread enough to the point that they could vie for control of Pakistan. It would take them a long time to do that and their chances of success are poor. But let’s be better off safe than sorry. In fact, the Pakistani government is being better off safe than sorry and is attempting to crush these groups now while they are still small and disorganized. The Pakistani government gets it that this problem is growing and that nothing can be gained by waiting for it to get any bigger and nothing can be gained by sitting back and enduring more bombing campaigns. That’s why they are attacking rather than trying a containment strategy.

  • Jennifer

    Actually, it’s not so much that the bad guys are now in Pakistan as that there is no real border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and there never has been. That’s why the area is called the Northwest “Frontier.” That and the fact that the area is among the most rugged on the planet means there really is no way to limit the war to one area. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan have to be stable, and both have to assert control over the frontier. A similar example is the border marches between Scotland and England, which remained utterly lawless until both countries united and no longer had a good reason to promote that lawlessness (namely, to annoy the other side).

  • Archimedez

    Ebonmuse,

    Re “Karzai government has just made sharia the law of the land”

    Afghanistan never gave up sharia. The Western powers agreed to the inclusion of sharia provisions in the interim Afghan constitution. Same for Iraq. (That is, to some extent, our leaders were ignorant on the key issues and were ill-advised). The Afghans also endorsed that UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but this is meaningless because the sharia provisions override everything in the constitution.

    This is one of my main objections to the whole operation in Afghanistan. The regime currently in place there is only mildly less extreme than the Taliban. They still maintain harsh penalties for blasphemy and apostasy. Moreover, it is likely that the majority of Afghans agree with such penalties. While I believe we do need to maintain a small but sophisticated military operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is focused on al-Qaeda, until the foundational problem of the unreformed Islamic ideology is dealt with, we are essentially wasting human lives, time, and money there. (That is, in fact, one of the things that bin Laden said he wanted to happen in response to the 9/11 attacks). Indeed, it is counterproductive: We are unintentionally supporting the continued implementation of sharia and traditional Islam, and thereby fostering the production of even larger numbers of young people who are fundamentally hostile to the West and other non-Muslim civilizations.

    The problem is that, by agreeing to sharia and pouring in all kinds of money with few if any strings attached, we gave up whatever leverage we might have been able to use to help instigate real progressive change in Afghanistan. I propose that we pull out except for a small military force directed at al-Qaeda, and withhold all money, and make any future contributions for various projects there conditional upon the removal of sharia, perhaps starting with the most objectionable elements. If we were to start by demanding, for example, complete removal of any penalties for blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy, we would pave the way, in the long term, for reform to occur from within. If they did not agree to these terms, we would devote that money elsewhere where it is much more likely to be appreciated, much more likely to be successful, and much less likely to be turned around and used against us at some future date.

  • John Nernoff

    A quick observation: Perhaps an important part of Daylight ATHEISM should be more discussions (essays by Ebonmuse, and comments) on various aspects of Islam: sharia, hadiths and other writings, in addition to the Koran. It is my understanding that much more than the Koran guides the practices of more than a billion of our real or potential adversaries. We need more understanding of this vast superstition.

  • Ex-Muslim Atheist

    John is correct. When it comes to the issues that are of concern or interest to non-Muslims, as well as Muslims, it is the sunnah that provides the bulk of the source. Fatwas, or rulings, are derived from the sunnah, as well as analogy and consensus of teh scholars, who hold great authority, influence, and power, even today. Out of all of the Quran’s more than 6600 verses, only something like 70 of them deal with matters of law. The Quran is mainly about belief and the afterlife. Non-Muslims need to study the sources as Muslims understand them and know what they’re about so we can set about highlighting their problematic aspects and picking them apart. Plus, the sunnah is full of gems like the teaching that there are giant cosmic mountain goats in the sky and that there were talknig uteruses in the ancient times.

    There are a few ex-Muslim sites doing this. We need more.

  • http://www.myspace.com/driftwoodduo Steve Bowen

    …should be more discussions (essays by Ebonmuse, and comments) on various aspects of Islam: sharia, hadiths and other writings,

    Yes I agree! In the spirit of “know your enemy” a better understanding of Islamic theology would be good and Daylight Atheism is a brilliant forum to swap views and infomation. I have made a point of reading the Koran recently (online and with commentary) since I got involved in a discussion on creationism with a Muslim colleague. I have to say the Old Testement is a literary masterpiece in comparison, but it still makes fascinating reading if you can stick with it.

  • http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Archimedez “I propose that we pull out except for a small military force directed at al-Qaeda, and withhold all money, and make any future contributions for various projects there conditional upon the removal of sharia, perhaps starting with the most objectionable elements.”
    Their government doesn’t need our money (except for the bit that they skim into their pockets). They need our “force of arms”. Without boots on the ground, Karzi and his head would soon be parted (the warlords, after a long civil war, were losing against the Taliban. That’s why we used them and that’s why they accepted our help). That’s our trump card and the one that we can’t play, as threatening to leave would counter our goal of nation building/Taliban un-building while playing poorly at home. It’s not that the Afghanis don’t support his government, it’s that they don’t support any central government.
    “Winning” in Afghanistan, even without the distraction caused by Gulf War II, was (and I hate to say this) a pipe-dream; modern utopianism wrapped in a neo-con suit. In Afghanistan’s case, unique in the world, “nation building” (rather than nation re-building) is literal, made even more problematic by the fact that they hate outsiders even more than they hate the tribe next door. I don’t have a solution, and I doubt that the world has the deep pockets, the will to watch our people walk over there and come home in caskets, or the patience for any program that would both lift up Afghanistan as a country rather than a collection of tribes and render the groups within no longer a threat. It’s not, like Germany after WWII, rebuilding a country that no longer wanted to fight. They like to fight. When they weren’t killin’ Russians they went back to killing each other. While it seems odd that there are people still living in the 7th century, if you take away the IEDs and Nike T-shirts, they are living in the 7th century. A couple centuries of Enlightenment has spoiled us. We’ve forgotten just how cruel, brutish and short life used to be.
    In short, if we leave, we’ll be back when history repeats. If we stay, we won’t pitch in enough to make a difference, and most of what we do pitch in is of the wrong category (predator drones are nifty, but you can’t bomb someone over to your side. Hearts and minds are only winnable when they aren’t splattered on the pavement).

  • http://confessionatheist.blogspot.com Dale

    I agree with John and other posters: a quick “Islam 101″ piece would be useful. I might have to bite my tongue about what I’m going to say next once I get some more Islamic lore under my belt.

    With regard to the political issues on the table, I can’t help but feel a bit pessimistic about the whole thing. So what if the USA and its allies eliminate Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? They’ll spring up somewhere else. So what if we manage to prevent them from gaining a foothold in Pakistan or the uncontrolled areas around it? Even the complete annihilation of all Al-Qaeda leadership and infrastructure would only set the movement back, perhaps even for a few years. It wouldn’t get rid the problem entirely.

    This is, perhaps obviously, a war of ideas. I’m all for stopping the gratuitous human-rights abuses in the Muslim world, but I don’t see how that can ever be accomplished without radically altering the worldviews of a large number (majority is probably the right word here) of people living in the Middle East. As long as most people continue to believe and practice all the oppressive tenets of Islam, we’ll be playing Sisyphus, except the boulder has dynamite strapped to it.

  • Thumpalumpacus

    In addition to MO’s analysis, another objection to the italicized quote is that the smaller the force the more vulnerable it will be to exactly the sorts of attacks which are giving us pause for thought today.

    Ebonmuse wrote:

    It would be helpful if there were American forces waiting on the Afghan side of the border to cut off their escape and prevent them from taking refuge there. But this is a short-term goal at best.

    This is very true, but unlikely to occur before April, given the region’s ruggedness combined with harsh, long winters which would seriously impede the logistics of a force large enough to succeed. Is that the short term you had in mind?

  • Archimedez

    ModusOperandi,

    We’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. They’ll continue to hate us and oppose us whether we help them or not, and–as the past 30 years have shown–there will continue to be Islamist terrorists plotting to attack us whether we help build Afghanistan or not. At least we should not be putting lives and hard-earned money on the line to prop up the current version of the unreformed Islamic sharia state of Afghanistan. If you can do nothing else, do no wrong.

    You (MO) write: “I don’t have a solution, and I doubt that the world has the deep pockets, the will to watch our people walk over there and come home in caskets, or the patience for any program that would both lift up Afghanistan as a country rather than a collection of tribes and render the groups within no longer a threat.”

    I agree with all of this; and I don’t have a solution to the problem of Afghanistan, other than to note that it is a quagmire, and we should get out and cut our losses. Finishing off the leadership of al-Qaeda is not going to solve the problems there; rather, it is a separate and narrow project of capturing or killing the rest of the leadership who were most directly responsible for organizing the attacks of 9/11.

    MO: “They need our “force of arms”. Without boots on the ground, Karzi and his head would soon be parted (the warlords, after a long civil war, were losing against the Taliban. That’s why we used them and that’s why they accepted our help).”

    Protecting Karzai is not worth the life of one soldier, let alone thousands. However, if Afghanis value Karzai and want to protect him, we’ve already trained enough of them that they can deal with this issue. Our soldiers (“boots on the ground”) are walking targets for roadside bombs and ambushes, and they do not have the properly armoured vehicles to protect them from IEDs.

    MO: “That’s our trump card and the one that we can’t play, as threatening to leave would counter our goal of nation building/Taliban un-building while playing poorly at home.”

    My reading of the polls over the last year or so suggests that the majority or plurality of the publics in most western countries which have soldiers in Afghanistan (including the U.S., which has had by far the largest presence there) want them out.

    Nation-building should not be the goal as long as the nation being built is practically, from the standpoint of non-Muslims, the same as the type of sharia state that the Taliban and al-Qaeda seek as their end goal. Investing huge amounts of money and human lives in building a sharia state, such as we are doing currently in Afghanistan (and as the U.S. is doing in Iraq), is wildly counterproductive.

    MO: “”Winning” in Afghanistan, even without the distraction caused by Gulf War II, was (and I hate to say this) a pipe-dream; modern utopianism wrapped in a neo-con suit.”

    I agree, at least in regards to the murky conceptions of winning in this context. This is yet another reason why we ought to pull out, except for a small, sophisticated, military operation focused on al-Qaeda. In the article cited by Ebonmuse, Ariana Huffington notes that “In August, George Will called for the U.S. to pull out of Afghanistan and “do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units.”” This is the sort of thing I’m talking about for dealing with al-Qaeda.

    As long as the foundational problem of the unreformed Islamic ideology and sharia remains unaddressed, our efforts will be in vain.

  • Thumpalumpacus
  • XPK

    I just watched this movie on hulu called Al Qaeda Family. It is about a kid whose father was close to Bin Laden, grew up around the family with his kids, and even trained in the militant camps. There are interviews with some of the family still in Pakistan. (The movie was made in 2004, but still seems pertinent to the discussion.)

    Here is the link if you are interested: http://www.hulu.com/watch/101088/al-qaeda-family

  • XPK

    (or copy and paste that info, because my lack of tech-savy has reared it’s ugly head yet again.)

  • Thumpalumpacus

    xpk,

    You’d type:””, followed by the addy, then closed by “”. Just remove all of the spaces.

  • Thumpalumpacus

    heh, that would be the letters “url” inside these brackets “” with no spaces.

  • Thumpalumpacus

    and to close the linkage, you’d type “/url” within the brackets.

  • Alex Weaver

    Use the form <a href=”http://www.yoururlhere.com/”>text</a>

  • XPK

    Click here for link to previously mentioned video. Virtual hugs for Thumpalumpacus ><. Thank you!

  • XPK

    oh…and Alex you get a hug too. ><

  • Jerryd

    Some of the posts here have said it in similar ways, but the bottom line is that the laws of cause and effect are inexorable. Or put another way, you have to kill the queen bee, not just the worker bees, to destroy the hive. In Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Muslim world, what is the queen bee? It is brainwashed Muslim believers more than willing to die to get to their mythical heaven. Unless you can “unbrainwash” the believers, an utter impossibility IMHO, you might as well pull the plug on the war effort because you are doomed to fail when you only fight the effect while never touching the cause.

  • Sarah Braasch

    You get the same effect by actually liberating the women, like they said they were going to do, instead of bartering with women’s bodies like so many geopolitical poker chips.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X