Tom's Hardware: Topic Terrorist threat level increased
Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions.
Sign up now! Its free!
So our government says they have specific and credible intelligence about a terrorist plot that could "rival or exceed" 9/11. Now, I think it is good that they atleast tell the population about it, but I don't think they are doing enough. They've done this before, and all that happens is the level get's lowered back down to yellow with no explaination on what happened and why the threat is no longer there. I would be very happy if they really do thwart a terrorist plot, and tell us, but would be very unhappy if they do the same thing as before, just keeping us all in the dark about why they are saying the terrorist threat is at a certain level.
Now I'm not saying that they should come out and say: "Our intelligence shows us that terrorists are planning to [insert terrorist event here] at [insert place here] on [insert date here]." But what I am saying is atleast when the threat is no longer there, they should come out with the information that American's should have to feel secure that Homeland Security really is doing what they say they are.
-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>
Yeah, I just ignore it anymore. I live in a small town now, and think we have pretty much zero chance of being attacked here (they'd have to find us first!)
If they have credible info on a specific attack, I'm not sure why the entire US s/b on alert. Seems like a waste of resources. Specificity would be helpful.
XP 2000+
MSI KT3 ULTRA-2 KT333
Maxtor 60GB ATA 133 7200RPM
512MB PC2700
ABIT G4 Ti4200 OTES 64MB
Win98SE
It's either one of three things though. Either they captured and thwarted the perpetrators, the attack was called off, or the time frame for the attack passed.
So I suppose the USA could come foward and tell us that but I'm not sure what that would do for us. It's either going to taunt the terrorists, show them to be failures thus motivating them more, or it's going to ruin any possible intelligence that they gathered from those they caught.
It seems to me that they have been pretty consistant when it comes to disclosing terrorist cells that have been caught so realistically it's probably only the latter 2. If you come out and say the attack was called off then it's just going to make the terrorists look bad. They already have issues within their culture where "humiliation" is one of the most disgraceful things to go through. Should we keep humiliating them by saying that they can't get to their targets?
/devil's advocate
_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>
not to sound like a consiricy theorist (but this is somthing that seems logical and plausable)
i think there is also a 4th option.
with the Iraq war it served in the Bush admin interest to have the public as scared as possible, as this meant more suport for any decision he decided to make.
if the public feels threatend they will be willing to do anything to defend themselves.
so it wouldn't suprise me if George Bush or whoever really is in control back there, were raising the security risks almost artifically so that the public continues to trust that he has things under control, and that the public thinks he has been doing a good job.
wether or not there was a security risk to me it sounds like there isn't much you can do to avoid getting involved, i mean if they don't give you any info about it then you will never know. perhaps staying at home for the paranoid will get you out of trouble, but perhaps a dirty bomb drops near your home rather than at your work.
and perhaps vice versa. By increasing the risk how does it change the publics behaviour???
i doubt there is any real benifit to the general public by saying there is increased terrorist threat.
every public holiday they have released these warnings.
IMO all it achives is FUD, and is making for a rather anxious population willing to do whatever it takes to kill these terrorist bastards.
and since afterwards they never say what was going on there is no way to ever verify that there was a serious threat at all.
Alltaken
<A HREF="http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/</A>
You don't seem to understand. We aren't scared.
_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>
| Quote : not to sound like a consiricy theorist |
You sound <b>exactly</b> like a conspiracy theorist - come up with some evidence besides your normal anti-Bush paranoia ...
<b> ...more people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol - W.C. Fields </b>
I bet he's a cheese eating surrender monkey but he's too scared to admit it so he says he's from NZ.
_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>
Oh, he's a monkey ...
<b> ...more people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol - W.C. Fields </b>
| Quote : You sound exactly like a conspiracy theorist - come up with some evidence besides your normal anti-Bush paranoia ... |
well considering that bush is not releasing any of the scenarios of these so called "threats" well there is no evidence that denys this theory.
its a two way thing, he says there is a threat and others say that he could be making it up. neither side has any evidence so the entire argument is based around wether you believe bush or don't believe him.
and i choose not to believe him.
however i DO know some people in the US who are very concerned about it, so by you saying you are not scared is kinda personal coz some people genuinly are scared. oh and rather than getting scared do you get more angry at terrorists because of it, when they say the warnings are higher do you think about what you would do to a terrorist if you caught one?
just curious. and try to "disprove" my theory please, i would gladly change my opinion of the situation when evidence arises.
Alltaken
<A HREF="http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/</A>
How old were you again? 17? Do you talk about this stuff in school?
_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>
ok one thing that confuses me about this entire terror level thing which i would like clarification on.
is whats the point of it???
i mean why do they bother telling the public??
i personally can't see any benifit of telling the public without more information.
i'm just a little confused about the reasons for it, hence i filled in the blanks with anti bush stuff.
just unconfuse me please
<A HREF="http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/</A>
It's public awareness and each level has different security precautions that need to be taken.
_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>
When the terrorist threat level is increased, there is more security posted at certain places, extra precautions taken in others, more frequenty air patrols, etc. All in all an "orange" threat level costs our government and extra $1 billion a week in costs.
The thing that worries me is that I think raising the threat level, and then later lowering it, all without Homeland Secuirty divulging any information to the public on the reasons why the threat level changed, doesn't do much to ensure public safety. Honestly, I somewhat feel similar to alltaken's conspiracy. I don't, no, I can't, believe the administration that these threats are credible or even exist for the reason I stated above. All they do is keep the public in the dark throughout the whole process, which is really disheartening.
-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>
| Quote : The thing that worries me is that I think raising the threat level, and then later lowering it, all without Homeland Secuirty divulging any information to the public on the reasons why the threat level changed ... |
That statement surprises me. Ridge held several press conferences and disclosed exactly what "things" caused this action. Electronic intercepts, prisoners "giving it up", informants, internet and coded chatter - the thing they will never give you - and should never reveal is "sources and methods". You ain't gonna get that fellows - so keep the paranoia if you want it or feel it's fashionable - but what you just asked for has been discussed in public. You just didn't want to hear!
<b> ...more people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol - W.C. Fields </b>
I think he wants the specifics. The Who, What, Where, Why and When.
_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>
It's not neccesarily the specifics before. But when they say that the threat is no longer there, I really would like to know why, whether or not they did foil a direct threat, whether or not the threat just diminished, or what. When they say that an attack worse than 9/11 is "very likely," like they've been saying, that is damned important. And if that threat is no longer there, I would like to know why.
-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>
I honestly don't know enough about what is disclosed and what isn't. I just simply don't read enough about that. I do know that there were press conferences and I did catch a couple glimpses of them.
I don't really care either. I pay taxes for other people to protect me. I don't ask the police to notify me when they capture every criminal and stop every crime either.
_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>
I think a 9/11 equivalent is a bit more important than arresting Jimmy the crackhead...
-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>
I think what he said makes sense, I didn't even vote for president last time because both candidates were so dishonest. And don't forget the war in Iraq has nothing to do with Al Kaida, Ossama Bin Laden, or 9/11.
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
Well said Ksoth but what can we do ? Just make a deal with your friends that if any of you see's something that you YELL OUT DUCK.
Or we could all be good chappy's and call the police if we see something that looks off!! I mean our best defence at street level, I mean civilian levels is to help eachother out because no F16 is going to show up in a populated area to save you because if it is going for the terrorist your going to die with them.
Hell the U.S already said they want to put missiles to intercept aircraft in a terrorist threat.
So if we are on one of those airplanes we are going to die for King and Country so to speak.
I just hope my falling head doesn't hit some poor SoD on the ground 
no pun there.......
Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid
2x512 KinstonHyperX PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9@80Gig
SONY CD 52x
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
yes i am trying to say that in my eyes there is no logical point in saying there is a threat, i mean there is ALWAYS going to be a threat.
IMO a constant security level of a medium level would beat a high or low level any day.
the last security warnings i think would have been because its a public holiday and the US is afraid the terrorists will try and disrupt you at your happiest times.
also 4th of July was it a high security day???
is there a source that has a graph of the security levels over time?
i am jsut curious
Alltaken
<A HREF="http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/</A>
Ya ok well said too but look at the next guy in line for president a full blown general. This guy said he was against the war with Iraq from the start he said it was not time to go into Iraq he could not comment further he said because the interview was on foreign soil.
This next guy looks like a pussy cat well groomed the right age the right experiences in life a military back ground the whole nine yards.
OMG are we in trouble now this guy can play the numbers like a quarter back at a frat party full of cheer leaders, by the time he is in office for 1 year half the world will be at war.
No names he's not prez yet we can talk behind his back later.
Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid
2x512 KinstonHyperX PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9@80Gig
SONY CD 52x
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
Your cheese eating surrender monkeys are scared. They chickened out and stopped a couple planes from flying to LAX.
Is it a big conspiracy?
_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>
I like your word conspiracy the problem with that word is this.
You cant prove any conspiracy theory because they are simply that a theory and since it takes a lie detector to figure out if a single person is lying then how can you get enough valid information to figure out if a whole department of the U.S congress is lying...........
There are those that believe the U.S government was behind the 9/11 terrorist attack.
The belief that this is the truth is from to points that the whistle blowers have looked at with real interest.
1) Cell phone conversations with the plane that ended up crashing in the field. Wives had contact with husbands right up until they rushed the cockpit.
No one knows what happened after that but they think the lads took the plane back, and that the fighter aircraft in pursuit of that airliner were ordered to shoot it down anyways. Why is because they could not have those men charged with the task of terrorist attack being interrogated because they held the truth behind their lips.
2) The pentagon was supposedly hit by another airliner and not a single shred of evidence came out of that hole to prove a plane hit it. You cannot destroy an entire passenger airliner without leaving aircraft parts large enough to be trucked away.
Even when the Space shuttle blew up both on take off and years later a burning fire ball to earth you could still pick parts up in your hand and a few had to be trucked away.
I do not believe any of that above crap is true but that is what is being said by more then a few people, who claim to be in the know of such things.
Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid
2x512 KinstonHyperX PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9@80Gig
SONY CD 52x
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
In the last primaries I was actually behind a moderate running for the republican party nomination. Problems are, he finished third as I recall, and I didn't vote in the primaries because I refuse to declare a party.
These soft spoken, honest sounding guys get lost in the wind from the dishonest loudmouths. Primaries get to look more and more like an episode of Jerry Springer, where the most responsible people are overlooked.
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
the fact that Bush is using more than 220million on his campaign is just insane. its all corporate money too... which i think is just sick. things as important as the presidency shouldnt be influenced by money.... the honest all get lost .. you think that choosing someone with that much influence should be limited to 2 chioces and that are heavily determined by family/wealth?
-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
dhlucke - "Phew...ok my wrists are hurting. I'm taking a break."
The problem is that the president has to be elected by majority, not plurality. This is the major reason why the Electoral College remains intact. But it was originally intended to protect the general population from a determined minority (of idiots perhaps). Say there were only 3 candidates. 2 of them were similar and 66% of the population was divided between them evenly. Then say the other 34% of the population were idiots and voted for their favorite talk show host. The talk show host wins, even though 66% of the population would have rather had EITHER of the other two candidates.
This was similar to the 1992 election, over 50% of the population was divided between two conservative candidates, Bush Sr. and some midget with big ears. And everyone said "a vote for the midget is a vote for Clinton", since it stole votes away from Bush. Clinton won the popular election by something like 40% of the votes, Bush got like 37% and the midget 23%. Most of the people who voted for the midget would have voted Bush Sr. had the midget not been running. And the electoral college turned that 40% into a majority by splitting the midget votes.
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
that is where the MMP system comes in handy here.
you get two votes, one for a party. e.g. republicans, or democtrats (if you were in the US, but in NZ there are about 5 partys in contention)
then you get a vote for a representative, it can be from any party you like. if the rep wins their local seat they get in, and if a party gets a certain percent of the votes like 5% they get 5% of the seats in the parliment.
the college system is IMO dodgy because it means there will only ever be 2 partys in contention for office. whereas MMP (mixed members proportional) means small partys have equal chance as large ones.
Alltaken
<A HREF="http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/</A>
The college system says nothing about the number of parties. We just happen to be at a point in our history where there are only two dominant parties. We've had many different dominant parties over the years.
Imop the Democratic party is on it's way out. This next election will probably be a turning point but if the democrats can't get their act together they're either going to have to retire or work hard to change their message.
_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>
Remember it was the republicans who set the slaves free, and the democrats who fought to prevent them from gaining any civil rights. That was the 1800's. In the 1960's the Dems relabled themselves the champions of civil rights. So they're definately well adapted to changing face!
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
The only way to get a truely democratically elected leader would be to hold several levels of elections, but that's too complicated for complacent americans. I mean, in the 1992 election, if there would have been a second run-off election eliminating Perot (the guy previously refered to as a midget), things may have turned out differently.
So the easiest way to assure the candidate with the most support gets in is to have MANY candidates, and through a series of elections eliminate the weakest ones, until only the favorite remains.
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
that is assuming that use the current method of elections.
there is a new system here that has been proven around the world that will solve the issue.
you vote for your candidates in order.
1,2,3,4,5, the order of which you want the candidate to win. and you can bascily vte candiates down this way even if your 3rd vote you don't want in, if you really don't like another one you cna make them your 5th.
how it works is the first candidate over 50% wins.
if the first person on your list doesn't have enough seats to win then the vote is given to the second person.
if they don't have enough to win its given to the third person. etc...
basicly it eliminates the least popular candiates and reduces the election down to the candiate that people are MOST hppy with.
it is done by some very complex computer calculations to do with finding the candidate with the highest popularity based on the votes. its hard to explain but our local (for the mayor) elections now uses this system.
this eliminates the need for many elections, it does them all at once, but yes you need to vote many times, and simple brains will be confused LOL.
i am sure i could find a website about it, i think its called "ATC" or somthing stupid like that (i have no clue LOL)
anyway its an effective way to have more candidates in the running (like actually feasable candidates rather than the US's token 2 candidates, although in theory there are more in reality there are not)
Alltaken
<A HREF="http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/</A>
No, Best way for democracy is to vote on policies. The candidate that has the highest match in his/her manifesto to the voted ones wins the election. If at the end of the term, s/he fails to implement what was promised, the president and other top level voted personnel get thrown into guantanamo bay without trial for the same duration they served as leader/president etc.
mwahahaha
no, seriously.
<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
That's very true. Very true indeed.
They better change quick. I really hope that they get their act together before the primaries. Dean's statement that we're no safer since 911 is going to net him very little votes.
_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>
yeah actually that would work 
Alltaken
<A HREF="http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/</A>
You do realize that the Republican and Democratic parties are both extremely different parties now than what they were in the 1800's, don't you? To say that the Democrats today are good at chagning faces because of what the party was in the past is pretty silly, as the same exact thing applies to the Republican party.
-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>
So the latest terrorist threat thing really gets me. So, 6 flights from Paris to the US were cancelled because there were people on them who's name matched those on a list provided by the US. These people were questioned then released. Now, what the [-peep-] is that? They say that the threat of another 9/11, being perpetrated by these 6 people, was great enough to warrant the cancellation of airline flights, yet all that happens is they are questioned and released? This tells me that either our intelligence is completely false and inadequate, and run by incompetant fools, or it was completely fabricated to make it look like they are doing their job. How is it at all possible that people suspected of carrying out another 9/11 are released so fast without further investigation? It makes no sense to me...
-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>
They were prolly french! Who would be crazy enough to let those smelly cheese eatin jerks into any country?
<b> A mosquito is just a small woodpecker. </b>
"cheese eatin jerks"? what the hell is wrong with you!
its "Cheese eating surrender monkeys". Get it right!
<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
Cheese eating surrender monkey fückers?
<b> A mosquito is just a small woodpecker. </b>
Hey now. Thats going overboard.
<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
Nothing is too bad for the french.
<b> A mosquito is just a small woodpecker. </b>
hmm...
<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
From what I understood, it was 13 people and that they all haven't been located.
Here's a good one for you regarding the changing faces of American political parties. Your last post was well taken, but I truly have to hope that parties can still change. Take this quote from Howard Dean:
| Quote : I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."
|
Osama did admit it. We know he did it. So why did Dean even bother saying this only to come out later, tail between his legs saying this:
| Quote : Dean added he is certain most Americans agree with that sentiment.
|
Saddam Husein declares himself innocent and this is why he is getting a trial. Osama releases videotapes and audiotapes admitting his crimes.
WTF is Dean thinking? This kind of crap offends me as an American. Not only does he think that we're not any safer, but he thinks that Osama should get a trial even though he's admitted guilt.
WTF?
_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>
| Quote : So the latest terrorist threat thing really gets me. So, 6 flights from Paris to the US were cancelled because there were people on them who's name matched those on a list provided by the US. These people were questioned then released. Now, what the [-peep-] is that? They say that the threat of another 9/11, being perpetrated by these 6 people, was great enough to warrant the cancellation of airline flights, yet all that happens is they are questioned and released? This tells me that either our intelligence is completely false and inadequate, and run by incompetant fools, or it was completely fabricated to make it look like they are doing their job. How is it at all possible that people suspected of carrying out another 9/11 are released so fast without further investigation? It makes no sense to me... |
LOL they were just trying to piss off the french people a bit more, you see the US is bitter about the veto and all that hoo-haa.
oh well, only ruined a few thousand peoples christmas, nothing wrong with that
Alltaken
<A HREF="http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/</A>
I don't think he was directly admitting to anything in his tapes, but rather congradulating the perpetrators.
<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
The only people that haven't been located were just "a small number" that didn't show up for the flight that day. There was no evidence of any terrorist link between the missing people, it's just that they want to question them because they didn't show up for the flight. The 7 that were questioned were because their names were on a list given to France by the US.
Well, Mr. Bush in all his great wisdom doesn't even think American citizens deserve legal representation or a trial. Remember Jose Padilla? An American citizen, arrested on American soil, declared an enemy combatant and handed over to the military with no charges ever being drawn against him. Does that sound like America to you?
This guy very well may be a terrorist, but he is still an American, arrested in America and not a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. Does that not warrant a trial, or atleast legal representation, or at the very least charges filed against him? Apparantly not, and you'd be un-American if you thought so, according to Bush. Does that offend you as an American, becuase it sure as hell should.
-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>
What is the difference between someone who is an american citizen and a someone who isn't?
<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
all people who are not americans have no rights as human beings and should be executed ???
Alltaken
<A HREF="http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/</A>
Or thrown into guantanamo bay for a while and then executed.
Funny now even the cubans are complaining. :-)
<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Old Man/Woman's Club > Other > Terrorist threat level increased
There are 1112 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.
Please mind
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
Sponsored links
Ad
Related Topics
- Terrorist Explodes in Haifa, Kills 18, Injures 50
- New Oregon Terrorist Bill
- Bali Terrorist Attack.
- Terrorist attack broader than we think
- wusy's terrorist organization!!! can i join???
- Level up
- Well if you weren't bored after the 3rd level...
- Latest Al 'Shitebags R Us' Qaida Threat
- Syn flood (Threat Medium)
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
- 22:30 dirtmountain won the Home Brew badge
- 21:29 bubbah won the Uniformed badge
- 21:29 juan_12 won the Uniformed badge
- 21:29 dooj won the Uniformed badge
- 21:29 TungSten_X won the Uniformed badge
- 21:29 elgranchuchu won the Uniformed badge
- 21:21 tecmo34 won the CPUs badge
- 18:53 lradunovic77 won the Freshman badge
- 16:33 compulsionnra won the Sophmore badge
- 15:55 TheViper won the Audio Tech badge