Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"What Terrorists Want"  
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Posted (8 years 1 month 12 hours ago) and read 1737 times:

What Terrorists Want

...

I'd like everyone to take a deep breath and listen for a minute.

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.

And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want. [...]

Imagine for a moment that the British government arrested the 23 suspects without fanfare. Imagine that the TSA and its European counterparts didn't engage in pointless airline-security measures like banning liquids. And imagine that the press didn't write about it endlessly, and that the politicians didn't use the event to remind us all how scared we should be. If we'd reacted that way, then the terrorists would have truly failed.

It's time we calm down and fight terror with antiterror. This does not mean that we simply roll over and accept terrorism. There are things our government can and should do to fight terrorism, most of them involving intelligence and investigation---and not focusing on specific plots. [...]

The surest defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized. Our job is to recognize that terrorism is just one of the risks we face, and not a particularly common one at that. And our job is to fight those politicians who use fear as an excuse to take away our liberties and promote "security theater" that wastes money and doesn't make us any safer.


***

Man, this article is spot on IMO. Read the full article at:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/what_the_terror.html

Your thoughts?


NO URLS in signature
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21642 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 12 hours ago) and read 1705 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
Imagine that the TSA and its European counterparts didn't engage in pointless airline-security measures like banning liquids. And imagine that the press didn't write about it endlessly, and that the politicians didn't use the event to remind us all how scared we should be. If we'd reacted that way, then the terrorists would have truly failed.

I agree with everything here except the first part. Banning liquids was a temporary necessity (operative word being temporary) in order to make sure that the planned attack did not take place. Denying terrorists emotional victories is important, but not when doing so has a significant probability of allowing them a physical one.

The problem is that the press naturally hooks onto those things, and they love to milk them for all that they're worth so that they can get better ratings. And politicans have no choice but to sound off on current events - granted, some went way too far in trying to use the attempted attacks for their own personal gain, but then again - since when have politicians not been slimy?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 11 hours ago) and read 1687 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
There are things our government can and should do to fight terrorism, most of them involving intelligence and investigation---and not focusing on specific plots.

Specifically how? It is one thing to call for more intelligence (Iraq WMDs, anyone?) and actually proposing tangible steps to take. This guy is using the same tactics that other use, under a different guise. He is talking w/o showing any tangible and realistic actions that people should take. And this not focusing on specific plots, its just crazy. Investigations and convictions are done on specific issues, not hints that 'something' was up.

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):

The surest defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized.

Damn those idiot New Yorkers that were scared and terrified when the towers came down. Didnt they know that's what the terrorists wanted?  sarcastic 


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 1671 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
And our job is to fight those politicians

I dislike Bush as much as anybody, but I also recognize that this article allegedly about terrorism is thinly disguised Bush bashing and he adds the overt Bush bashing at the end for the ones who didn't figure it out for themselves.

Just because you hate Bush doesn't give you the right to spread bullshit about liquid explosives not being a real threat. Since one of the terror cells got caught, that means all the other terror cells are not a threat and we should stop defending against them. Bullshit.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 1670 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
Denying terrorists emotional victories is important, but not when doing so has a significant probability of allowing them a physical one.

Perhaps terrorism is just something we have to live with. Honestly, apart from 9/11, how many Americans have died from terrorist attacks? Why are so many of us so scared, and why is our government's response to prey off those fears?

I will take the chance that I may be killed by a terrorist when I go on a plane. At least let me bring my bottle of water on board, or even keep my chapstick in my pocket.

Andres,

We need more traditional police and intelligence work to find terrorists. We need to get the FBI, CIA, and NSA more coordinated in their intelligence efforts. Rather than the military solution that we've been so intent on using in the "war on terror", good ol' fashioned police work would work better. It worked in Europe and Israel for decades.

Instead, we run around RE-acting to every "threat" and acting like a scared dog between our legs. I'd rather we have more proactive international police work that can get the terrorists before they attack us. And even if they do, not to run and hide, not to change our lifestyle.

Didn't Bush say after 9/11 that the terrorists want us to change our way of life, and if we do they win? Well lets see, now we torture, now we infringe on civil liberties, now we capitalize on fear. All that seems to matter to people is terrorism.

Remember...

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21642 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):
Perhaps terrorism is just something we have to live with.

I hear you. But I would find it hard to justify letting large numbers of people die (or even small numbers of people die) just so that people wouldn't be afraid - they'd be afraid if the attack was successful anyway. I do not like overbearing security - it makes life a pain in the ass. But it is sometimes necessary for short periods of time - it would be necessary for much longer periods of time if various intelligence services weren't doing their job as well as they are (in spite of all the flaws in the system).

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):
why is our government's response to prey off those fears?

This I can't give a reasonable answer for.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 1648 times:

we accept thousands upon thousands of killed in traffic every year, we'll get used to terrorism.

User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 1634 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):
Remember...
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Remember...
Roosevelt said that in 1933. By 1942 he lost his fear of fear. What prompted him to authorize the Japanese-American internment. Do you think maybe it was fear?


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):
Perhaps terrorism is just something we have to live with



Quoting Agill (Reply 6):
we accept thousands upon thousands of killed in traffic every year, we'll get used to terrorism.

OK, just to use this analogy. Is car safety used by manufacturers to sell their cars? Has there been any improvements in cars and car related laws in the last decades to attempt to minimize the death toll?

Answer the questions and tell me, have we learned to accept car fatalities or are there constant improvements to minimize them? Has there been plenty of government intervention to maximize car safety?

So yes, perhaps it will be a good thing (no sarcasm intended) for us to accept terrorism as we accept car fatalities.


User currently offlineFMAL From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 486 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 1613 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):

Congratulation on a very good post. You put forward your opinions with no aggresion and say that the other side is wrong. Difference of opinion is another thing we have to live with. I share your opinions.

I do not accept a police state that tells me I'm safer, in exchange for pesonal liberties. Once you give away certain liberties that either took you centuries to accomplish, or was born with your country, you open a dangerous precedent and there is no telling where it stops.

People who have never lived under a dictatorship may not realize this. But people who has do.

Please, I am not saying that Bush or anybody else intends to install a dictatorship in the US, that's not my point. I'm merely using an argument here to base my actual point.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13116 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 1608 times:

Terrorists also want power and control of their world over those that do. They want revenge against or to extort those who that they believe or have convinced themelves to blame and act violently for their situation. Modern technology and tacticts makes it easier for a tiny number of people to war against millions.
As others suggest, sometimes they cause more fear and overreaction, but it is easy to for politicans to overreact. Someone made the note about FDR putting Japanase nationals and Americans of Japanese decent or birth into interment camps during WWII. That was a political overreaction to the fears of the public in the western USA 99% of which didn't understand their culture. The problem today is to deal with the political reality of such fears and not go overboard in reaction.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month ago) and read 1575 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
The surest defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized

Thats what happened on 7/11 at Mumbai.That one way,the second is to strike their epicentre.

regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month ago) and read 1573 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 8):

OK, just to use this analogy. Is car safety used by manufacturers to sell their cars? Has there been any improvements in cars and car related laws in the last decades to attempt to minimize the death toll?

Well we try to keep them as low as possible, but it's not something that scares us. I don't think many motorists are petrified while driving along on the road. Crashes is just something that happened, and we try to mimimize the effects, but we don't stop driving despite the fact that there are a lot of people killed each year.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1524 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 8):
So yes, perhaps it will be a good thing (no sarcasm intended) for us to accept terrorism as we accept car fatalities.

I absolutely do believe this. The truth is that terrorism really doesn't kill all that many people compared to other stuff. True, 9/11 was a terrible attack, but we can't change our life style for that. I also believe that there's enough nutcases out there that killing some won't change a thing. People will hate us no matter what we do, so why change our democratic ideals to fight a "war on terror".

Europe, Israel, and other parts of the world have been living with terrorism for decades, and have dealt with it accordingly. Its time for us to accept it as well.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1507 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 13):
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 8):
So yes, perhaps it will be a good thing (no sarcasm intended) for us to accept terrorism as we accept car fatalities.

I absolutely do believe this

Good, but let's examine this closely.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 13):
The truth is that terrorism really doesn't kill all that many people compared to other stuff.

Neither does second-hand smoking or even aircraft accidents, but we change our ways to cause less death, so the same will be for terrorism. And tell that to the people affected by terrorism, and see what type of response you get.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 13):
I also believe that there's enough nutcases out there that killing some won't change a thing

There's also a bunch of 'nutcases' that become serial murderers, and removing those from circulation won't stop the next one from cropping up, so why bother, right?

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 13):
People will hate us no matter what we do

So if they will hate us anyways, why complain about the effects that fighting them will have? I mean, you say that war or no war, they will hate us anyways.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 13):
Europe, Israel, and other parts of the world have been living with terrorism for decades, and have dealt with it accordingly.

Excellent example, I am 100% up to fighting terrorism the way Israel fights it (I guess you were supportive of the Lebanon invasion?). Hell, lets deal with terrorism the way Egypt and Saudi Arabia deals with it.


User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1491 times:

The struggle against terrorists and terror organisations should be conducted in a far more discreet way, in fact as discreetly as possible. BECAUSE terrorists are attention-whores of the worst kind possible. To get attention is more than 50% of what they want. There of course also are reasons like revenge (for whatever that may be) and the lust for political power.

User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1477 times:

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 15):
The struggle against terrorists and terror organisations should be conducted in a far more discreet way, in fact as discreetly as possible. BECAUSE terrorists are attention-whores of the worst kind possible. To get attention is more than 50% of what they want.

Absolutely correct but when you have information that "some" flights between the UK and USA are about to be targetted, you can't really keep quiet about it. You have to do whatever you can to stop explosives getting on board and people will notice. Similarly, when a house is raided the neighbours will notice.

I'm sure the security forces keep as much as they can under wraps.


User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1476 times:

2 Big Macs and a Coke please.
Oh, and we also want to destroy the country where these were invented.
Signed, The Terrorists



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1463 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 17):
2 Big Macs and a Coke please.
Oh, and we also want to destroy the country where these were invented.
Signed, The Terrorists

 checkmark  and that applies to a lot of their sympathisers.


User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1451 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 16):
The struggle against terrorists and terror organisations should be conducted in a far more discreet way, in fact as discreetly as possible. BECAUSE terrorists are attention-whores of the worst kind possible. To get attention is more than 50% of what they want.
-
Absolutely correct but when you have information that "some" flights between the UK and USA are about to be targetted, you can't really keep quiet about it. You have to do whatever you can to stop explosives getting on board and people will notice. Similarly, when a house is raided the neighbours will notice.

I'm sure the security forces keep as much as they can under wraps.

-
OK, unfortunately true ! Not least as in democratic countries, the press is allowed to have a look into police files.

Quoting David L (Reply 18):
The Terrorists
checkmark and that applies to a lot of their sympathisers.

well, you have the famous thing about anti US demonstrators, in jeans and with US made gym-shoes, drinking a CocaCola and eating a Hamburger before embarking onto the "venture" and after that relaxing in a Starbucks . And then driving home and using a US-made computer to report about everything in the Internet


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1430 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
The surest defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized.

Absolutely correct.

Americans especially need to put terrorism into its proper perspective.

Yes, it is a problem. But, terrorism should by no means be the number one national priority and the FEAR of terrorism should not effect government policy or private lives in the way it does today.

September 11 killed 3000 people 5 years ago. Before that there was sporadic terrorism against America numbering in the hundreds of dead. This is nothing to be scared of, as, for instance, Americans kill each other to the tune of 20000 murdered every year - and how many of us run around constantly afraid of murder?

The proper reaction in a free society is to not ignore terrorism, but deal with it in a proper perspective and not let it change our essential liberties or the way we live our lives. We are not afraid of terrorism - or we shouldn't be, as fear only leads to policies and wars which really terrorize ourselves.

Cairo


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 14):
Excellent example, I am 100% up to fighting terrorism the way Israel fights it (I guess you were supportive of the Lebanon invasion?).

Actually no. I didn't think the invasion and destruction and death was worth it. I don't think it was successful in fighting terrorism. And mostly, it didn't get the two soldiers who were kidnapped their freedom. That however is an entirely different topic of conversation, so I don't want to segway too much into it.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1412 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
It's time we calm down and fight terror with antiterror. This does not mean that we simply roll over and accept terrorism. There are things our government can and should do to fight terrorism, most of them involving intelligence and investigation---and not focusing on specific plots. [...]

Great starter Tbar, it is not rocket science and has been said before, but definitely needs to be said again and again.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):
Perhaps terrorism is just something we have to live with. Honestly, apart from 9/11, how many Americans have died from terrorist attacks? Why are so many of us so scared, and why is our government's response to prey off those fears?

Easy answer there, just look at Bush, Blair and Howard, all have used terrorism and xenophobia to get re-elected. It is deplorable, I can see ways to stop terrorism more easily than to stop our own politicians using effectively near-criminal methods to get elected. I mean if you went round a football grouns shouting fire to cause a stampede, you would get arrested. Overplaying terrorism is not much different, I mean there ARE fires at football grounds.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 19):
well, you have the famous thing about anti US demonstrators, in jeans and with US made gym-shoes, drinking a CocaCola and eating a Hamburger before embarking onto the "venture" and after that relaxing in a Starbucks . And then driving home and using a US-made computer to report about everything in the Internet

All of that is true MAF, but you just need to learn to get over it. On the other side, how about the Saudis watching the news and seeing the bombs made with resources based on THEIR oil, dropping on Lebanon. Do you think they were happy about that?

It is interesting to see the balance of reactions, most in favour, but complaints about Bush bashing. Presumably, this means any suggestion that a Bush policy is not the best one is Bush bashing. Well I can live with that, as do the majority of Americans it seems. Now all we need to do is to convince Americans that among Bush policies, the ones on terrorism are amongst the worst.

I have recalled in an earlier thread that late in WWII, when Speer for some reason known only to him, threatened to launch V weapons from U-boats at NY, the UK Admiralty sent a telegram to the US. The telegram stated that V2s could not be launched from U-boats and that it is was technically possible, but very difficult to launch a V1. However, the Admiralty pointed out the chance of a V1 hitting anything were small and even if they did the damage would also be small. The US went berserk with reactions totally out of proportion to the threat. Effectively Speer won without even seriously trying to mount the attack.

So it is with OBL now - how many billions is the US spending? Is it putting into effect the various treaties designed to reduce the numbers of nuclear warheads - by and large NO. It is even pressing ahead with new N-weapons programs, which will generate competing N-weapons programs, at least in China. Why the concentration on measures that can only be partially effective and leave unchanged (or make worse) the source of the biggest fear?


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 weeks ago) and read 1402 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 21):

OK, so this is what you said:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 13):
Europe, Israel, and other parts of the world have been living with terrorism for decades, and have dealt with it accordingly

So now, you used Israel as an example for how to deal with terrorism, but disagree on the implementation. Those are mutually exclusive.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
The US went berserk with reactions totally out of proportion to the threat

So the world and the US havent changed their mentality for decades. Not news to me.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
Effectively Speer won without even seriously trying to mount the attack.

Speer would tell you he won the battle but lost the war. So Speer lost.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
Is it putting into effect the various treaties designed to reduce the numbers of nuclear warheads - by and large NO

How is that even terrorism related? The reduction of nuclear warheads deals have been around decades, and bringing this up now is not germane to the conversation.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 20):
Yes, it is a problem. But, terrorism should by no means be the number one national priority and the FEAR of terrorism should not effect government policy or private lives in the way it does today.

Sure it should not be, but the fact is that it is a problem, and if people didnt have fear of terrorism air travel would not have suffered so much after 9/11.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 20):
September 11 killed 3000 people 5 years ago. Before that there was sporadic terrorism against America numbering in the hundreds of dead. This is nothing to be scared of, as, for instance, Americans kill each other to the tune of 20000 murdered every year - and how many of us run around constantly afraid of murder?

Air and auto crashes do not cause that many deaths either, but how many here base their decisions on airplane travel and car purchases on some safety factors? Yes, there are plenty of murders that occur in the US yearly, but how much money and manpower are spent fighting it every year? You say we can learn to live with terrorism, citing murders as examples, which to me means exactly what it should mean. Fight terrorism just like you fight murders, find and prosecute the offenders, and that is not too different than what is going on now.


User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 weeks ago) and read 1401 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
how about the Saudis watching the news and seeing the bombs made with resources based on THEIR oil, dropping on Lebanon. Do you think they were happy about that?

it is known that they, just like most people in the Arab World were shocked and angry, not least as much of that Israeli terror- and intimidation-campaign was also a demonstration of strength against a rather helpless Arab World

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
any suggestion that a Bush policy is not the best one is Bush bashing

of course ! how can we doubt the ultimate wisdom of that most honourable president ?  sarcastic  scared  scratchchin  shhh 


25 Post contains links ME AVN FAN : according to the BBC, the Turk from Bremen got released: --- A German-born Turkish national has been released from US custody at Guantanamo Bay in Cub
26 Baroque : May be amazing, but we heard the good news today that Hicks will not be executed. And the new US ambassador assured us (how dumb does he think we are
27 Boeing Nut : It's a great thought and he's absolutely right. But it will never work with todays society. Especially here in the US with the "the sky is falling!" m
28 Tbar220 : Let me clarify. The way Israel fought terrorism in the last fifty years was IMO successful. It was the combined police work, special forces, and inte
29 Post contains images AndesSMF : How long has Israel used targetted assassinations for? His previous attacks had received almost no response and his answer was 9/11. So ignoring him
30 ME AVN FAN : the PLO has not been and is NOT a "terrorism network" but the umbrella organisation of most Palestinian political organisations (except Hamas + Islam
31 Baroque : Yup. What is there more to say?
32 AndesSMF : Responding to my post? (#29)
33 Tbar220 : His previous attacks including the Cole attack and the embassy bombings indeed did draw up a plan from Richard Clarke, the anti-terrorism "czar" unde
34 PPVRA : Police work is only good for containment. It is of little use when you have safe-havens and support from other nations. It may be effective in Europe
35 ME AVN FAN : No, constitutions, laws and police-work are NOT the result of fear, but the desire to protect the citizens and NOT to have a state of force everywher
36 Post contains links and images Gilligan : The hard targets of 9/11 were the WTC as well as the Pentagon and the White House. Hitting those targets it was thought would severely harm to the ec
37 AndesSMF : Hezbollah successfully used the news media as their propaganda arm. This is where I see some requirement for 'secrecy', to avoid this from occurring
38 ME AVN FAN : " target=_blank>http://www.washburn.edu/cas/history/....html - the articles were completely wrong as the PLO never had any guerilleros of itself. So-c
39 Gilligan : ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
40 ME AVN FAN : Yes, the aim was and is to establish an independent Palestine in the WestBank, Gaza and EastJerusalem -- there between the various Palestinian organi
41 PPVRA : The point of constitutions are to limit power, and they exist because people know what the lack of such limitations mean. Plenty of historical eviden
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is Your "one Song"? posted Tue Sep 12 2006 05:40:11 by Wukka
What Do The Terrorists Want? posted Mon Aug 8 2005 23:45:49 by DL021
Should Religion Be "Adult Content"? posted Sun Nov 19 2006 20:54:54 by Joni
Is "Stupid Indian" Racist Or Not? posted Sat Nov 18 2006 06:01:30 by Don
"Big Progress" In UK Honours Enquiry posted Thu Nov 16 2006 20:33:36 by Banco
Kids' Book Bashes "Rich Countries" For Global Temp posted Tue Nov 14 2006 08:11:12 by AerospaceFan
Is Britain Becoming "Reversed Colonized"? posted Tue Nov 14 2006 07:42:47 by AerospaceFan
Will You Say "Merry Christmas"? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 00:14:38 by AerospaceFan
CBS "60 Minutes" Ed Bradley Dies posted Thu Nov 9 2006 18:23:31 by AirTran737
"Fruitcake Lady" From Jay Leno posted Thu Nov 9 2006 16:18:39 by Cadet985