Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Yemen

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Yemen
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ornery has been mostly silent on the Nigerian-Yemeni plane bomber for longer than Obama was. That surprises me, given the array of political profiles here. A catastrophe was narrowly averted by the difficulty of triggering the bomb, the incompetence of the bomber and the initiative of his fellow passengers. Napolitano did not say the "system worked" from start to finish, only that the aftermath was handled correctly. The airport security in Amsterdam says their systems worked, even though Abdulmutallab got on the plane with the bomb. So, neither our nor their governments prevented the attack.

Some questions:

Will whatever group in Yemen(?) that sponsored the attack try again? When?

Has Obama given up ground on fighting terrorism, or is the system working as it did when Bush was in office?

Can we make travel, especially from other countries into the US, safer? Can we do it without sacrificing individual rights and liberties of US citizens? Is that important?

Would it help combat the risk of terrorism if we restrict the rights and privileges of non-citizens in the US?

Where will the next attack come from? Mexico? Canada? Haiti? Cuba? Cyberspace? Someone sneaking in? Someone with diplomatic immunity?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Attack? [Roll Eyes]
One retard with a non-functional "bomb" does not equate to an attack by a foreign country.

Funny how Yemen is "of interest in the WOT" these days, and key provisions of the Patriot Act are due to expire on 12/31.

Very serendipitous timing indeed.
[Exploding]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
Can we make travel, especially from other countries into the US, safer? Can we do it without sacrificing individual rights and liberties of US citizens? Is that important?

We sacrificed rights for safer air travel a long time ago. Unreasonable search, right to bear arms, right to due process...

So no, you can't make it even safer without curtailing liberty. Some of the measures seem reasonable to most of us, so its not necessarily a bad thing to have given up that liberty. But there are thresholds that should not be crossed.

Confiscation of laptops indefinitely with no cause probably falls under that heading to my way of thinking. Certainly indefinite detention. Probably some of the implementation of the no-fly list.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"One retard with a non-functional "bomb" does not equate to an attack by a foreign country."

Not the Yemeni government, but the bomber says he was sponsored by Al Qaeda in Yemen and messages have been posted by people claiming to be the ones who sponsored him. Our own Intelligence now seems to support that.

Yemen has always been a country of concern, but it seems that we only deal with a potential threat after someone has made it real. We all take our shoes off to fly because a bomber (Richard Reid) once tried to use the same explosive (PETN) that Abdulmutallab carried. That has never made sense to me, since the explosive is not detectable in the scanning machines, only the possibility that something might be hidden in the shoe. If the explosive was distributed "properly", it would look no different from an insole.

I agree with The Drake that you can't make flying safer without curtailing liberty, but how far do you have to go to make it safe enough? Seriously, you can hide things in undetectable ways, or have multiple people split up a weapon and individually be innocent looking. I'll stop there with hypotheticals.

I think air travel can be made "safe enough," but the cost would be exorbitant, even absurd. What if everyone had to dress in a jump suit issued at the airport and reclaim their clothing after they land? No carryon bags permitted, luggage is put on separate cargo planes and reclaimed "the same day" at the destination. That would be an intolerable impingement on freedom of motion and probably kill the travel industry outright, but what less can you do and still be doing enough?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
Napolitano did not say the "system worked" from start to finish, only that the aftermath was handled correctly.

Which makes about as much sense as George Bush and the "Mission Accomplished Banner". While it was true that the Banner was meant to indicate the carrier task groups Mission was accomplished, it was obviously a major political faux pas. This is the same kind of situation.

So there is no defense for such a silly comment, and indicating that it might have been technically correct is just quibbling.


Here's the actual comment for the record:

quote:

CROWLEY: So, just to finish up on the question-- I do want to talk to you about security measures -- but do you think -- has there been any evidence of the Al Qaida ties that this suspect has been claiming?

NAPOLITANO: Right now, that is part of the criminal justice investigation that is ongoing, and I think it would be inappropriate to speculate as to whether or not he has such ties.

What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel. And one thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action. Within literally an hour to 90 minutes of the incident occurring, all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures in light of what had occurred on the Northwest Airlines flight. We instituted new measures on the ground and at screening areas, both here in the United States and in Europe, where this flight originated.

So the whole process of making sure that we respond properly, correctly and effectively went very smoothly.

CROWLEY: Well, it seems as though the reason this plane did not explode is that the explosion failed and then you had some quick passengers who jumped on him when he lit this fire.


Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think air travel can be made "safe enough,
Safe as compared to what? Air travel is less likely to kill you than lightning, never mind walking down the street or driving in a car.

That's the heart of why this is such a boondoggle. While there have been a couple of high profile incidents, air travel is actually exceptionally safe, even more so now that the passengers themselves are more actively vigilant, and realize that hijacking can result in something more than taking hostages for some kind of ransom or another.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
whitefire
Member
Member # 6505

 - posted      Profile for whitefire   Email whitefire       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does anyone know how many, if any, existing screening measures have actually stopped folks like this before they got to the plane?
I'm with Pyr on this one (though he may not be with me when I say what ought to be done), since the only cases I can think of were foiled by the passengers, and if they're the ones taking care of business, maybe its time to stop all this "new" security all together.
Also, if the TSA won't publish numbers, what reasons do they have? I'd think they would want everyone to know what they've done as both a deterrent and good PR.

Posts: 97 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And of the visible stuff that really only causes delays and hassles in the airport? Absolutely. (Though I think getting an actual TSA director in place in and of itself is important as well)

Any effective changes are going to be behind the scenes- better pre-filtering and watch list management, for example. But, to be honest, kill the no-fly list. Even that's to obvious. Or rather, don't kill it, but make it an active monitoring list. If someone from it buys a ticket,have it automatically trigger tickets for a handful of enforcement agents to be issued as well and have the person secretly monitored from check-in till they leave. Keep it completely invisible to everyone else , and that way you telegraph less when you actually are onto someone dangerous.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Safe as compared to what? Air travel is less likely to kill you than lightning, never mind walking down the street or driving in a car."

It's safer because nobody cares to try. I'll wager that far more people have smuggled things past the TSA just to prove that they could than have done it intending to blow up the plane. I've lost about half a dozen small knives that I forgot to take out of my bag or my pocket, but I've gotten them past security far more times than they were caught and confiscated. It's insane to kill yourself in order to send a message, but people have done it anyway.

Ask yourself how many people have been caught trying, and I'll be surprised if you can think of one. Basically, the reason there haven't been more airplane suicides is because "they" haven't tried, not because it's so hard. If "they" aren't going to try harder than they have so far, then we only need to correct the security screening to compensate for the things we think they are likely to try. If we're concerned that they will try harder, what do we need to do?

[ December 30, 2009, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"They" haven't tried an even easier way to kill American citizens, which is to sneak over the boarder from Mexico, buy automatic weapons, and start shooting in a shopping mall.

Screening won't stop every threat. Part of screening is explicitly a response to political pressure - that's how a lot of bureaucracy gets established. Someone makes a lot of noise about a perceived problem, and then those in government implement a solution in order to give them a response to that criticism. Sometimes such solutions are put into place in anticipation of someone levying a criticism. The problem is that, over time, government can come to be shaped by a thousand little band-aid fixes, each one slapped on top of the problem of the moment.

Efficient solutions require taking the time to identify real vulnerability and problems and then effectively devising solutions. Emotional venting of the sort that politicians of all stripes engage in is the enemy of developing sound policy solutions.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
"They" haven't tried an even easier way to kill American citizens, which is to sneak over the boarder from Mexico, buy automatic weapons, and start shooting in a shopping mall.

Actually, I don't necessarily think that would be easier. The Mexican police and border security aren't as caught up in political correctness as the corresponding US forces. They might well just detain somebody for general principle if they felt they didn't have a good reason for being there and there can't be a lot of Muslim tourists to Mexico.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:

Ask yourself how many people have been caught trying, and I'll be surprised if you can think of one. Basically, the reason there haven't been more airplane suicides is because "they" haven't tried, not because it's so hard. If "they" aren't going to try harder than they have so far, then we only need to correct the security screening to compensate for the things we think they are likely to try. If we're concerned that they will try harder, what do we need to do?

"They" have tried a few times in the last 8 years, but when they have failed it has been due to a) failed devices (this guy, or the shoe bomber), or because covert monitoring and intelligence gathering prevented the plots ever getting as far as the airport. I'm happy to agree that the extra airport 'security' hasn't done anything to help, aside from being a PR stunt to pacify the aimless calls that something be done (by which they mean "something I can see", rather than "something effective").

But it does make more sense from an AQ perspective to attack planes than the much easier job of shooting up a shopping mall. All a shopping mall attack achieves is a few dead people. Blowing up a plane is a big financial hit, and has a disproportionate knock-on effect on the amount of air travel. With the very fragile state of most airlines these days, it isn't a huge stretch to imagine that a few successful bombings could knock a few out of business, and folding plan companies hurts the economic system that depends to some extent on plane travel.

It seems to be an article of faith in AQ circles that the US is actually very weak, and that it won't take much to put enough pressure on that the whole western edifice comes tumbling down. Attacking a mall doesn't really do that - not unless you manage to convince people to stay away from all malls for fear of death. It might be do-able, but not by shooting the place up. You'd need to have lots of "Washington Sniper" type scenarios running concurrently before people started worrying that there was a significant risk to them personally. When AQ manages to sneak dozens of trained snipers in to the US that might be an effective tactic. Until then, planes seem a better target for a) the public over-reaction and b) the fact that it only costs you one untrained nutter - the guys with the expertise are safely out of the way.

BTW Yes, Yemen is increasingly a base for Al-Qa'ida, but there isn't much to be gained by invading there. The country is split in three; there is the rather wild region where AQ have a foothold, the government controlled region, and a separatist region fighting a civil war against the government. The Yemeni government has been fighting the AQ elements (it proudly proclaimed having killed dozens of AQ fighters last month, although you can question whether that was part of a rational strategy or just a raid to say to the US "Look, we are doing something"). AQ Yemen are also under pressure from Saudi Arabia, since it is essentially the Saudi AQ men who have been driven out of Saudi Arabia by the security crackdown there; the Saudis want to finish the job against the people who are mostly interested in overthrowing the house of Saud. So there isn't much to be gained by war here, as much as by supporting the Yemeni government that is willing to fight AQ (and by pressuring them to do more about it, although that will probably mean helping quash the civil war too).

(And in response to the original post, ornery hasn't been quiet about the bomber, it has just been discussing it in the "Do I have the right to resist this search" thread, since that was already about the sham of TSA 'security' at airports, and this carried on nicely from that).

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So there isn't much to be gained by war here"

I agree, since there really isn't much of a government. The country is impoverished, mostly tribal and decentralized, with little GDP and less future prospects. Whatever outside group has the money and access (cultural, demographic) to reach the various tribes will gain their loyalty and protection for as long as they maintain the relationship. We can't go fight everybody who hates us or that we imagine wants to do us harm. We also can't protect against every possible attack by an individual willing to give his life in the effort.

I'm torn how to divide our resources between stopping those attacks in the planning, positioning or execution. We can't infiltrate every group that wants to plan an attack, but we can improve our Intelligence gathering. We can't stop everyone who might attack us from entering the country - they might already be here, or might be recruited undetectably. We can't stop every bomber from getting on a plane, but we clearly could have stopped Abdulmutallab if our own Intelligence agencies were better integrated and the foreign airports he passed through had more effective passenger screening.

I don't want to have to give up even more liberties or dress in jump suits when I fly, so I grudgingly accept that another plane will be blown up at some point. We dodged another bullet this time. I just hope the chances are no more than the 1 out of 100 that Bush/Cheney and now Obama seem willing to accept as the odds.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But it does make more sense from an AQ perspective to attack planes than the much easier job of shooting up a shopping mall. All a shopping mall attack achieves is a few dead people. Blowing up a plane is a big financial hit, and has a disproportionate knock-on effect on the amount of air travel. With the very fragile state of most airlines these days, it isn't a huge stretch to imagine that a few successful bombings could knock a few out of business, and folding plan companies hurts the economic system that depends to some extent on plane travel.
Bingo. One incompetent 'bomber' self-immolates on a plane, and the resulting overreaction is going to cost the airline industry tens and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
""They" haven't tried an even easier way to kill American citizens, which is to sneak over the boarder from Mexico, buy automatic weapons, and start shooting in a shopping mall."

Now, that would be ironic. We might have to tighten up our gun laws to prevent some people from having them. What chance would that have getting through Congress? It would lead to rebellion if Obama tried to put out an EO against some gun purchases by some people. Better to let 1000 Mexicans buy assault rifles legally and shoot up malls than deny 1 American a gun.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
Better to let 1000 Mexicans buy assault rifles legally and shoot up malls than deny 1 American a gun.

First, it would be better to say deny "100 Million Americans a gun.

Second, there isn't going to be any outcry if President Obama makes it illegal and very hard for Mexicans to buy guns in the US. Except maybe from the Left, perhaps the ACLU.

Third, Americans buying a gun is a Constitutional right. So President Obama can't legally deny Americans that right, thus that's a moot point.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We could employ a high tech biological quadropedial olfactory enhanced explosive dectection device AKA the German Shepherd at the screening area. Or is that notion too radical?
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"First, it would be better to say deny "100 Million Americans a gun."

No, we only need to deny one American his Founder given right to own a gun and the gun lobby would explode with indignation. Why can't a Mexican immigrant, legally in this country, maybe with a green card, maybe a citizen, buy 1000 assault rifles and hand them out to muchos amigos? It begs the question, what's the difference to a gun dealer in Texas between an illegal immigrant buying a gun or a naturalized US citizen from Mexico buying a gun? Doesn't much matter, really.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why are we talking about Mexicans?
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Damned if I know. I'm just trying to be accommodating.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not a lot of Mexican suicide bombers.
The Dutch security screeners screwed up. I've been in the Amsterdam airport, he should have gone through security screening again. I did coming from Washington.

Dogs, people, dogs.

[ December 31, 2009, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Second, there isn't going to be any outcry if President Obama makes it illegal and very hard for Mexicans to buy guns in the US. Except maybe from the Left, perhaps the ACLU."

Specifically Mexicans? That would be a racist bill of attainder, and so doubly unconstitutional (correct me if I'm wrong, actual lawyers), and as such opposed by a bit more than "the left and ACLU". However, a bill saying only US citizens can privately purchase firearms in this country could be signed tomorrow with 95% Democratic support in the house and Senate. OK, 85%, cause there are some Dems from really stupid "My gun is my flag and penis combined" districts. I'd imagine at least 50% of Republicans could be shamed into supporting such a law. Wanna suggest it to your congressman?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" US state and federal gun laws for non-citizens
Federal Issues:   In general, non-immigrant aliens are forbidden to possess any firearms or ammunition. But there is a big exception for a legal alien who: ...is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States (See Title 18, USC Chapter 44, Section 922, part (y)(2) for details.)   Green-card holders and immigrant aliens who do not yet have their green card are both okay under federal law, although many people (including gun dealers, law enforcement officers, etc.) are not aware of the distinction or the hunting license exception, and erroneously think that either you have a green card, or you can't have guns.    Also, non-citizen cannot purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firerams dealer unless they have been a resident of their state for 90 days. So, no, tourists on short visits cannot walk into guns stores to get "protection" during their trip. Sorry. (I've been asked that multiple times.)

http://www.vrolyk.org/guns/alien-laws.html

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Washinton State: Possession of a firearm by a non-citizen is a felony!      The only exception is if you've gone the the convoluted procedure to get an "Alien Firearm License". And even this option is only available if you reside in Washington state.    Washington has stopped issuing Alien Firearms Licenses. Aliens are now completely out of luck in Washington state. See the Department of Licensing.    See the law at Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 9.41, section 170. See also the application for an Alien Firearm License.   With an Alien Firearm License, a non-citizen can get a Concealed Pistol License.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So basically if you're worried, lobby to get the hunting loopholes for non citizens closed. (excepting maybe people with a green card already, I personally wouldn't care if they had to wait till actual citizenship to be allowed to partake in the game available). Seems like in at least some states they're already doing that.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More fun with underwear:
Did IntelCenter Photoshop AlQaeda Logo on Mutallab Photo?
quote:
Here’s a snippet from an excellent Signs of the Times article about the mysteries of the infamous Flight 253 patsy entitled “The Underwear Bomber – Crushing Freedom With Phony Arab Terrorism”.

Initially, all we had was a Nigerian youth and a misguided effort to detonate what we are told was an explosive compound. Within 24 hours however, IntelCenter, a group of US ex-military and intelligence officials who over the years have somehow managed to produce many of the “al-Qaeda” videos and messages that they serendipitously find on “jihadist websites”, produced a picture of Mutallab with what they claim is the flag of the media arm of “al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” and a message from the group claiming Mutallab as one of their own:

“We tell the American people that since you support the leaders who kill our women and children … we have come to slaughter you (and) will strike you with no previous (warning), our vengeance is near,” the statement said

Scared yet? Well, the people at Intelcenter really hope you are. They put a lot of effort into producing these messages and videos and images. For example, a 2006 ‘al-qaeda’ video featuring al-Zawahiri released by Intelcenter was analyzed by Neal Krawetz, a researcher and computer security consultant. During a presentation he gave at the BlackHat security conference in Las Vegas in 2007 about analyzing digital photographs and video images for alterations and enhancements, Krawetz showed that the video had been altered in a very interesting way.

Using a program he wrote (and provided on the conference CD-ROM) Krawetz could print out the quantization tables in a JPEG file (that indicate how the image was compressed) and determine the last tool that created the image – that is, the make and model of the camera if the image is original or the version of Photoshop that was used to alter and re-save the image.

Krawetz took an image (above) from the 2006 video of al-Zawahiri showing the Mr Magoo look-alike sitting in front of a desk and banner with writing on it. After conducting his error analysis Krawetz was able to determine that the writing on the banner behind al-Zawahiri’s head was added to the image afterward and at the same time as the logo of IntelCenter, which released the video. In short, it seems very likely that IntelCenter produced the writing on the banner, and probably the entire video, from whole cloth.

Despite this evidence, we are being asked to believe that the latest message and photo from ‘al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’ that IntelCenter just happened to find on a “Jihadist internet message board” that links Mutallab with ‘al-Qaeda in Yemen’ is authentic!

Remember Al Qaeda means "the list", and this list did not start in the ME.
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1