I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-17 14:33:05

I also disagree with conventional "leftist" or Marxist analysis that al Qaeda is a product of the rich capitalist West versus poor Muslims since the leaders of al Qaeda are by and large upper middle class or upper class, well educated people. Yet they do manipulate poverty for their advantage.

So, technically, that would be the marxist definition? Now I am a bit confused. Poor people reacting against the rich for exploiting them is the standard marxist def. but when the rich exploit poor people to react against other rich people. . . . I think where you are going is interesting.

How bout the fact that the arabs blame all the suicide bombings on us? I wonder how this factors into all this.

BWhite · 2004-08-17 15:50:48

I also disagree with conventional "leftist" or Marxist analysis that al Qaeda is a product of the rich capitalist West versus poor Muslims since the leaders of al Qaeda are by and large upper middle class or upper class, well educated people. Yet they do manipulate poverty for their advantage.
So, technically, that would be the marxist definition? Now I am a bit confused. Poor people reacting against the rich for exploiting them is the standard marxist def. but when the rich exploit poor people to react against other rich people. . . . I think where you are going is interesting.
How bout the fact that the arabs blame all the suicide bombings on us? I wonder how this factors into all this.

Israel and the United States is 'why' poor Muslims are poor - - naturally enough the Arab rulers promote this line of reasoning to deflect from their own failure at ruling well.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-18 06:04:42

I am not advocating that we ingore these terrorists, only advoacting means of destroying them without doing so much harm to ourselves.

That's certainly reasonable. Now, here's the situation as I see it. We're presently taking a two tiered approach, law enforcement action against all terrorist we can find inside our borders and military action those outside when convenient, in a somewhat haphazard fashion. Some people want to focus on just one tier to the exclusion of the other. Both extreme positions scale the heights of stupidity.

I'd advocate a three tiered approach. If we catch terrorists in the US we use law enforcement approaches, loosened a little for such crime, meaning something similar to the PATRIOT Act would be in effect. If we find a state that is actively aiding terrorists, we militarily crush them, as in Afghanistan. The third angle is a devious, non-public spec-ops heavy approach. Trick enemies into fighting each other through nefarious means. Periodically make sure that select heads end up on pikes in such a manner that no one can prove we were behind it but everyone knows.

I'll call it the "Bill Clinton Black Ninjas Option" just to throw out a legacy.

Such operations wouldn't be without risk, but would certainly allow us far more freedom of action while reducing the use of American troops. The hawks and doves get what they want. Meanwhile we have people skulking through the mountains of Pakistan looking for bin Laden. Head on a pole. Maybe, if we really wanted to get sneaky we could have avoided the whole Iraq war by "arranging" for a missile or two to be launched from Iran, let them duke it out while we sit back and watch on CNN, or Fox if you prefer. Two birds with one scud as it were.

A bit simplistic, but we have eliminated an entire course of action for numerous reasons, leaving us the other two which must fill the gap. Law enforcement can't take on those tasks, so we naturally have a military-heavy posture.

Palomar · 2004-08-18 07:08:03

*There's an al-Qaeda operative on the loose in my area, or at least he's got very close ties to. Heard that on 10 p.m. local newscast. There's a $5 million reward for whoever can supply gov't officials with his whereabouts. I'll be on the lookout for the little weasel, and not just for the $'s sake. He's short, and although he might seem to blend in with the highly Latino population in this area (which -isn't- to disparage Latinos at all, because most are decent, law-abiding, hard-working folk who hate terrorists too) based on hair and naturally tanned complexion, his features are definitely Arabic.

Dreamed last night people were fleeing from a dirty bomb exploded 35 miles east of here (which would be near White Sands). Also dreamed my spouse and I moved further west in the state, to place further distance between ourselves and probable targets nearer to here.

Two weeks ago this state and California were under terrorist alert, now there's at least 1 guy prowling around with close links to al-Qaeda if he's not actually one of them. ::shakes head:: Oh god.

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2004-08-18 14:01:56

Robert, good example. But it really illustrates my point. Action was taken in response to a terrorist act already committed, culminating in the arrest of a single terrorist cell without seriously damaging the organization as a whole. This is of even greater concern given the terrorists we currently face, who have this habit of dying during the commission of their attacks.
Again, if we can catch 'em, great, but that doesn't protect anyone. Eliminating al Qaeda at the source is more effective than picking up individual cells on the chance they make a mistake.

The FLQ were planning to bomb the largest building in downtown Montréal. After the police raids started they found a stockpile of explosives to do exactly that. The police prevented them from taking out a major office building by responding with a firm police action after the first offence. Al Qaeda attacked US foreign embassies, but the only US response was to send a cruise missile into a cave that Al Qaeda was using as a base; they didn't arrest Al Qaeda members. That may be more high-tech and expensive than a car bomb, but really isn't different. Using terrorist tactics only justifies their terrorism on you. After that Bill Clinton authorized aerial bombardment of an Al Qaeda training camp. Again, using terrorism on Al Qaeda not police action. No offenders were arrested. If it was treated as a police action and offenders were arrested I don't think 9/11 would have happened. The response to the FLQ prevented an attack on a skyscraper, the response to Al Qaeda didn't.

By the way, when George W. Bush announced the ballistic missile defence system, I thought it was a waste of money. The cost was more than a manned mission to Mars and wouldn't defend America from anything. I talked to a friend in a coffee shop and stated I believed the ballistic missile defence system couldn't defend against all the ICBMs that Russia could send if they attacked. China has a lot fewer but they still have enough to overwhelm defence system. What does that leave, North Korea? If they sent an ICBM it would easily be traced back to its launch point and America would respond by saturation bombing with multi-megaton thermonuclear warheads. Such an attack would be suicide. A terrorist group or small nation wouldn't send an ICBM, they would use a means of attack that couldn't be traced back. For example a Cessna or Piper or other small aircraft with a small nuclear bomb. But nuclear material is hard to get, attempts to build such a bomb would be detectable by intelligence; they would be stopped. Packing an aircraft with conventional explosives would be more effective. Simple 'stealth' technology for the approach would be to use a model of aircraft that regularly enters New York airspace. No need for high tech stealth, just 'hide in plane sight'. Since terrorists already attempted to take out the World Trade Center with a truck bomb, I said that would be their target again. Expect whatever group mounted that attack would probably attack again. At the time I didn't know the group's name but it was Al Qaeda. My friend said they wouldn't even bother with explosives, just use lots of airplane fuel. I said loading an aircraft with fuel would definitely not be noticed at the departing airport, but it would take a lot to do real damage. I doubt the terrorists could afford a large aircraft. So my friend responded that they wouldn't buy an aircraft, just hijack an airliner. I couldn't conceive of hijacking an airliner to ram into a building. However, if the pilot is already on a suicide run and wants to kill Americans then he wouldn't see a problem with it. So just chatting with my friend in a coffee shop over how wasteful the ballistic missile defence system would be, we predicted the attack on the WTC. Less than a year before the attack we gave the method of attack, target, and organization.

Grypd · 2004-08-19 12:29:32

It must be noted that the FLQ did not have access to Nuclear material and weapons. Al Qaeda may well have.

This is a scenario that we in Britain are all too scared off.

During the cold war both the USA and USSR created nuclear bombs that are fitted into suitcases and are light and portable. These where a potential first strike weapon. But with the fall of the USSR of the 100 or so devices made only about half can be accounted for. These devices are small and easily portable and very hard to spot.

Then there is the dirty bomb, This is even simpler to get made its only nuclear material placed in a normal terrorist bomb so all damage gets irradiated and requires decontamination. If you think al Qaeda are not planning this im sorry to say that a terrorist cell has been caught in Britain this week that was planning to do just that. And not just to the UK but also they had the plans and information on various places in the USA.

So why give these organised evil people a chance to carry out there plans. We dont have police in the Middle east if you get a shot at hurting them before they can carry out another attrocity then take it. If they enter your country or another which you have an extradition treaty with arrest them but in the middle east we dont have that luxury. Its a case of if the snake pops its head out dont wait till you get bitten.

Im Scottish and im also British I have lived with terrorism all my life. There is nothing worse than having a routine to search under your car each time you get in looking for bombs but I used to have to do it due to my job. I have family who have been sent bullets in the post by the IRA. The only way to deal with terrorism is to meet it head on but allow a carrot to be there too so as to allow a less violent solution. And why tell you im Scottish, after chernobyl Scotland recieved a lot of fallout even now after 2 decades there are large areas where sheep and cattle that graze there are unfit due to the radiation contamination to eat. This is the stakes we face.

Palomar · 2004-08-19 12:46:44

Im Scottish and im also British I have lived with terrorism all my life. There is nothing worse than having a routine to search under your car each time you get in looking for bombs but I used to have to do it due to my job. I have family who have been sent bullets in the post by the IRA. The only way to deal with terrorism is to meet it head on but allow a carrot to be there too so as to allow a less violent solution. And why tell you im Scottish, after chernobyl Scotland recieved a lot of fallout even now after 2 decades there are large areas where sheep and cattle that graze there are unfit due to the radiation contamination to eat. This is the stakes we face.

*I've always wanted to visit Scotland. I often purchase travel magazines devoted to it and Ireland (maybe some day...sigh...)

How awful about the Chernobyl fallout. I didn't know that.

Just asking anyone (I don't wish to put Grypd on the spot), and perhaps should start a new thread anyway but...

What is THE deal with the IRA and all that? I've gotten patchy pieces of information over the years, but admit to some confusion.

If REB would prefer this become a new topic entirely I'll respect his wishes and create a new thread. But the discussion might not veer off that much, so will post here for now.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2004-08-19 14:06:30

The IRA as we call them do not really exist, The IRA has splintered and splintered over the years. The Provisional IRA was the organisation that was the main Catholic Ulster terrorist organisation and was the one that through its political wing called Sinn Fein signed the good friday accords so resulting in the relative peace that is the current status.

It is Ironic that the Provos did not all agree with the Good friday agreement and the result was another fracturing with the Real IRA and clones forming. The Provos did have a reasonable general support from the Catholic side of Ulster but these splinter groups do not, as such they are fading.

Why did Sinn fein sign the good friday agreement with there enemies the Protestants, Many reasons, But here are some main ones
The Catholic and protestant population of Ulster where totally had it with terrorism they wanted peace and jobs.

The Provisional IRA where losing there ranks had been deeply penetrated by British security forces and Whole cells killed off or arrested by Special operations. There main source of income was the USA but there source of weapons and training was Libya needless to say after Lockerbie and the security clampdown this had become untenable.

The Protestant Ulster Irish had formed there own terror organisations and where repaying in kind. And there was a general war over the control of the Drugs trade.

I hope this helps why things are they now, If you want a reason why these groups formed in the first place im sorry there is no way that we could fit this in one forum. There are so many reasons and actions and so many countries and organisations involved over the last 2 thousand years that it cant realistically be done.

Grypd · 2004-08-19 14:10:00

Oh and for visiting Scotland do just dont eat grass at heights over 500 metres

For the most part in scotland we have pure air, pure water and a serious lack of pollution. So my bit for the tourist board

VISIT SCOTLAND

REB · 2004-08-19 16:15:37

Cindy, speaking of Chernobyl http://www.kiddofspeed.com/]this ride

I came across this web site about a year ago. Some are claiming it is only partly true, or a hoax. Whatever it is, it is very interesting.

Rxke · 2004-08-20 01:06:04

It is a hoaxy site, insofar that her claims of riding there alone on her bike are nonsense. They don't allow that (logical!)

The pics are real, though, but probably taken when in a group of 'tourists' (they do tours there)

RobertDyck · 2004-08-24 06:20:49

We dont have police in the Middle east if you get a shot at hurting them before they can carry out another attrocity then take it. If they enter your country or another which you have an extradition treaty with arrest them but in the middle east we dont have that luxury. Its a case of if the snake pops its head out dont wait till you get bitten.

If you're going to bomb them in a country for which you don't have an extradition treaty, then you're already ignoring all international law anyway. Bombing a terrorist group, or any other target, could be treated as an act of war against the host country. However, if you're going to send a cruise missile or drop bombs, they any other military action is no more or less a violation of international law. If you're going to go that far then you might as well do it right; send in ground troops to arrest them. Killing terrorists with stand-off bombardment (missile or bombs) will only justify their continued use of terrorism against you and make the deceased into martyrs. An act of war such as bombardment will rally the opposition to unite against you. Don't glorify their act, rather humiliate them. Don't create martyrs. Bombardment will result in recruiting so many more new recruits to the terrorist organization that it will end with more members than before you bombed. Humiliation via torture or other stupid acts will likewise only recruit more members against you. The only thing that works is to treat it as a criminal act and arrest them. Give them all the rights of an arrested criminal and ensure they do stand trial. The principle reason is to ensure those who aren't part of the terrorist organization don't join. The rights of the accused exist to a great extent in case you arrest someone who isn't guilty. This applies to terrorism, what if you raid and arrest someone who isn't part of the terrorist organization. If you mistreat someone who isn't a terrorist, he/she becomes the poster child for recruitment. Once suspects are arrested you don't leave them in a foreign prison like Guatánamo Bay where they don't have rights, you place them in a domestic prison where laws apply and bring them to trial. If you try to apply one set of rules to Americans and another to foreigners, this also will only recruit more members against you. Remember the outrage when loyal Americans were arrested as suspected terrorists immediately after 9/11? That's why laws exist, to prevent that. Same thing overseas, if you go so far as to take action then you have to arrest them and give them a fair trial.

Notice I'm avoiding the question of jurisdiction. The attack of 9/11 was so extraordinary that NATO authorized military action. Let's ignore for the moment the stupid decision of George W. to refuse that offer; that gave authorization to send in ground troops against al Qaeda.

This thread started as a lament for pre-9/11 times. What I've been trying to imply is that to an extent America has been asking for it. I know it's a rude thing to say, that's why I didn't explicitly say it before. But continued attempts to create puppet governments in other countries, or install a government that America approves of will only result in animosity toward America. Democracy means you have to leave that to the people who live there, whether it's Nicaragua, Granada, or Iraq. Groups like al Qaeda will continue to pop-up until you stop. This doesn't justify the actions of al Qaeda, but two wrongs do not make a right. Lately Americans have gained the bad habit of supporting their government in any action it takes, no matter how bad. This has been strongly advocated by the government. Protests against the Vietnam War in the late 1960s were entirely appropriate; you're going to have to do the same thing to hold your government accountable. The war in Iraq was unjustified; it wasn't any sort of liberation, Iraq was conquered and occupied. This was a distraction from action against al Qaeda and only serves to give more justification for their cause. What I'm trying to say is leave Iraq alone and concentrate on al Qaeda. Arrest them, bring their members to trial, and focus on capturing Osama bin Laden.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-24 07:08:30

If you're going to bomb them in a country for which you don't have an extradition treaty, they you're already ignoring all international law anyway. Bombing a terrorist group, or any other target, could be treated as an act of war against the host country. However, if you're going to send a cruise missile or drop bombs, they any other military action is no more or less a violation of international law.

In which case sending in anyone to arrest suspects is legally no more tenable.

In order to put terrorists on trial we must first apprehend them, and if they are residing in non-extradition treaty countries or in countires with otherwise uncooperative governments we have to send in special operations soldiers to get them. This is military action. Any meaningful law enforcement response will be dependent on selective adherence to law ourselves. Otherwise we can only take action against terrorists caught on our own soil or handed over by friendly nations. The rest are free to scheme and prepare behind lines on a map, secure in the knowledge that our hands are tied.

So the real quation then isn't whether this is a law enforcement or a military issue, but to what extent the military component of it should take. There are valid points on all sides of the issue once we reach the realization that law enforcement, meaning an action without any military component, is an absurd position in the face of the current situation. In many of these cases a law enforcement response requires military action. Whatever the case we're sending American troops into foreign nations without permission, only their numbers are in question. 10 or 100,000 either way has advantages and drawbacks.

falkor · 2004-08-24 07:25:28

without permission?

who's permission is required exactly ?

1977 was the year I purchased a Peter Frampton 8-track.
Was that a good year? You all be the judge.

yeah and it's now available on CD thank goodness

1977 was an exceedingly good year: CONFIRMED

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-24 07:39:52

without permission?
who's permission is required exactly ?

That's just it. :;): If the government of the country in question says "hey, c'mon in and nab these guys" we're clear. Otherwise, we have to go in against their wishes resulting in an invasion, though possibilty on a small scale for the sole purpose of capturing an individual.

Palomar · 2004-08-24 09:06:42

*To be really frank? I just want to move on. 9/11 was a horrible event and I truly feel for the families and loved ones of people lost and injured on that day. Horrendous tragedy. Remembrances? -- sure, totally understandable.

In fact, just yesterday I noticed a sign for an upcoming event. The date is set for September 11. There was maybe a 5-second pause before I made the connection to that same date in 2001. I consider that healthy progress.

I'll never forget 9/11 and its victims (it and they shouldn't be forgotten), but to be honest I really don't want it to become a "darkside 4th of July" sort of thing. Time is a healer...let's keep healing and moving forward emotionally.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-08-26 10:17:02

Let's get on with it...

I hope so... Going to be pivotal days, now moderate but hugely influential http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/ … ]Ayatollah Sistani (profile) comes into the play. Trying to get a way out of the stalemate in Iraq.

He's something like the Shiia Islam version of the Pope, or the Dalai Lama... and I hope the American Army Higher up realize that.
IMO, there are others behind the scenes trying to sabotage this, extremists, Al Quaida? Probably. Those mortar-rounds are not making sense. But Iraqi police shooting in the crowds... Uh-oh... Are they insane? Who ordered that?
(EDIT: Ugh. Scrap that. Police not insane, but again proof some troublemakers are working hard to foul stuff up... Peaceful procession, all of a sudden a group of unknown armed men joins and start shooting at the police...)

Palomar · 2004-08-26 11:53:52

*On the lighter side of this issue: As fellow US citizens doubtless recall, U.S. flags, penants, buttons, ribbons, car hood ornaments, etc., etc., were to be seen everywhere after 9/11...well into early December, in this area.

Around the 2nd week of October, though, I took all U.S. patriotic decorations down; time to put up the Halloween stuff! (need I mention that patriotic red, white and blue stuff totally clashes with Halloween decorations!? :-\ )

Sorry, but I can't help recalling that. It was weird, walking into stores and seeing 4th of July stuff for sale GALORE...alongside of pumpkins, spooky decorations, treat bags and Halloween masks.

Well, yes -- that was the least of the "I Feel I've Suddenly Been Thrust Into a Very Unpleasant Parallel World" situation; but still...what a crazy, crazy time. ::shakes head::

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-26 12:21:49

Yeah... flags everywhere, patriotic slogans on nearly every car, nationalistic songs on the radio, young people pouring into military recruitment offices, all the politicians united in a single purpose for the good of the nation. That part was kinda nice.

:hm: Of course it is me saying it, so. . . Well, we're getting back to normal now, tearing each other apart over which putz we want in the White House.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-08-26 21:55:56

Regardless of the embassy bombings, the attack on the Cole, etc, the world's condition really did change three years ago. On September 10, 2001, we lived in a world with (As far as we cared) no rivals. The Soviets no longer existed, the Berlin wall had crumbled, the entire world was democratic barring a few banana republics, China, and North Korea, iridium meant that you could instantly be talking to anyone anywhere on Earth, regardless of where you are, and you could be at any point on this planet within 24 hours of when you decide to leave. We were invincible, we had prevailed against communism. We. Won.

The entire world was nearing the point of having one culture, unified under America. Okay, the economy was starting to tank, but backtracking one year eBay, Yahoo, and Amazon were soaring, and everyone was richer than they had ever been before. It was the dawn of a new millennium, the olympics were in the southern hemisphere, and more than that it was time to get to business on what we claimed we never had time for with the Ruskies on our backs (Mission to Mars anyone?).

That morning everything changed. On September 11, the newspaper headlines were probably along the lines of what Bush was doing on vacation in Texas and the big "what if" was "Can he ride a horse like a cowboy?" (He can't? Scandalous!) On September 12 and from thereon after it has been defense, war, defense, threats of war, war, we hate war, why the war didn't work, intelligence failures, nude Iraqi pics. The point is (Hopefully I'm not rambling too far out of control) we had enemies again. The new generation had a threat to beat, this time terrorism, and our brief time of R&R had come and gone. A new era began that day.

It was unreasonable of us to think that our time with the world on a string would last forever, but we (Or most of us anyway) did. Then, before you could say "buy Enron" the bubble had burst.

Then again, I'll always have a different perspective on 9/11 than older generations because of my timing. Heck, the Berlin wall fell when I had spent more time inside my mother than out here in the world. For me, the Soviet Union has been merely an academic subject, interesting, but remote, something from a different time. I was born and made it to seventh grade in a span when we were kings of the world which greatly exaggerates the change from my perspective. I'm just getting used to the idea that we have mortal enemies now, that's something new as far as I'm concerned.

All we can do now is hope for the best. That probably comes out a lot mroe hopeless than I mean it to sound, but we're in a precarious position now. We can safely say that the United States will never become an Islamic terrorist state, but our victory this time can come sooner or later. Let's just hope for sooner.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-27 10:22:17

I was born and made it to seventh grade in a span when we were kings of the world which greatly exaggerates the change from my perspective. I'm just getting used to the idea that we have mortal enemies now, that's something new as far as I'm concerned.

I suppose that would give one a different perspective on things. It seems we look back at the conditions we were raised under as a sort of "baseline" to which we compare everything that follows, even if only subconsciously.

For my part I was aware as a child that on the other side of the planet there was this "Evil Empire" full of something called "Communists" that had nuclear missiles pointed at me. We even had a couple of those civil defense drills while I was very young. You know, crawl under the desk, the nukes are coming. Both my grandfathers were in WWII, so I was also quite aware that before the Soviet Union had its missiles turned our way there were Nazis and "Japs" out to get us.

So my natural reaction to the fall of the Soviet Union was "okay, who's next?"

Seems there's a bit of line.

Palomar · 2004-08-27 10:30:40

that had nuclear missiles pointed at me. We even had a couple of those civil defense drills while I was very young. You know, crawl under the desk, the nukes are coming.

*You did?

Gee, I don't want to get personal here, but I know you're a bit younger than I. We never had civil defense drills, and especially not of the "crawl under the desk" type -- in the Midwest, at any rate. I've seen film footage of kids in the 1950s and even early 1960s doing that.

Which state were you residing in at the time?

It's not that I disbelieve you, I just am stymied. Never heard of anyone else dealing with those sorts of drills in the 1970s and particularly not the 1980s (and I have a keen memory).

There's the occasional testing on TV of the Emergency Broadcast System (that's been around since I can recall), but that's it.

?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-27 11:51:46

Gee, I don't want to get personal here, but I know you're a bit younger than I. We never had civil defense drills, and especially not of the "crawl under the desk" type -- in the Midwest, at any rate. I've seen film footage of kids in the 1950s and even early 1960s doing that.

Yep. At least once, maybe twice when I was in first grade. Can't imagine why, somebody got a memo most likely. As I recall no one really took it too seriously, in retrospect it had the feeling of some administrative hoop that the powers that be were making the teachers run through. Maybe I'll look into it.

My first taste of bureaucracy.

REB · 2004-08-27 14:39:27

No nuke drills for me in the 1970's, just tornado drills. I do remember aroun 1980 waking up to a loud explosion and thinking we were being nuked.

There was a time there when it wasn't a question of if there would be a nuke exchange between the US and USSR, but a question of when it will happen. That time was the early 80's and we had movies like War Games and Mad Max to fuel our fears.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-07-26 05:11:12

While Brazil and S.Korea got to see the ISS but later pull back, now we have another muslim astronaut to go to space

In a ways the President of the United States, he was right to pull out, yet the optics guys falling from Aircraft was a bad visual. It is almost impossible to bring democracy to a people who chop each other's head off and go on riots and rampages over the rumor somebody MIGHT have dropped a Quran.
George Bush jnr 43rd president, Obama, Trump then Biden, how long must a war go on and in the end he was hiding in 'allied' lands of Pakistan not Afghanistan. Everywhere America tried to build in this war there was a group of people read to shoot, bomb and behead each other over a funny song or a cartoon.

Dropping the Quran or Koran would not offend me, from what I have read of this book it is a collecting of folklore like other religions, although as writing the islamic texts seem to be especially poor, I also consider many of its teachings to be perverted, violent and 'demonic' for lack of a better term.

Biden grappling with how to maintain U.S. global dominance
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/ … lobal-dom/

Joe Biden marks CIA’s 75 years of 'The Finders' sppoky games of shifting and drug running and global arms dealing as ‘bedrock’ of national security
https://www.cbs17.com/news/ap-top-headl … n-ukraine/

Biden to rescind Afghanistan’s designation as major non-NATO ally
https://www.aol.com/news/biden-rescind- … 59817.html

UAE Announces 1st Arab Astronaut For 6-month-long Mission In International Space Station
https://www.republicworld.com/science/s … eshow.html

Mosques in space?

Astronaut Sultan Al Neyadi has been selected to go on a six-month-long mission to the ISS

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-08-17 14:33:05

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#52 2004-08-17 15:50:48

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#53 2004-08-18 06:04:42

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#54 2004-08-18 07:08:03

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#55 2004-08-18 14:01:56

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#56 2004-08-19 12:29:32

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#57 2004-08-19 12:46:44

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#58 2004-08-19 14:06:30

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#59 2004-08-19 14:10:00

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#60 2004-08-19 16:15:37

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#61 2004-08-20 01:06:04

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#62 2004-08-24 06:20:49

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#63 2004-08-24 07:08:30

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#64 2004-08-24 07:25:28

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#65 2004-08-24 07:39:52

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#66 2004-08-24 09:06:42

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#67 2004-08-26 10:17:02

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#68 2004-08-26 11:53:52

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#69 2004-08-26 12:21:49

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#70 2004-08-26 21:55:56

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#71 2004-08-27 10:22:17

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#72 2004-08-27 10:30:40

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#73 2004-08-27 11:51:46

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#74 2004-08-27 14:39:27

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#75 2022-07-26 05:11:12

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

Board footer