The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

BWhite · 2004-11-30 17:40:13

While posting in the FAQ thread, I decided to look at an apparently successful wiki hosted by DailyKos.

There I found http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/01247/557]this article. Mandatory reading (IMHO) for anyone who wants to win the War on Terror and not merely fight it endlessly.

Highlights:

Question 1: What is the first and biggest obstacle between you and victory?
If you answered "People on the other side of my issue," go sit in the corner. That answer is completely wrong. If you assume terrorists think that way, everything they do will seem like total insanity.
The first and biggest obstacle to your victory is that the vast majority of the people who sympathize with your issue are not violent extremists. They may agree with you in principle. They may even sound like violent extremists late at night over their beverage of choice. But when the hammer comes down, they won't be there. There are weeds in the garden and final exams coming up and deadlines at the office. Good luck with that car bombing. Call me next time, maybe things will have settled down by then.

and this,

Question 2: In radicalizing your sympathizers, who is your best ally?
No points awarded for "the media" or "sympathetic foreign governments". In radicalizing your apathetic sympathizers, you have no better ally than the violent extremists on the other side. Only they can convince your people that compromise is impossible. Only they can raise your countrymen's level of fear and despair to the point that large numbers are willing to take up arms and follow your lead. A few blown up apartment buildings and dead schoolchildren will get you more recruits than the best revolutionary tracts ever written.
Perversely, this means that you are the best ally of the extremists on the other side. That doesn't mean you love or even talk to each other -- they are, after all, vile and despicable demons. But at this stage in the process your interests align. Both of you want to invert the bell curve, to flatten out that big hump in the middle and drive people to the edges. That's why extremists come in pairs: Caesar and Pompey, the Nazis and the Communists, Sharon and Arafat, Bush and Bin Laden. Each side needs a demonic opposite in order to galvanize its supporters.

Read the whole thing. Its darn scary and if he's right, we are losing the War on Terror - - BIG TIME!

= = =

This same author (IIRC) predicts the next major terror attack within the United States will be at one of those mega-churches they have in California where 5000 people or more attend a single service.

Why? To ramp up the hate and facilitate violent reprisals by US forces. See #1 and #2 above.

Next terror attack?

Where will he attack? The target needs to fulfill two criteria: First, it needs to be justifiable to an Islamic audience. Bin Laden's pre-election message was probably aimed at them rather than us, and was intended to pre-justify the next attack. From an Islamic point of view, Bin Laden has now pleaded with the American electorate to be reasonable, and has been rejected. Any attack that follows will seem all the more justified. Second, the next attack needs to empower Bin Laden's most aggressive enemies in the United States. He wants us to continue striking first and asking questions later.
It is probably hopeless to try to read Bin Laden's mind in enough detail to guess his exact target. (And there is always the worry that we will do his thinking for him or point out something he has overlooked.) Undoubtedly much will depend on the opportunities that most easily present themselves. But one class of targets seems all too obvious: red-state megachurches whose leaders have made virulently anti-Islamic statements. They are relatively undefended. They are the heart of Bush's political power base, and so can be blamed for his policies. They can easily be portrayed as enemies of Islam. And, last but not least, an attack on a church would rile American hawks like nothing else.

Edited By BWhite on 1101858182

clark · 2004-12-01 08:32:42

We can't win, can we?

Every which way you look, it's a losing hand.

What do we do if Pakistan goes south on us?

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-01 08:52:05

Interesting article, though perhaps the most important points are tucked in there and easily overlooked.

"Most people, most of the time, just want to get along. They'll accept a little inconvenience, ignore a few insults, and smile at people they hate if it allows them to get on with their lives. Most people on both sides of your issue just wish the issue would go away. If you're not careful, those apathetic majorities will get together and craft a compromise. And where's your revolution then?"

Quite true, which is largely why we went in to Iraq with fewer troops than an outright conquest would have required, why we're so careful about what we bomb and when, why we're so reluctant to enter cities and slaughter insurgents. Yet at the same time this means that civil war may be the best thing that could happen from our perspective. Rampant death, destruction, terror and mayhem doesn't harm us severely if the bulk of the population doesn't in their guts feel that we're causing it.

Assuming we don't give a rat's ass about a few thousand Muslim lives, let the insurgents run rampant. Get Iraqi forces to provoke them a bit, do whatever is needed to keep the pot stirred, and then when asked by the duly elected authorities to stop them we can reluctantly go in and restore order, then leave until the next adjustment is needed.

Standard disclaimer applies.

"Like all attacks in the bell-curve-inverting stage, the purpose of 9/11 was to provoke a military response."

"In other words, he wants to draw the well paid, lavishly supplied American soldiers into wars on his territory, where he can fight cheaply."

Exactly, that's the dilemma we face. If we act, they get what they want. If we don't, they hit us again to provoke a response. Here or there?

"However, we need not respond with overwhelming force that kills the innocent and guilty alike. It is important that we husband and cultivate the moral capital that an attack will give us, not spend it all (and then some) in an over-reaching reprisal. This was the mistake Bush made in Iraq. The world was on our side -- yes, even France -- when we brought down the Taliban. If we had captured Bin Laden in Tora Bora and declared ourselves satisfied, we could have gained stature, even in much of the Islamic world."

Certainly. So presumably this mastermind who's got this all figured was just sitting in Afghanistan, wondering how he could have overlooked a getaway plan? No, he'd long since made his way to Iran or Pakistan before the first US boot hit Afghan dirt. For the war to end there we had to catch him, and to catch him we'd have had to expand the front to one of those neighbors. My money's on Pakistan as it seems less likely we'd roll in there than Iran, but not by a wide margin.

No one said this would be easy. The article refers to "the center" at several points, trying to argue for a non-extreme approach. "The center must hold" indeed, the current strategy is the center. If we attack, we're giving them what they want. If we don't, they kill more of our people in our own lands. A controlled attack with concern for who we kill is the centrist approach. It isn't perfect, it isn't even good, but it's the only truly realistic answer.

We'd all do well to remember that just because something appears to be going according to plan doesn't mean the plan is working. Bin Laden wants US forces in the lands of Islam, but he's taking an awful risk. He's bared his throat to his enemy's knife on the assumption that his people will come to his aid. It's as much up to us as them, and any "plan" is only part of the equation and shouldn't be clung to with much vigor.

clark · 2004-12-01 09:00:55

The point the article was making was that Iraq was stupid. We didn't need to go in like we did, and we have only strengthened the enemies position by driving more moderates into the radical position.

Now we have a grand cluster f*ck because if we go into yet another muslim land, for any reason, we will increase the size and scope of our enemies.

George led us a bridge to far and now we are painted into a corner.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-01 09:21:40

The problem with any discussion on Iraq is that the vast majority of people, even here (myself included on some occassions) have gotten stuck in the trap of our own positions. Those who opposed it are determined to see only that it was stupid, a quagmire, the mad crusade of an idiot. Those who supported it can see only a necessary move to win the war on terror, an advance on our enemies that is crushing them.

Both positions are partially right, and both flat out wrong. Blind, blithering idiot wrong.

Was Iraq necessary? No.

Was Afghanistan necessary? No.

Is war ever necessary? No, but sometimes it's better than the alternative.

Does Iraq weaken the terrorists? Yes and no. They can command greater support yet are expending men and resources at an alarming rate. It can't be sustained. without a steady increase in recruitment and funding.

Does Iraq weaken our position? Yes and no. We have fewer troops to commit to other operations and less political capital to do so. Yet we have an opportunity to kill terrorists, stir them up (just as useful to us as the converse is to them if played right) and practice fighting them in urban areas under live-fire conditions. Harsh, but there it is. We are bleeding resources on a lesser level than they are, but still taking damage though in the short term we have a base of operations in the region and long-term a potential democratic ally to show off to the neighboring states. Ooh, prosperity. Shiny...

Are we losing the War on Terror? No.

Are we winning the War on Terror? No.

Too early to tell either way. We're winning in Afghanistan, Iraq is still very much in play. Iran, Syria, Pakistan etc. are all unkowns. North Korea could be a factor. Calling the war now is foolish.

We can go on and on with this, for every issue in the conflict each side has a germ of truth growing in a festering pool of their own ideologic excrement. Don't expect me to believe that we're going to turn the Middle East into a magical land of brown stooges that worship the dollar and sell us cheap oil, but don't try to convince me that everyone Muslim hates us and we're blundering fools that have started a war we can't win and we're doomed to defeat and ruin.

John Creighton · 2004-12-01 09:27:31

"The Anatomy of Terror" hmmm what book did you rip this tittle off?

Palomar · 2004-12-01 09:44:11

The problem with any discussion on Iraq is that the vast majority of people, even here (myself included on some occassions) have gotten stuck in the trap of our own positions. Those who opposed it are determined to see only that it was stupid, a quagmire, the mad crusade of an idiot. Those who supported it can see only a necessary move to win the war on terror, an advance on our enemies that is crushing them.
Both positions are partially right, and both flat out wrong. Blind, blithering idiot wrong.
Was Iraq necessary? No.
Was Afghanistan necessary? No.
Is war ever necessary? No, but sometimes it's better than the alternative.
Does Iraq weaken the terrorists? Yes and no. They can command greater support yet are expending men and resources at an alarming rate. It can't be sustained. without a steady increase in recruitment and funding.
Does Iraq weaken our position? Yes and no. We have fewer troops to commit to other operations and less political capital to do so. Yet we have an opportunity to kill terrorists, stir them up (just as useful to us as the converse is to them if played right) and practice fighting them in urban areas under live-fire conditions. Harsh, but there it is. We are bleeding resources on a lesser level than they are, but still taking damage though in the short term we have a base of operations in the region and long-term a potential democratic ally to show off to the neighboring states. Ooh, prosperity. Shiny...
Are we losing the War on Terror? No.
Are we winning the War on Terror? No.
Too early to tell either way. We're winning in Afghanistan, Iraq is still very much in play. Iran, Syria, Pakistan etc. are all unkowns. North Korea could be a factor. Calling the war now is foolish.
We can go on and on with this, for every issue in the conflict each side has a germ of truth growing in a festering pool of their own ideologic excrement. Don't expect me to believe that we're going to turn the Middle East into a magical land of brown stooges that worship the dollar and sell us cheap oil, but don't try to convince me that everyone Muslim hates us and we're blundering fools that have started a war we can't win and we're doomed to defeat and ruin.

*Cobra Commander, you are often simply brilliant.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-12-01 09:58:45

Interesting article, though perhaps the most important points are tucked in there and easily overlooked.
"Most people, most of the time, just want to get along. They'll accept a little inconvenience, ignore a few insults, and smile at people they hate if it allows them to get on with their lives. Most people on both sides of your issue just wish the issue would go away. If you're not careful, those apathetic majorities will get together and craft a compromise. And where's your revolution then?"
Quite true, which is largely why we went in to Iraq with fewer troops than an outright conquest would have required, why we're so careful about what we bomb and when, why we're so reluctant to enter cities and slaughter insurgents. Yet at the same time this means that civil war may be the best thing that could happen from our perspective. Rampant death, destruction, terror and mayhem doesn't harm us severely if the bulk of the population doesn't in their guts feel that we're causing it.

This is exactly what Paul Bremer did NOT do. The neo-cons fully intended to wipe the slate clean and establish western capitalism by fiat on an ancient society.

The Atlantic Monthly article about how we fired ALL of Bahgdad's traffic cops and had a Maryland personal injury lawyer (he was in the Guard) draft new traffic laws based on the Maryland state code is only one example. Pretty damn funny in a sad sort of way.

Today, Iraq has no functioning system for vehicle titles and registration. Therefore, it is being flooded with stolen BMWs and Mercedes from Europe.

Remember that blue & white flag business? We spent a full year attempting to reshape Iraq as if it were malleable clay.

= = =

But it doesn't matter now.

Sistani will gain power after the elections and Iraq will become a Shia theocratic state with a largely autonomous Kurdistan.

Fortunately, bin Laden loathes Sistani because Sistani is the non-confrontational sort of guy who will not call out millions of Shia to fight the West.

= = =

But the bigger picture for the article applies more to Israel and the PLO. 25 years ago (Gawd!) I had lunch with two Jewish classmates at college.

One started ranitng about Arafat's latest outrage. The other calmly ate his lunch and said "Arafat will die an old man, in bed."

"How can you say that! the first student demanded. "Arafat is a monster! Our secret police should kill him, now."

"Yes he is a monster, and yes, Mossad could kill him easily enough" the 2nd student said. "But Arafat being leader of the PLO is just too useful to the Israeli government. Lkke I said, Arafat will die an old man, in bed."

I suddenly recalled this lunch in vivid detail when I read about Arafat's death.

BWhite · 2004-12-01 10:00:15

The problem with any discussion on Iraq is that the vast majority of people, even here (myself included on some occassions) have gotten stuck in the trap of our own positions. Those who opposed it are determined to see only that it was stupid, a quagmire, the mad crusade of an idiot. Those who supported it can see only a necessary move to win the war on terror, an advance on our enemies that is crushing them.
Both positions are partially right, and both flat out wrong. Blind, blithering idiot wrong.
Was Iraq necessary? No.
Was Afghanistan necessary? No.
Is war ever necessary? No, but sometimes it's better than the alternative.
Does Iraq weaken the terrorists? Yes and no. They can command greater support yet are expending men and resources at an alarming rate. It can't be sustained. without a steady increase in recruitment and funding.
Does Iraq weaken our position? Yes and no. We have fewer troops to commit to other operations and less political capital to do so. Yet we have an opportunity to kill terrorists, stir them up (just as useful to us as the converse is to them if played right) and practice fighting them in urban areas under live-fire conditions. Harsh, but there it is. We are bleeding resources on a lesser level than they are, but still taking damage though in the short term we have a base of operations in the region and long-term a potential democratic ally to show off to the neighboring states. Ooh, prosperity. Shiny...
Are we losing the War on Terror? No.
Are we winning the War on Terror? No.
Too early to tell either way. We're winning in Afghanistan, Iraq is still very much in play. Iran, Syria, Pakistan etc. are all unkowns. North Korea could be a factor. Calling the war now is foolish.
We can go on and on with this, for every issue in the conflict each side has a germ of truth growing in a festering pool of their own ideologic excrement. Don't expect me to believe that we're going to turn the Middle East into a magical land of brown stooges that worship the dollar and sell us cheap oil, but don't try to convince me that everyone Muslim hates us and we're blundering fools that have started a war we can't win and we're doomed to defeat and ruin.
*Cobra Commander, you are often simply brilliant.
--Cindy

And in this case, DEAD WRONG! Cindy want to make a bet?

Palomar · 2004-12-01 10:06:03

And in this case, DEAD WRONG! Cindy want to make a bet?

*Nope. Because I think Cobra's post is impeccably rational.

His intellectual prowess is formidable, and a joy to behold.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-01 10:06:24

This is exactly what Paul Bremer did NOT do. The neo-cons fully intended to wipe the slate clean and establish western capitalism by fiat on an ancient society.

Yes, and we should have stopped the terrorists before they got on the planes, and we should never have gone into Vietnam, and McClellan should have pursued the rebs instead of setting camp, and the Romans should have just exiled Jesus to Alexandria and some such place. Yeah, great. But let's look at the here and now.

And in this case, DEAD WRONG! Cindy want to make a bet?

So, are you saying that one side of this argument is entirely 100% right and the other totally flat out wrong? You really want to go on record with that, Bill? :;):

BWhite · 2004-12-01 10:07:07

Does Iraq weaken our position? Yes and no. We have fewer troops to commit to other operations and less political capital to do so. Yet we have an opportunity to kill terrorists, stir them up (just as useful to us as the converse is to them if played right) and practice fighting them in urban areas under live-fire conditions. Harsh, but there it is. We are bleeding resources on a lesser level than they are, but still taking damage though in the short term we have a base of operations in the region and long-term a potential democratic ally to show off to the neighboring states. Ooh, prosperity. Shiny...

If this proves true. But if this starts proving true, expect escalated outrages against cooperative Iraqis. And oil sabotage.

And if Sistani's followers win the January elections, we wither leave or fight an enemy many times larger than our current enemy. The Shia are sitting on the hands, keeping their powder dry because THEY will pervail at the ballot box.

= = =

But no further point in arguing about Iraq. January and February and March will come soon enough and reality cannot be escaped.

I posted the essay as being insightful into how terror works, and why. Like when confronted with the Milgram experiemnt stuff, some people just refuse to face reality. Until it blows up in their face.

Bush won the right to try it his way. Lets just wait and see what happens.

clark · 2004-12-01 10:07:45

60 billion a year Cobra.

The terroists spend a few hundred dollars for a guy with no job to join the jihad.

After Iraq, they will just go somewhere else, disappear into the sands, and will we chase them?

We can't keep spending at this rate. Not forever.

I think the article missed the mark on one count- the terroists will not strike church land americana. It will strike our economic centers.

They will hit a port. They will hit the oil lines. They will inflict damage on us economically dispropritante to what we can inflict on them.

Bin Laden has stated that they are fighting a war of attrition life Afghanistan with the Soviets. That's what they are doing now in Iraq.

They're not becoming fewer in number, they are growing. Our casulties are increasing, not decreasing. We are passing extra spending bill after extra spending bill to keep paying for this war.

They are trying to break the bank- something we should know about because that's what we did to the Soviets.

And in this case, DEAD WRONG! Cindy want to make a bet?

:laugh:

BWhite · 2004-12-01 10:09:13

This is exactly what Paul Bremer did NOT do. The neo-cons fully intended to wipe the slate clean and establish western capitalism by fiat on an ancient society.
Yes, and we should have stopped the terrorists before they got on the planes, and we should never have gone into Vietnam, and McClellan should have pursued the rebs instead of setting camp, and the Romans should have just exiled Jesus to Alexandria and some such place. Yeah, great. But let's look at the here and now.
And in this case, DEAD WRONG! Cindy want to make a bet?
So, are you saying that one side of this argument is entirely 100% right and the other totally flat out wrong? You really want to go on record with that, Bill? :;):

Nope!

We should have removed Saddam and given the keys to Iraq to Sistani sooner rather than later. The Shia we screwed in 1990 are our best allies.

The sooner we accept that Sistani is the BEST we can hope for, the sooner this all ends.

Edited By BWhite on 1101917399

BWhite · 2004-12-01 10:13:30

I think the article missed the mark on one count- the terroists will not strike church land americana. It will strike our economic centers.

I disagree. They cannot match 9/11 for economic impact.

Striking a big church will also stir up internal American conflicts. After such an attack, any American who does not profess Jesus as his/her personal saviour will be deemed suspect by the rabid reds.

That will damage our economy more than losing a factory or pipeline.

Edited By BWhite on 1101917655

clark · 2004-12-01 10:17:47

Arguing the here and now?

Bah. The here and now is we're screwed. We're in a box we can't get out, and we did it to ourselves. But enough of that, what do we do now?

We don't do a god damn thing and hope and pray it all works out and that Iran tows the line, that Syria minds it's P's and Q's and Musharraf can keep a lid on Pakistan.

We have no options because of Iraq. We have limited choices, all bad, in dealing with any new events on the horizon.

So what happens? Well, we go forward with the token election, because we have to, even though the Iraqi's themselves are calling for a delay. We need that so we can get out. We need to get out so we can be a credible threat to the rest of the world. While in Iraq, we are simply defanged.

So what happens if Sistani gets killed? Whose going to keep the Shia in check then? Sadr?

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-01 10:22:34

After Iraq, they will just go somewhere else, disappear into the sands, and will we chase them?
We can't keep spending at this rate. Not forever.

No, we can't. And they can't afford to lose in Iraq. If we take it too slow we pay too much, they have more time. This is partly why we've been more aggressive of late. In order to win they have to drag this out, we just have to kill them faster without pissing off the locals too much.

The sooner we accept that Sistani is the BEST we can hope for, the sooner this all ends.

I can accept that, though my preference (from a purely strategic standpoint) is to turn the country over to Sistani with the exception of an independent (probably nominal rather than formal) Kurdistan. They're settled, they don't have a big beef with us. Let a moderate Shia cleric run the rest of the place for awhile, stir up the terrorists and non-jihadist Sunnis just by being there with the authority. Nothing like thousand-year-old religious BS to distract people and keep them focused on things other than fighting us.

BWhite · 2004-12-01 10:25:00

clark, I agree. The die is cast and six months or a year from now we will see what happens.

Sistani has followers slightly younger than him who honor the seniority system (unlike Sadr) - - the Iraqi Shia survived Saddam for goodness sakes. That teaches craftiness.

= = =

What is ironic is that because we are in Iraq, our ability to whack Iranian nuclear facilities with air strikes or special forces is actually reduced because Iran has not openly entered the Iraq war.

If Saddam were still in power (or if Saddam were gone and we also had already withdrawn) I'd say send in Delta Force and the B-2s and clean out those Iranian enrichment facilities.

Do that today, and the Green Zone will start receiving thousands of Iranian missiles and hundreds of thousands of Iranian soldiers will flood into Iraq.

BWhite · 2004-12-01 10:26:29

The sooner we accept that Sistani is the BEST we can hope for, the sooner this all ends.
I can accept that, though my preference (from a purely strategic standpoint) is to turn the country over to Sistani with the exception of an independent (probably nominal rather than formal) Kurdistan. They're settled, they don't have a big beef with us. Let a moderate Shia cleric run the rest of the place for awhile, stir up the terrorists and non-jihadist Sunnis just by being there with the authority. Nothing like thousand-year-old religious BS to distract people and keep them focused on things other than fighting us.

Okay, we agree.

Whew!

Go back in the threads. I have been saying for years that the Kurds deserve their own country.

clark · 2004-12-01 10:31:54

No, we can't. And they can't afford to lose in Iraq. If we take it too slow we pay too much, they have more time. This is partly why we've been more aggressive of late. In order to win they have to drag this out, we just have to kill them faster without pissing off the locals too much.

They can afford to lose in Iraq. Iraq dosen't matter to them other than as an opportunity to cost us blood and treasure and use us as means to radicalize more muslims.

We're being more aggressive because 2004 elections are done and we want to speed up the election in Iraq.

We've already paid too much and we are paying more by watching a lot of are other interests spiral out of our control.

After Iraq, they will go wave their flag in another country, and we will follow. That's what we will get. They will cement the deal by inflicting another strike on us to goad us into attacking somewhere, anywhere.

clark · 2004-12-01 10:33:00

Sure, Kurdishland. What about Turkey? You think they might not be a bit upset by that?

BWhite · 2004-12-01 10:38:09

Sure, Kurdishland. What about Turkey? You think they might not be a bit upset by that?

Water under the bridge. That eggshell has already been cracked. How many US Marines will it take to subdue the peshmerga? We ain't got enough.

Besides Israel has already been forming pacts with the Kurds.

We talked about this exact point 2 years ago, remember?

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-01 10:39:15

They can afford to lose in Iraq. Iraq dosen't matter to them other than as an opportunity to cost us blood and treasure and use us as means to radicalize more muslims.

If Iraq becomes a moderately free, secular state not ruled by a murdering goon it will stand in direct opposition to what the terrorists seek to create. The people of the region will have an example of a viable alternative to look to, and the enemy can't afford that. That is why they fight so hard in Iraq.

It doesn't mean that after the elections we've won, it doesn't even mean we're winning. This is going to take time, and in order to win we might even have to lose for the sake of appearances. To say that we're boxed in and have no options is just as blind and foolish as to claim the original plan can still be implemented without modification.

clark · 2004-12-01 10:40:49

If Iraq becomes a moderately free, secular state not ruled by a murdering goon it will stand in direct opposition to what the terrorists seek to create. The people of the region will have an example of a viable alternative to look to, and the enemy can't afford that. That is why they fight so hard in Iraq.

That's why we fight so hard.

They fight for entirely different reasons.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-01 11:19:07

That's why we fight so hard.
They fight for entirely different reasons.

Yes, you mentioned this:

Iraq dosen't matter to them other than as an opportunity to cost us blood and treasure and use us as means to radicalize more muslims.

So establishing a free state, a viable alternative to radical Islamic theocracy, doesn't matter to them?

They just want to kill us. You're almost in line with the Administration. :laugh:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-11-30 17:40:13

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#2 2004-12-01 08:32:42

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#3 2004-12-01 08:52:05

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#4 2004-12-01 09:00:55

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#5 2004-12-01 09:21:40

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#6 2004-12-01 09:27:31

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#7 2004-12-01 09:44:11

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#8 2004-12-01 09:58:45

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#9 2004-12-01 10:00:15

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#10 2004-12-01 10:06:03

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#11 2004-12-01 10:06:24

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#12 2004-12-01 10:07:07

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#13 2004-12-01 10:07:45

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#14 2004-12-01 10:09:13

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#15 2004-12-01 10:13:30

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#16 2004-12-01 10:17:47

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#17 2004-12-01 10:22:34

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#18 2004-12-01 10:25:00

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#19 2004-12-01 10:26:29

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#20 2004-12-01 10:31:54

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#21 2004-12-01 10:33:00

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#22 2004-12-01 10:38:09

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#23 2004-12-01 10:39:15

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#24 2004-12-01 10:40:49

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

#25 2004-12-01 11:19:07

Re: The Anatomy of Terror - Opinions on this essay?

Board footer