Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Hasn't U.S. Had A Terror Attack Since 9/11?  
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6812 posts, RR: 34
Posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2122 times:

I found this a rather intriguing thought as to why the U.S. hasn't had a terrorist attack since 9/11....the threat of nuking Mecca.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42272

When I first read it, I thought the premise was absolutely extreme, but it's a reasonable option when you're dealing with an unreasonable extremist.

"Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca.

Writes Wheeler: "So far, Osama has decided not to see if GW is bluffing. Smart move."


Thoughts?


52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2103 times:

I'd say a more likely explanation is that al-Qaeda is not the omnipotent monolithic destroyer that many Americans fear it is, but rather a sort of rag-tag operation that occasionally lands a lucky punch, so to speak.


"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3369 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2101 times:

Nuking Mecca would be the dumbest move GWB could ever do. That would turn the entire middle east aggresive, along with large parts of Asia as well as Europe and the US. Now only a small, but loud, minority is agresive.


Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2090 times:

I think they would love GWB to nuke Mecca. How many acts of terror did happen before 9/11?

User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8268 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2082 times:

but rather a sort of rag-tag operation that occasionally lands a lucky punch, so to speak

Although I don't agree they're rag-tag... I kind of agree they only win with luck. It was just dumb luck that they pulled 9/11 off in the first place.

Nuking Mecca would be the dumbest move GWB could ever do. That would turn the entire middle east aggresive, along with large parts of Asia as well as Europe and the US.

Well, problem is if they get ahold of nukes and use them first, we'll have plenty to retaliate with and I don't think restraint will be in our vocabularly if one of our cities gets leveled.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2080 times:

I agree with PROSA and his assessment of al Qaeda.

On the other hand logic dictates that the real prime directive (Survive!) would ultimately lead to nuking not just Mecca but every Islamic capital simultaneously. This is well within the US capability, could be done with a phone call. And, as has been pointed out, nuking Mecca alone would be the diplomatic equivalent of kicking a very large hornets's nest.

It is not inconceivble that this or some future leader could become convinced that there is simply no other choice, and let history decide who was right. (Especially since the survivor writes the history.) This is not the sort of thing the American people can directly control. We lived for many years with the background knowledge that had the Soviet block come rolling across the "Fulda Gap" nukes would fly.

Unthinkable? Absolutely, but there are people whose job description is "thinking the unthinkable."



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

Because the US has pretty much fallen right into the terrorist's trap. They are embroiled in a war that they can't win. The terrorists don't need to travel to the US. Bush just keeps sending Americans to Iraq. They just have to meet the Americans in Iraq and attack/murder/kidnap them their and save the airfare....



User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2069 times:

The only reason AQ got away with the 9-11 attacks is because those attacks were so outside the realm of anyone's imagination. With 9-11 they pretty much blew their wad, so to speak, and with the destruction of their benefactors, the Taliban in Afghanistan, they're not exactly on easy street.

I'm sure they will try again though.


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8268 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2067 times:

By the way, since when was 3 years since an attack a big deal? The WTC attacks were nearly 10 years apart. These things take time and, IMO, 3 years is nothing to feel good about. We have to keep our guard up as always and, while I don't believe Bush ever actually threatened Mecca, I think the fact that we haven't backed out of Iraq at least proves a point.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6812 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2061 times:

How many acts of terror did happen before 9/11?

The laundry list is pretty extensive. One can trace the roots of the modern Islamofascism to the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979/1980, and the US' failure to confront it which in turn bred more. This isn't nearly an exhaustive list...

*The bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut, 1983
*The bombing of the Marine barracks, Beirut, 1983
* TWA 847, 1985
* Achille Lauro, 1985
* TWA 1986, ATH-FCO
* Pan Am 103
* WTC 1993
* US Consulate, Karachi 1995
* Riyadh, US military HQ, 1995
* Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia 1995
* US Embassy bombings, Tanzania, Nairobi, Kenya, 1998
* USS Cole

******************************

Since 9/11, outside of direct military engagements, there have been zero.

Speaks volumes as to the threat of the ultimate trump card. Tantamount to the Cold War theory of M.A.D. in a way.





User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2060 times:

Thats why they are called "canon food"  Sad

*Airbuster Chief Cheerleader*



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2032 times:

It was just dumb luck that they pulled 9/11 off in the first place.

...combined with three years of planning, multiple millions of dollars in investment, an underground support network ranging 4 continents, and over 30 dry runs before inactment--- all while being observed, yet remaining undetected.

Dang, wish I had that sorta "luck"  Nuts




The terrorists don't need to travel to the US. Bush just keeps sending Americans to Iraq. They just have to meet the Americans in Iraq and attack/murder/kidnap them their

...what's sad is that you don't realize that you've just unwittingly (imagine that  Laugh out loud) made the point of many, if not most, of the Right on the issue of remaining in Iraq


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13206 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1995 times:

First off, Bin Laden did not even plan the attack, it was presented to him by it's chief architect, a Kalid Sheik Mohammed (captured by the US in Pakistan in 2002), he would have known of OBL's call for Jihad against the US in 1997, so he knew that his 'planes operation' would get attention, funding and what resources AQ had at their disposal, in late 1999, it did, from OBL personally, in what would have been a very rare intervention from OBL in the fragmented world of international Islamic terror.

Originally intended to comprise of 10-12 aircraft, striking targets almost simultaneously, WTC, Pentagon, White House, Capitol Hill, FBI and CIA H.Q's, Camp David and maybe a nuclear plant or two.

But the limiting factor was not US airline security, it was US Immigration, despite their mistakes that allowed people in with too little scrunity, including known AQ suspects, they did refuse enough people to cause the scope of the attack to be scaled right down, also the much vaunted training Afghanistan training camps run by OBL, provided very little in the way of terrorists that could even live in the West without too much difficulty or suspicion, much less enroll in flight training classes.

For most of the 1000's who went through the camps were training for Islamic inspired campaigns in places like Bosnia, Kashmir or the Chechen wars, most had no interest or inclination in becoming international terrorists, they were training for conflicts in their own backyard.

One of OBL's propaganda videos is of him with a large cadre of trained up terrorists, is a deception, the 'terrorists' were just local Afghan fighters, OBL told them to wear the masks and other symbols of extreme Islamic terror, but they'd have to bring their own AK-47s for the filming, for which they would be paid for!

So in a sense of suitable personnel, Kalid Sheik Mohammed's plan, facilitated by AQ/OBL, did shoot it's bolt.

Why do the attack on the US, why proclaim Jihad against the USA in the first place?
Because from the late 1980's OBL had come to be influenced by someone by who would become his no.2, his spiritual mentor, an Egyptian doctor, al-Zawahiri.
He had some history, one of the plotters in the Sadat killing in 1981, jailed for years, then released, he had a doctrine of terror attacks to overthrow Western backed regimes in the Muslim world, like his own nation, to allow a revolutionary Islamic government to take over, for keeps.

Killing Sadat did not provide the general uprising that he was banking on, so he eventually gravitated to Afghanistan, where he and others like OBL, convinced themselves that they had not just evicted the USSR from Afghanistan, but caused that superpower's collapse.
Nonsense of course, the USSR went because at some point, the breakdown in the economic and other aspects of life within the Communist command economy, was going to happen, whatever happened in it's foreign wars.
Gorbarchev could not really undue all those decades of stagnation.

Undaunted, the Egyptian planned his follow up, when an Islamic party looked like winning an election in Algeria in 1991, the army stepped in, cancelled the ballot and repressed the Islamists.
So in response, helped by OBL and his new deputy in Sudan, a insanely vicious terror campaign was waged in Algeria, with a gloves off response from the military.

Now the Egyptian had a new idea, carry out attacks of such indiscriminate slaughter against the civil population, that in time the people would rise up and demand a 'true' Islamic government.
Just like in Egypt a decade before, it did not happen, in fact despite the repressive military government, almost all public opinion was against the Islamists.
Then the various Algerian Islamist terror groups fought agmonst themselves, each accusing the other of straying from the true path.

Out of this came a last message from one of the groups, that reflected an extreme strand of the thinking now forming in OBL and his deputies mind.
Since the people have not risen up, they must be so polluted by Western influence, that the only way to pure Islam in Algeria is for the entire population to be killed, except the few members of the group spouting this stuff.

Kicked out of Sudan, now in Afghanistan, OBL's disparate group faced defeat, all across the Islamic world, Egypt was still under an 'impure' government, so was Algeria, so was the whole Gulf region, even those that were not pro Western, like Syria or Iraq, cracked down hard on any hard line Islamic movements, they were after all a threat to the Ba'th ascendancy in those two states.

The Muslim people, despite their many privations, despite US support for Israel, despite corrupt leaders bleeding countries dry from their palaces, had not risen up to overthrow these leaders and cast impure Western influences out.
So, they themselves were corrupted by these Western influences, how to stop,
this? Or just roll it back enough to help the Islamist cause?

Well, who was the biggest provider of Western influence?
The USA, from arms supplies to Hollywood and rest of their vast media and range of other commercial products.

To help this re-awaking of pure Islam, who was the most unpopular Western nation in the Islamic world?
The USA ironically, almost entirely due to their massive and solid support for Israel.

Could a huge mass casualty strike upon the USA, cause them to pull out both militarily and largely commercially too, from the Islamic world?
Maybe, or maybe not, but would a furious US unleash an ill targeted and vengeful response on Muslims generally, thus massively extending the very limited support of people like OBL?

OBL was convinced by the Egyptian that this course of action was the only way forward, hence the 'Jihad' against the US being declared, the African Embassy bombings, but a really big hit was needed, so when an ambitious Islamist came asking for help for his 'planes operation' against the US, OBL was all ears.







User currently offlineStowAway From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 640 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1942 times:

I'd say a more likely explanation is that al-Qaeda is not the omnipotent monolithic destroyer that many Americans fear it is, but rather a sort of rag-tag operation that occasionally lands a lucky punch, so to speak.

I don't agree. I think that is underestimating the enemy, and that leads to bad things.

Yes, some luck was involved in the scheme. (Look at the video of the terrorists getting screened, and waved right thru.) However, as ConcordeBoy pointed out, they had money and lots of training.



A monkey's ass always talks crap.
User currently offlineWindshear From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 2330 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1930 times:

Look how long they've tried to hit the WTC...

I think the "calm" reflects a transition periode... Maybe we'll see more, maybe we'll see less in the future...

But remember that Al Qaeda issued demands for the first time...

So maybe it is up to the US what to expect in the future?

Wether to choose the agressive way is the best way to prevent attacks, well according to the US president and the ones who voted for him again, this IS the way to walk, but personally I don't think so.

So why hasn't there been an attack in the US? Well look at the rest of the world! Spain, Russia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Indonesia just to name some hit by Al Qaeda after 9/11...

So if I read your post between the lines, then no, offensive measures has not prevented or made the situation better.

I heard Rudy Guilliani speak on election night on CNN, and he said that we needed to look at the fact, as you state, that there hasn't been an attack on the US since 9/11. But again I ask of you to PLEASE look at the world entire, do you really need your house to burn before you sense smoke?

Look at how the US still view and try to prevent Al Qaeda attacks. I think they haven't seen the full picture yet...
Why should Al Qaeda hit the US the same way as they did on 9/11? Their tactics and targets has always been a surprise... Yet the US still think that they would hijack planes and crash them into buildings...

Boaz...



"If you believe breaking is possible, believe in fixing also"-Rebbe Nachman
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

If the US nuked Mecca I would think that at least one major city in the US would get nuked back eventually and it would IMO be the start of World War 3.


Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

On the other hand logic dictates that the real prime directive (Survive!) would ultimately lead to nuking not just Mecca but every Islamic capital simultaneously. This is well within the US capability, could be done with a phone call. And, as has been pointed out, nuking Mecca alone would be the diplomatic equivalent of kicking a very large hornets's nest.

I really do not see anything that would lead the United States to take such a world-changing step, not even a terrorist nuclear attack in the United States. On the other hand, it would not surprise me to see Russia doing something of that sort, if the provocation were great enough to fuel unstoppable national outrage and lead to a regime change in Moscow. For instance, let's say Chechen rebels simultaneously pull off ten or fifteen Beslan-style massacres throughout Russia with outside assistance, Putin responds cautiously and is overthrown by military hardliners ... mushroom clouds over Mecca and other Muslim cities would not be beyond the realm of possibility. It would not be a pleasant time for humanity, that's for sure.



"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1902 times:

StarAC17 no responsible person has ever seriously suggested nuking Mecca but, as I said in post #5 no one would ever nuke just Mecca. If such a horrible course of action ever was deemed necessary you may be assured that every Islamic nation on earth would have its military dismantled within the same hour.

Again, no one is planning it or even suggesting it but give the generals and admirals a little credit for brains. In fact if things ever deteriorated to the point that our leaders and military felt that this was unavoidable, I doubt that Mecca would even be in the target package unless the Saudis militarized the area in the future.





Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1893 times:

If the US nuked Mecca I would think that at least one major city in the US would get nuked back eventually and it would IMO be the start of World War 3.

World War III started for me on September 11, 2001.


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

"World War III started for me on September 11, 2001."

Interesting. It doesn't look like anyone's going to "win" it, though.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

Why should Al Qaeda hit the US the same way as they did on 9/11?

Quite simply because the aviation industry is both vital to our way of life, yet VERY easily crippled.

We all know what's ensued in the nigh four years since 9/11. Another Muslim slams a jet aircraft, be it a CRJ or a 744, into a building; and it's essentially over for the airlines.

....THEN where would we be:
  • Reregulate the entire industry with money and infrastructure that the government doesn't have?
  • Rely on foreign carriers for all our aviation needs?
  • What happens to our single largest exporter when its worldwide business flatlines twice in less than a half-decade?
  • etc?




  • User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
    Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1874 times:

    Plus, we saw this Christmas how easy it is to shut an airline down with just a simple computer problem. If that much trouble can be caused by a crashed computer system, a bigger attack on the airlines can have much worse consequences.

    Harry



    Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
    User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1867 times:

    Another Muslim slams a jet aircraft, be it a CRJ or a 744, into a building; and it's essentially over for the airlines.

    Since 9-11, Southwest and JetBlue have been doing rather well.

    Airlines have used 9-11 as a carte blance excuse for every ailment that plagued them from lousy management to labor union issues. 20 years from now we'll still hear some fat cat airline exec deflect criticism of his poor business skills to 9-11.

    Right now it isn't 9-11 that is stopping American or Delta from offering you a whole can of coke in coach; it's rising fuel costs. And seriously, I doubt if some Muslim or anyone else for that matter will try the 9-11 M.O. again. He may end up being run over by a mad stew' with a beverage cart instead !


    User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 58
    Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

    There is a good book I am reading called Dollars for Terror: The United States and Islam written by a Swiss author and it talks about the past association of the US government with these extremist groups and how the US supported them to get rid of secular Arab nationalist leaders such as Gamal Abdel Nasser and replace them with US puppet leaders. It then talks about how these extremist groups eventually backlashed against the US and how US foreign policy is making them grow and helping them gain support.



    I recommend the book to anyone who is interested in learning about the rise of these Islamic extremist groups and how they have been able to span the globe.

    Regards



    "Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
    User currently offlineLtbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13113 posts, RR: 12
    Reply 24, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1841 times:

    My answer to this question:
    - Probably some sheer dumb luck
    - That the attacks on 9/11 didn't really cause the collaspe of the USA they sought upon it's business and government
    - Our reactions via Afganistan and Iraq (despite their serious flaws) and the fear that if any other country is a base of terror they too will be invaded and attacked by the USA
    - The sometimes overzelous policy to boot out people from the Islamic world - that sent a message that possible terrorists will have more difficulty getting and staying in the USA
    - Tighting up of access to the USA by potential terrorists
    - Better awareness of the USA Public of an attack including continuing revisions of our security, intellegence, immigration, customs systems and agencies
    - Saudi Aribia, other Islamic countries governments also fearing terror upon them
    - Using other countries closer and easier to attack than the USA and it's Western allies, including in Iraq and Spain (the Madrid train bombings)
    I disagree that 'a fear of Mecca being Nuked' is one of them. To attack Mecca would be wrong for all of the Islamic world, inlcuding the 95% whom don't support anti-western terror. We just cannot do that - it would be as wrong as if Islamic terrorists attacked and destoyed the Vatican area for Catholics/Christians.


    25 SLC1 : I think the real question is... why is this question asked? Because the American people have been led to think that terrorism is our only enemy. I see
    26 David b. : You think for a second that OBL cares for Mecca?
    27 Windshear : Concordeboy... "Quite simply" that is where you continue to misenterpret what is going on... If I may generalize a bit here... Then looking simply and
    28 GDB : Of course, there is the strong possibility that the one and only sleeper cell in the US, was there until Sept 11th. A year later for example, remember
    29 Catatonic : AQ need never make another attack on American soil again. The terror created on 9/11 will remain with the US for some time to come. 9/11 cost the US d
    30 Boeing7E7 : Because the US has pretty much fallen right into the terrorist's trap. They are embroiled in a war that they can't win. The terrorists don't need to t
    31 Iakobos : Be careful, some might ask you to tell the truth !
    32 David b. : No, Boeing7E7 that person is you.
    33 777236ER : World War III started for me on September 11, 2001. You're deluded. If this is a war, Britain was at war with the IRA. Given a whole lot of Irish terr
    34 SlamClick : "Given a whole lot of Irish terrorism funds came from the US, does that make us your enemy?" Perhaps. But then a lot of that money comes from Massachu
    35 Jalto27R : I believe currently that Al Qaeda is seeing what damage they can do in Iraq, while also following all developments in the US. I figure they have men w
    36 ANCFlyer : AQ got away with what they did because America was stupid! We had that NIMBY mentality . . Not In My Back Yard! Bullshit! I saw first hand demonstrati
    37 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Airlines have used 9-11 as a carte blance excuse for every ailment that plagued them from lousy management to labor union issues. Oh, I agree with you
    38 Falcon84 : I think it has nothing to do with nuking Mecca, which is a drastic step. I think, in part, it has to do with greater vigilance on the part of the west
    39 Post contains links and images Yukimizake : Prosa "I'd say a more likely explanation is that al-Qaeda is not the omnipotent monolithic destroyer that many Americans fear it is, but rather a sort
    40 Dl021 : This topic has been pretty well covered, but to answer the topic question let me say that we have had three years of constant vigilance by our governm
    41 Falcon84 : (in spite of calls from many to have them back off for fear of curtailing the civil liberties we hold dear) Are you saying we SHOULD give up our civil
    42 Aerobalance : cuz Rsmith6621a is still in the planning stages......
    43 ANCFlyer : Falcon is right, they expended alot of resources to get 9-11 to work, and they ensured there will never be another hijacking again where the terroris
    44 Boeing7E7 : No, Boeing7E7 that person is you. Wanna compare notes? I've been there, have you? All you have is the media for information.
    45 SLC1 : I have a good quote, it's something like: He who would give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor sa
    46 GDB : ANC, the point I as making is that no matter what desire various groups may have to attack the US, they are limited by the number of dedicated people
    47 L-188 : One can trace the roots of the modern Islamofascism to the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979/1980, and the US' failure to confront it which in turn bred
    48 Yukimizake : "One can trace the roots of the modern Islamofascism to the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979/1980" You need to look further than that. One can trace the
    49 Dl021 : Falcon...No, I am not saying we should give up our civil liberties, I am simply commenting on what the protestors to the Patriot Act are saying. Civil
    50 GDB : No doubt Carter was stumpted by the hostage crisis, but is there a loss of memory here? After all he did direct the military to attempt the difficult
    51 Windshear : ANCFlyer I agree with you, although you seem a bit too agressive, you have the same point I want to make. The FBI and the government are fighting this
    52 ZKSUJ : Okay, what about the Anthrax scare in the USA after 9/11. That had many people petrified of opening their mail.
    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...
    Major Terror Attack Foiled In Australia posted Tue Nov 8 2005 02:01:34 by BMIFlyer
    Its That Date Again...4 Years Since 9/11 posted Sat Sep 10 2005 18:16:12 by Aviation
    Major Terror-attack Avoided In London. posted Tue Nov 23 2004 10:11:49 by Thom@s
    This Just In, Terror Attack In Egypt! posted Fri Oct 8 2004 00:24:57 by Leviticus
    Hamburg Warned On Possible Terror Attack posted Tue Dec 30 2003 19:08:43 by NoUFO
    Anyone Had A Panic Attack? posted Mon Dec 8 2003 01:32:08 by Ual747
    19 People Killed In Haifa Restaurant Terror Attack posted Sat Oct 4 2003 18:23:17 by TodaReisinger
    Why Hasn't Iraq Used WMD Yet? posted Wed Apr 2 2003 22:37:26 by United777
    CIA Warns Terror Attack This Weekend In US/Mid-E. posted Wed Feb 12 2003 04:47:55 by Bigo747
    Gay "Terror Attack" In Cape Town posted Wed Jan 22 2003 04:30:20 by Bigo747