San Bernardino aftermath: “Trump”eting and the need for Prudent Profiling


To set up today’s discussion about Mr. Trump and the latest terrorist violence, we need to review the concept of profiling.  In my mind, the history of racial profiling is rightly condemned in the U.S.   Like most, my own opinions on this are colored by what I’ve seen. My first experience with racial profiling was in a lunch time discussion with a fellow Air Force officer ~1993 who was African-American. He was a major (a mid-level officer) who was also married to a Lt Colonel; their combined income would have been upper middle class at least. “Doc” (his call sign) one day looked at me with exasperation in his eyes, and in a pained voice, said “I’m so tired of being pulled over for driving a BMW.” In the early 90s, driving a new BMW was something only the wealthy could do–and police must have suspected he stole it–simply because he was black. And this was in Colorado, not exactly a hot bed for racial prejudice.

Contemporary culture has taken this wrong and made it a universal principle:  it is immoral to treat someone differently, because of their race, religion, etc. (and this list keeps growing).  I argue that this is imprudent policy and has no biblical merit.  It is without biblical merit because there are numerous cases of treating people differently in the Bible because of their religion, sex, age, etc. e.g., gentiles were not allowed in the inner temple area, females were not allowed to be priests (Lev 8), priests were required to retire at 50 from temple service (Num 8:25).  The question becomes why are they treated differently? Is it for a reason that is God-honoring or not?  Does the differential treatment attack the individual’s inherent dignity of someone created Imago Dei?

One thing that contemporary culture refuses to acknowledge is that in almost all of these issues, there are competing rights being balanced.  I have a right to not have my car stolen.  I also have the right not to suffer unreasonable search and seizure.  In the case of my friend Doc, it is the combination of these issues that rightly guide us to condemn racial profiling.  When our rights are abridged, it must be for reasonable reasons and the reduction of our rights must be proportional to the public interest.  For example, let’s say there was a highly credible report that intelligence gathered that there was a suitcase bomber loose in NYC with a stolen Soviet-era nuclear bomb.  The intelligence says that it would be carried by a black woman.  Is it unreasonable to stop every black woman walking down the street in NYC, simply because they are black and female?  If you say no, that this is inconsistent with our values, I say you are absolutely nuts!  Stop them if they look close to black, even if they are androgynous!  The point is that we must balance the broader risks to society and the reductions of our values.  We cannot possibly put 10 million lives at risk because someone might feel offended.  In economic terms, we must balance costs and benefits. To say we want no discrimination in society, is to wish for utopia–an unbiblical concept in a fallen world.*  In the case of historic racial profiling, blacks had (and still have) a higher rate of crime than whites, not due to race but to socioeconomic/cultural issues.  But the risk to society of a car being stolen did not rise to level of a systematic persecution of an entire class of people.  It was not proportional.  I think this is the valid and legitimate concern of many of the racial issues we see today and exemplified in Black Lives Matter–its not that all the people that are protesting deny that the young men killed were not in the wrong–but rather there is no proportionality.  For a minor crime we are taking the life of a young man?  Those protesting from that perspective are on strong Biblical grounds–the Bible does not generally allow taking the life of someone for theft**.

So with that context, let’s consider today’s continuing news.  On the heels of the Paris tragedy comes what appears now to be a radicalized Muslim “lone wolf” husband and wife team that at least sympathized with ISIS that killed 14 people and wounded many more.  Donald Trump is arousing much angst and vitriol because he suggested we should ban Muslims from coming to America until the government can assure us they can keep out “the bad guys.”  And the elite culture and news media are shocked that many Americans agree with him.

I assert we are in this situation in part because the Obama Administration has not prudently (at least publicly) treated risks differentially.  For anyone to say (and many on the left do) that you are simply a racist and xenophobic to want to apply a different standard to someone wanting to immigrate from Syria than from say, China, is to ignore the legitimate concerns over differential risk. ISIS is openly saying they will use the immigration process to infiltrate the West for terrorist attacks, and are suspected to have done it in Paris, according to the House Homeland Security Committee.  To deny that there is a greater risk of harm to the U.S. of a Muslim immigrant than for a Christian immigrant, simply because the vast majority of Muslims mean us no harm, is also ludicrous in an era of easily made bombs and widely available guns*** in a free society.  But it is not only ludicrous, when it flows into public policy it is also dangerous.

This leads to the video link above, where Israel is the perhaps the best model for us to study in the new world we live in.  Prudent profiling is an integral part of this.  We must balance the risks and rights of all; picking one extreme (as the Obama Administration seems to have done) leads to the other extreme (Trumpetisms). Neither is healthy.  Further, if we fail to address legitimate risks, the government loses the respect of the people and the public will turn to extreme answers.  If we do not act with prudence now, and we start having a shooting in once a month in the U.S., you will see a very illiberal reaction–there will not be a small reduction in “rights,” you may see the “round them all up” sentiment sweep the nation. There is much at stake to our values that necessitates acting prudently now.


EDIT Update:  National Review has an excellent link related to this topic, check it out.

* I have previously argued that discrimination is not wrong in many cases; we are allowing the culture to smuggle questionable values  under the broader value of treating people with dignity and respect.

** Unless they are in your house at night–because the risk is not merely to your property in that situation.  Otherwise restitution is required; see Exodus 22.

*** Gun controls such as Mr. Obama is proposing would have little effect on the availability of guns, when there are probably 5-10 million AR-15s already out there.  Yes, it would raise the price.  But we see this terrorist simply got a loan shortly before the event.  This is a red herring to avoid talking about the real issues.

41 thoughts on “San Bernardino aftermath: “Trump”eting and the need for Prudent Profiling”

  1. Well done, I think this is very logical. I would argue that you hold to a higher level of scrutiny on refugees than I do, because this math you’re talking about is subjective.

    Also small note. Yes about half of the lives black lives matter are protesting over were guilty. Half were innocent. I’m sure you don’t disagree, it doesn’t change the message of your post. But I think it’s valuable clarification.

    1. A century ago, when suspected criminals, largely African-American, were sometimes attacked by mobs, dragged to trees, beaten, castrated, and then sometimes burned (usually hung) to death, some defended such actions, arguing that they were probably guilty anyway. We know now that some were probably guilty indeed, whereas some very probably not guilty.

      If a life is taken unjustly by a police officer before there can truly be equal justice under the law, is it all that much different from the days of lynching? No, it is not, since the individual has not received a proper trial. Yet some of us who condemn lynching do not see the double standards at work.

      1. I wasn’t defending the cops. I was saying some of these people were caught on camera doing pretty crimes. Some were just minding their own business. Either way it’s wrong to take their lives.

  2. Are you arguing that because certain biblical passages tend to support discrimination, then discrimination is justified even today?

    You seem to be doing that. Are you going down that slippery slope here?

    1. No, all he’s saying is that sometimes discrimination is prudence. Wouldn’t you want to discriminate against members of Isis that wanted to come to America? Going completely to one side and ignoring statistics and any differentiation is foolish. Just like it’s foolish to discriminate against Muslims because there are groups that say they’re Islamic and commit evil deeds.

      1. Let’s think this through.

        How does one KNOW if one is a member of ISIS? If you don’t KNOW, how can one properly discriminate?

        Since we don’t know, or really cannot know, should we just take what the Donald says, extend it, and just keep out all suspicious looking individuals?

        If we do that, why not just throw away the Constitution and make Mussolini’s readings on fascism required reading for our students? Is fear a reason to abandon time-tested principles?

        For one, I am not afraid of ISIS as much as I am the angry white men–especially fundamentalist Christians–who have firearms around them at all times. Unlike ISIS, they are just about everywhere.

      2. Jeff,

        If you are more afraid of fundamentalist Christians who own guns more than you are of ISIS, then your mindset is warped indeed and you only demonstrate that you yourself are far from immune from discriminatory and bigoted views.

      3. “How does one KNOW if one is a member of ISIS? If you don’t KNOW, how can one properly discriminate? Since we don’t know, or really cannot know, should we just take what the Donald says, extend it, and just keep out all suspicious looking individuals?”

        First of all, Trump specifically qualified his proposal with the word “temporary”. That’s doesn’t make me agree with the policy, I still disagree with it, but it is an important qualifier.

        But back to your quote… is it your position then that since we can’t KNOW for sure if someone is a member of ISIS or not that we just do nothing? What is YOUR SOLUTION to the problem?

        Of course if you really do think fundamentalist Christians are a greater threat to your life than ISIS, as you clearly stated you do, then I do not expect an actual reasonable answer, if I even get one.

      4. Actually Jeff is right, conservatives with guns have killed twice as many Americans since 9/11 as Muslims have. So I’m more afraid of conservatives with guns too.

        Jeff, I’m not saying discriminate against Arabs. Because let’s be honest, even Donald’s plan is impossible. But if you do identify someone as Isis I have no problem treating them different before they have a chance to commit a crime. For instance an idea floated out there is to not allow someone back into the country if they left to join Isis. Do you think that’s unfair? I’d say unless you consider that treason I’m not positive it’s constitutional either.

        Jeff seriously man, I think you need to calm down a little. I think you might just be looking for reasons to be angry.

      5. How do you know they are conservatives? Of course I grant that far more Americans are killed each year by other Americans that are killed by Muslims and of course some of it is by conservatives. Some is by liberals too. But what is your answer to the dozens of black on black gun crimes in the big cities. Do I need to delve into Chicago’s gun violence stats?

        I think the danger here is using the stats to downplay the threat from Muslim extremists. Right now, they are responsible for less deaths overall, and actually, during the height of the Iraq War, studies showed that you were more likely to be killed on the streets of Washington D.C. that you were in Baghdad, but there are many of us who would prefer to NOT let the numbers of deaths caused by Muslims to catch up with the statistics before doing something about it.

        But even if there are more murders committed by conservatives that Muslims, Jeff did not say “conservative” he said “angry white fundamentalist Christians”. Whether Jeff realizes it or not, fundamentalist Christians can be Democrats too. I know some myself. “Conservative” and “fundamentalist Christian” are NOT the same thing by a long shot. “Conservative” covers a very broad spectrum of people groups and ideologies. Jeff chose instead to single out a particular specific group that he happens to despise. You are right about Jeff Adams looking for reasons to be angry. He does that all the time on this blog.

      6. Nathan, you know you do the same thing.

        My statistics were not just murders but mass murders or politically motivated murders, such as cliven Bundy or the church in south Carolina. And yes most of these people identify as Christian also.

      7. For the record, Bundy identifies as Mormon, not Christian.
        And if Dylann Roof ever identified as Christian (and I have seen nothing to indicate that he did) he did so completely oblivious to what true Christianity is.

        But again, I am not disputing the fact that more Americans die because of other Americans yet you act as if I am.

        But if you want some facts…
        Washington D.C., hardly a center of the conservative or fundamentalist Christian community has the highest murder rate ratio in the nation. 16.5 gun deaths per every 100,000 inhabitants (2010 census). The gun ownership percentage is the lowest in the nation at 3.6%. Going by State figures, percentage of gun ownership has little correlative value to the number of gun crimes committed. Many States with higher gun ownership percentages have lower gun death rates than States with smaller gun ownership percentages and some States with high gun ownership have higher rates than some States with lower ownership rates. There also exists no correlative value between gun ownership percentage in a State and the percentage who identify as Christians nor is there correlative value between percentage of Christians and murder rate.

        Of course it is true if you live in a city, county, or State that has significantly more conservatives or Christians than Democrats, liberals, or Muslims you are more likely to be killed by a Christian or conservative in the raw sense of population percentage.

        But what you and Jeff Adams are saying, at least based on how I am understanding what you say, is that if there was demographic parity between Muslims and Christians you would still fear the Christians more than you would the Muslims.

        I am sorry, maybe I am misunderstanding you completely, but what you are saying makes no sense. I can say with relative certainty that either one of you would be far safer walking down the street of a conservative fundamentalist Christian community in Oklahoma, Texas, or West Virginia than you would walking down a street in Washington D.C, Chicago, or Los Angeles.

        I am fully aware of the facts. I know the number of Americans killed by terrorists are minuscule compared to overall gun deaths, but what I do not understand is using that mentality as an excuse to ignore a very serious problem.

    2. Jeff–
      I didn’t think I was being subtle. Read * #1 in the post; yes I think discrimination is prudent in many areas of life. And when you think about it, I suspect you’ll agree. Racism and discrimination are two entirely different things, even though there is an agenda to conflate them.

      1. Racism and discrimination are not “entirely different things.”

        But, then again, you have not properly defined “discrimination.”

        Btw, instead of taking some highly unlikely hypothetical about a black woman (perhaps Oprah or some other Hollywood liberal) smuggling in Soviet missiles, why not deal with the giant elephant already in the room named the Donald.

        In particular, I am referring to the GOP frontrunner’s deplorable comments about a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US. (i.e the most recent of a long list).

        And, no, I don’t buy for a moment that one can safely ignore him, since he won’t be the nominee.

        If I know Cedarville faculty as I think I do, your Republicans will likely fall in line and docilely vote for the Donald, if he ends up being the nominee. You certainly won’t be writing some column in the Cedars about why one should NOT vote for the Republican, considering what happened to the guys who did that in 2012. If a yellow dog were the nominee, you guys would vote for it (woof, woof!).

        The silence from this blog regarding Mr. Trump’s anti-American language, which will likely help ISIS and other radical groups in their ongoing recruitment efforts, is quite loud.

      2. “The silence from this blog regarding Mr. Trump’s anti-American language, which will likely help ISIS and other radical groups in their ongoing recruitment efforts, is quite loud.”

        Mr. Adams, you only demonstrate to everyone your total lack of understanding of what drives ISIS and radical Islam. ISIS was doing just fine recruitment-wise before Donald Trump came along.

        As for his views, I would agree that some of his views are in that anti-American category, though to be fair, the media consistently exaggerates his positions.

        As for your other charge… what do you want the other people on this blog to say? It has been made pretty clear Donald Trump is not liked here. It is not incumbent on everybody that exists to condemn him whenever he opens his mouth.

        “If I know Cedarville faculty as I think I do, your Republicans will likely fall in line and docilely vote for the Donald, if he ends up being the nominee.”

        If Trump is the nominee, yes, I will vote for him. I will be honest about that. But don’t for one minute think I would enjoy doing so or be under any illusions that he might actually win. But since the alternative would be to vote for Hillary Clinton… I am sure you disagree and will likely reply with some excoriating comment but when choosing between two evils, which a Trump vs. Clinton race would surely be, better to go with the evil that actually tells you what he thinks and what he wants to do than the one who lies.

        As for the difference between racism and discrimination…

        Dictionary Definition – Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.

        So under the dictionary definition, when a university used affirmative action in its admissions policy, that action favors a certain group or groups. That is a form of discrimination.

        Racism is – the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

        And here is a third term related to the discussion, Bigotry. Which is – intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

        So lets use these definitions to figure out just who is guilty of what.

        Is Donald Trump discriminating? – Yes, but only as it specifically concerns non-citizen Muslims entering the United States.

        Does Donald Trump’s discrimination rise to the level of bigotry? No. Donald Trump is not intolerant of Muslims simply because they are Muslims. If ISIS did not exist and had not directly threatened to use the refugee crisis to infiltrate agents into the West, if the Paris attacks or the San Bernadino attack had never happened, no body would be saying we should halt Muslim immigration. He claims to have Muslim friends who agree with him, and there are some Muslims who do indeed support not letting in more until a more secure process for vetting is in place. So, bigotry doesn’t apply.

        Is Donald Trump racist? No. I know liberals love to say that opponents of illegal immigration are racist because of the unrelated fact that many of them happen to be Hispanic, but Trump is not anti-Hispanic. Neither does racism apply to the Muslim crisis. Muslims can be of any race or ethnicity so the debate over radical Islam is not one that involves race.

        The problem with Mr. Trump lies not in how he views others. His positions are not based on intolerance of Muslims or in a belief of inferiority based on skin color or physical characteristics, but in his extreme constitutionally unsound policy proposals, to deal with very real and potentially dangerous issues facing the nation.

        I don’t like Donald Trump. I hope he is not the nominee. I do not agree with many of his policy ideas on constitutional grounds (which makes them un-American). But at least I have the decency to refrain from accusing him of being things he is not.

      3. “And, no, I don’t buy for a moment that one can safely ignore him, since he won’t be the nominee”

        I don’t buy it either, Jeff. I have been waiting for months for the GOP to take the threat Trump represents to the Republican Party seriously and deal with it.

        Many of them finally are getting serious about it, but I fear it may be too late. I hope not.

        On the other hand, its too bad the Democrats aren’t more concerned about their own house. Maybe they should stop criticizing the GOP and recognize the fact that their own frontrunner is far from the epitome of perfection.

  3. It’s definitely important to understand the security risk of letting in immigrants when it’s been warned ISIS will use immigrants to carry out their plans. It is also important to recognize that while the vast majority of Muslims may be peaceful, the safety of all Americans must be considered. Discrimination needs to be described more accurately so people understand the difference of discrimination that is bad as opposed to recognizing that people are different (but equally valuable in the eyes of the Lord) and should be treated as such. For example refugee status is different for populations that have experienced genocide. They should be treated differently as they have various levels need to be safe from persecution.

  4. The U.S. has to take the threats issued by terrorist groups after the San Bernardino attacks seriously. Our officials should have taken them serious before that attack. However, this shows how it is possible for these extremists to slip through the cracks of the intelligence system by laying low. In order to combat these types of attacks in the future, the U.S. needs to give law enforcement officials the tools they need to succeed and allow the intelligence community to learn what we can about suspected terrorists, within the confines of legal and constitutional parameters. Law enforcement and military officials should also continue to train and develop new counterterrorism strategies to prevent attacks like the ones in San Bernardino and Paris from happening again in the future.

  5. Nathan,

    It is very clear that my comments are directed towards the blog writers, not to you.

    I really do not care what you think. You admit that Mr. Trump holds unconstitutional views and then say that you would vote for him anyway? Why should anyone take you seriously? You just confirmed what I said about voters who would vote for a yellow dog–a phrase common down here in the South–if that was the nominee.

    There are more than just two choices. I voted third-party in 1992 and 1996, I would do so again, if need be.
    The choice is not between Republican and Democratic.

    1. Jeff, I know you don’t care what I think. You don’t have to tell me that.

      And I don’t care who you direct your comments at. On a blog, anything said is open for anyone else to comment on. Get over yourself already.

      “The choice is not between Republican and Democratic.”

      Actually, Jeff, unless one of those third party candidates actually has a real chance at winning, it really is a choice between Republican and Democrat.

      Yes, Trump holds some unconstitutional views, but so does Hillary Clinton. I am sure most Americans actually favor something, no matter how small, that our Constitution would not allow. And like I said before, better to take an honest evil than a dishonest one. At least then you know where you stand.

      And maybe it is time that people realize that alot of what Trump says is just talk. Pragmatically, even if he is President, I seriously doubt he could actually do some of the things he says.

    2. Jeff,

      One final totally unrelated comment.

      I want you to know that, believe it or not, I appreciate your participation on this blog. I know we often get into very heated arguments, sometimes bordering on incivility. I take no personal offense from it, I hope you do not either.

      You do make me think about things. I usually do not change my mind, and neither do you, but you can’t really have a true exploration of any subject without divergent viewpoints and you certainly provide that.

      Thank you,

  6. I see two extremes (the Obama administration and Trump) but I’d like to know where others are at on this issue. I would hope they are more balanced and realistic.

  7. I don’t even know how to react to this article. I think the point of it is being lost in the comments as it certainly was on me. I don’t clearly see what is being advocated. I’m hesitant to dive into this at the risk of misinterpreting some of the seemingly inflammatory and unexpected claims in this article. Im interested to see if professor Haymond would elaborate on his thoughts or review this article to determine if its meaning is being correctly interpreted.

    1. M.F. that’s very wise of you. I think his point was just that there is a cost/benefit in any decision to discriminate in any way. Sadly sometimes you have to accept that cost if the benefit is high enough and the cost low enough.

    2. M.F. Could you elaborate on what you are confused about to give me something to answer? Any specific questions? And did you read the link from a previous blogpost in * #1 in the post; if not, it may help clarify this discussion.

      Yes the main point is that prudent profiling is necessary given the threats we face, and so the discussion in the public sphere needs to come together to say what is the least restrictive way that we can accomplish our legitimate security objectives. If some groups suffer minor inconveniences, that may be appropriate. In a fallen world, there are no solutions, only tradeoffs, because there are often conflicts between perceived rights.

  8. Also, has anyone reviewed what the Israelis do (per the video above). Are they on the right track? Are there any lessons for us?

    1. Okay I finally watched it. He didn’t say anything, they don’t profile by race or religion, they use “smart intelligence” profiling. What does that mean?

      1. He did say more than smart intelligence, but I won’t delve into the call for civilian “concealed carry” as one assistance against terrorism.

        But the point of the post was to get to the point you are now: As the many posts illustrate, there are many people who can’t even fathom the need for profiling at all. Once we get to the point where you may be–that perhaps some differential risk assessment is needed–then we can ask what are prudent measures that we could take. I think its pretty clear why they don’t want to give a lot of specifics–otherwise the bad guys would cover those tracks. But here are just some things to think about, as representative of the types of questions we should ask. Should we apply the same level of scrutiny on aircraft of 80 year old grandmothers as young males? Especially if the young males are just coming back from the middle east? Should we allow domestic surveillance of mosques, especially if they are known to be purveyors of jihadist rhetoric? Maybe like these bad actors:

        I don’t know what the right answer is. But I think we must stop letting political correctness prevent us from asking and carefully considering prudent measures. What those are, I’d like to hear the experts say.

  9. I believe the first and foremost job of the president of the United States is to protect the people of the United State. People would be foolish to deny that our national security is at risk. We have heard from ISIS that they plan to attack our nation, they plan to infiltrate the west through immigration, and unfortunately we have experienced the pain caused by ISIS from the resent attack at San Bernadino. I agree that it would be irresponsible to know ISIS’s plan to come to the west, including the United States, through immigration, yet be worried about offending people with racial profiling. I hope the president is reminded of his most important job to protect the people of the United States, but unfortunately I have little faith in the current administration.

    1. The current administration has kept us much safer than the previous one. In terms of foreign policy, there is no contest. I shudder to think how things would be if Dick Cheney were still running things.

      1. That argument is only valid in terms of raw numbers and exhibits a double standard on the part of liberals and Democrats.

        True, 3,000 Americans died on 9/11, which is far more than have died under Obama. However, in a past discussion, you, Jeff Adams, argued (fairly) that Obama should not have the stats of the economy in his first year counted against him since he was still dealing with policies from the Bush Administration. You also argued (fairly) that the next President, Republican or Democrat, should not have their first year counted against them because they would still be dealing with Obama Administration policies.

        The same is true of Bush and foreign policy. If you study the issue of intelligence and security in 2001 deeply, you will find that changes were underway, but not yet complete, from policies under Bill Clinton. Bush had been in office a bare nine months and was dealing with the system that had been in place before he even took office and there hadn’t been proper time to enact needed reforms. The succession of intelligence and security failures that resulted in 9/11 began while Bill Clinton was President. So the one single event that makes the number of Americans killed while Bush was President greater than the current administration is the policies that were still in place from the past administration.

        I shudder to think how things would be if another Clinton is running things.

        Have a pleasant day, Mr. Adams

    2. The problem with profiling to stop Isis is who do you profile against? Arab, white, Muslims, non Muslims, middle easterners, Europeans, Americans, drug users.

      These are all real groupings of people that have joined Isis.

      If you want to fully protect yourself. Close off the borders completely.

      I’m not advocating that of course. There are prudent measures and there are ridiculous measures. Require a visa for anyone who travels to Iraq or Syria. Sure I can see that. Stop refugees who have already spent years being vetted? I don’t buy that one. Stop all Muslims? How?

  10. 会見のゲストが含まれます:ロレックス最高経営責任者官迈ヤルノ(Bruno Meier)さん、国家体育総局にボールが運動管理センターの主任、中国ゴルフ協会副会長兼秘書長张小宁さん、中国ゴルフ協会副会長王立伟さん、上海市体育局副局長陈一平さん、上海市体育局競争処処長崔一宁さん、R&Aアジア太平洋区総監多米尼兄・ヴォル(Dominic Wall)さん、アメリカPGA選手権国際事務常務副総裁Ty Votawさんや身をロレックス巡茶」の世界トップ選手梁文冲。

  11. フランスも誕生したたくさんの有名な時計ブランドを含む有名のトップブランドブレゲ、そして彼の姉妹ブランドL.LEROY、ハイエンドのPequignet赫柏林など、優秀なブランドは、新古典設計スタイル抜群。面白いのは、”と呼ばれる時計の父」ブレゲ時計師さんがそろそろ人生の3分の2のはフランス過ごした、彼はパリ学習タブ技術、そしてまたパリを発明した多くの時計技術及び技術、陀フライホイール、万年暦、ブレゲさんがパリ発明のさえ、ブレゲ時計ブランドはすべてフランス創立の。 パネライ時計コピー今日は私たちは瑞表で見た多くの技術やデザインはフランスから伝わってきたもので、パリ飾釘、玑粘紋、ブレゲ指針など、フランス手厚いタブ歴史ヨーロッパ時計業界全体に影響を与えている今。

  12. Rolexスーパーコピー時計販売はROLEXコピー時計通販専門店です . 0.678244178 ロレックス時計のムーブメント:スイス製クォーツ . 品質保証、世界一流ロレックス時計スーパーコピー、精巧に作られたのスーパーコピーロレックス(N級品)2015年新作。

  13. 2009オメガ观澜湖ゴルフワールドカップは中国观澜湖ゴルフ会で盛大に開幕。 オメガスーパーコピー未来は4日、28チームはギネス記録世界1球が激しい試合、ゴルフに重みを最も重い1基のトロフィー。

  14. ガガミラノマニュアル35MMスーパーコピー 私は友人と仲間の時計愛好家には、この時計のイメージは、代表的な調査ではない―、私は―知っている独特の形状とは明らかに信じられないほどの造り品質にもかかわらず、彼らの誰も、本当に声を絶対と即時の驚き。ブガッティのスーパースポーツの腕時計をここで、車で十分でない–ファンキーに見えます、しかし、それは現れますがあまりに大きくて、であるにはあまりに重すぎて「芸術のための芸術」としている。

  15. Rolexスーパーコピー時計販売はROLEXコピー時計通販専門店です . 0.678244178 ロレックス時計のムーブメント:スイス製クォーツ . 品質保証、世界一流ロレックス時計スーパーコピー、精巧に作られたのスーパーコピーロレックス(N級品)2015年新作。

  16. 当店は海外安心と信頼のスーパーコピーブライトリング、代引き店です.正規品と同等品質のシャネル コピー代引き,品質が秀逸,値段が激安!ブライトリングコピー,代引きなどの商品や情報が満載!全商品写真は100%実物撮影です! お客様の満足度は業界No.1です!スーパーコピー時計,時計コピー ,ブランド時計コピー販売(n級品)店舗 ブランド腕時計(ロレックス,ブライトリング,タグホイヤー,オメガ,ガガミラノなど)の最新 情報やイベントを紹介する正規販売店と腕時計コピーの専門サイトです。当店はロレックスやパテックフィリップなどの新品スーパーコピー時計の販売と。

  17. 腕時計の後に(サファイア展の窓を通して)より完全なビューへの骨格化と装飾を処理します。私の考えでは非常に高級で上品な、ティソの最高の彫刻の線の部分の1つである。それはあなたが気にしない手巻き腕時計なら毎日でも着用者として適している。ルイ・ヴィトンコピー 私に明らかでありません、クロコダイルストラップがどのケースに合った1つのものである。若干のイメージに近い突起の間に座るより伝統的なまっすぐな端は、ケースに触れることはないのですが。他の画像において、それはケースの形状に適合するようにぴったりのストラップを使用しています。私はちょうど知りませんが、実際に使用されています。

Comments are closed.