PDA

View Full Version : CNN Empathizes With Times Square Bomber's Home Foreclosure


Venom
05-06-2010, 06:58 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR62p-qrQSI


This Jim Acosta of CNN is saying that the terrorist had problems due to the foreclosure of his house. Maybe that was the reason he tried to kill hundreds in Times Square. Only a Liberal could turn a Terrorist into a Victim

revefsreleets
05-06-2010, 07:40 AM
I read several stories that stated the terrorist had a huge problem with Bush.

So he, and several pop media outlets, as well as many posters here, have "Bu-bu-bu-Bush" in common.

Venom
05-06-2010, 08:18 AM
This animal has a problem with America . Period .

Godfather
05-06-2010, 09:05 PM
Well, if Obama had delivered the Hope and Change and paid this guy's mortgage, this wouldn't have happened.

NJarhead
05-06-2010, 09:11 PM
I heard he parked across from the Lion King too. Bastard.

NJarhead
05-06-2010, 09:16 PM
I heard he parked across from the Lion King too. Bastard.

tony hipchest
05-06-2010, 10:11 PM
come again? :chuckle:

i agree... dudes a bastard, even if he wouldve attempted to blow up a 'Pink Flamingo' festival in baltimore.

strange how nobody on this board even seemed to give a damn about this most recent attempted terrorist attack, until a partisan political spin could be slapped on it.

then again, looking at the 1st 2 posters in this thread, is there any suprise? they are the types who wish it wouldve actually went off so they could assign MORE blame and have even MORE fuel for their hatred.

it seems the forclosure angle brings to light how easy it would be for any fringe extremist idiot, who's down on their luck, to be bought off and become a puppet for a larger cause (whether that is or is not the case remains to be seen).

:shout:- BLAME!

GBMelBlount
05-06-2010, 10:38 PM
come again? :chuckle:

strange how nobody on this board even seemed to give a damn about this most recent attempted terrorist attack, until a partisan political spin could be slapped on it.

:shout:- BLAME!

Agreed Tony.

I think that we're all amazed that CNN appears to be slapping a partisan political spin on this....

tony hipchest
05-06-2010, 10:49 PM
they have medicines now that will help get rid of the hallucinations...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/06/times.square.probe/index.html?hpt=T2

steelwalls
05-06-2010, 11:15 PM
I dont know... Seems like everyone that I personally know whos been effected buy the houseing fallout would never consider parking a bomb in Time Square and hopping the first plane to the Middle East.. but call me crazy?

The guy is a terrorist thats all I need to know. I dont care if he was sexually abused, lost his house, wife, car and dog. He'll get no sympathy from me.

MasterOfPuppets
05-06-2010, 11:26 PM
yeah i feel bad for him.......bring on the execution !!! :applaudit:

Leftoverhard
05-06-2010, 11:29 PM
What's interesting is how people keep calling what was in that car a "bomb."

tony hipchest
05-06-2010, 11:38 PM
What's interesting is how people keep calling what was in that car a "bomb."fox news said it was an "atom bomb" :noidea:

0F324755_oA

revefsreleets
05-07-2010, 08:33 AM
Well, it turns out CNN (and others) were wrong. This was not about his foreclosure or about hating Bush. In FACT, it's about a US-born cleric named Anwar al-Awlaki who had a big hand in radicalizing Faisal Shahzad, who, ironically as it turns out, is also linked to the terrorist-act-that-Obama-decided-not-to-call-a-terrorist-act at Fort Hood.

Blame, indeed.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/0507/US-born-cleric-inspired-Times-Square-bomber-Faisal-Shahzad

NJarhead
05-07-2010, 10:49 AM
come again? :chuckle:

i agree... dudes a bastard, even if he wouldve attempted to blow up a 'Pink Flamingo' festival in baltimore.

strange how nobody on this board even seemed to give a damn about this most recent attempted terrorist attack, until a partisan political spin could be slapped on it.

then again, looking at the 1st 2 posters in this thread, is there any suprise? they are the types who wish it wouldve actually went off so they could assign MORE blame and have even MORE fuel for their hatred.

it seems the forclosure angle brings to light how easy it would be for any fringe extremist idiot, who's down on their luck, to be bought off and become a puppet for a larger cause (whether that is or is not the case remains to be seen).

:shout:- BLAME!


Let me clarify, the Lion King is frequented by little kids.

NJarhead
05-07-2010, 10:51 AM
What's interesting is how people keep calling what was in that car a "bomb."

Why are you getting technical? I've heard it called bomb, but mostly "crude explosive device with the potential to cause great damage."

Leftoverhard
05-07-2010, 10:52 AM
Well, it turns out CNN (and others) were wrong. This was not about his foreclosure or about hating Bush. In FACT, it's about a US-born cleric named Anwar al-Awlaki who had a big hand in radicalizing Faisal Shahzad, who, ironically as it turns out, is also linked to the terrorist-act-that-Obama-decided-not-to-call-a-terrorist-act at Fort Hood.

Blame, indeed.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/0507/US-born-cleric-inspired-Times-Square-bomber-Faisal-Shahzad

Interesting - but I have a feeling that this information will change soon as well.
I'm having a really hard time believing any of the "intel" that keeps coming out on this matter because of statements like this The bombmaking expertise and funding possibly came from the Pakistani Taliban or other extremist groups in Pakistan.
They might as well say that the "bombmaking expertise" came from Pee Wee Herman's Playhouse. I just don't get it. To think that terrorist groups don't know squat about making bombs is naive beyond words.

I still want to see video footage of that guy driving that pathfinder or getting out of it. It's Times Square! They should have a short film from all the footage compiled from all kinds of sources.
Statements like this: As a result, the United States is likely to push Pakistan to press harder against militant enclaves in that country’s North Waziristan region, deemed the epicenter of the network behind the failed bombing. make me feel like this whole thing is BS. For one thing, the fact that this "incident" is causing international problems is suspect. Second, failed bombing? This must be questioned - there is a very big missing link here - the first clue........no bomb. In fact, most of the crap in that car is ordinary. Big difference between regular gas, closed propane tanks (???) a pressure cooker, some wires (why?), a clock, some non-oxidized fertilizer in a gun safe and some weak firecrackers - and a real device. It seriously looks like something many 7 year olds would dream up. And like I said, I think it's stupid to chalk this up to "dumb terrorist." "Dumb terrorist" is employed as a mule by actual experienced bombmakers to ignite a device (Reid) - experienced bombmakers might leave a viable timed device at the scene (yousef) but it wouldn't be such a piece of crap not even something that would work on a movie set like this thing. The media (not left wing, not right wing - all of it) doesn't even bother to dig on stories anymore. It seems like they just take whatever they're fed by whatever source or google it and hand it to us like stupid idiots. I'm not buying any of this BS story - and it has nothing to do with politics.

Leftoverhard
05-07-2010, 11:00 AM
Why are you getting technical? I've heard it called bomb, but mostly "crude explosive device with the potential to cause great damage."

Just saw your post - I explain above. My point is - closed propane tanks do not an explosive device make. A car with a full gas tank (all over times square) has the capability of as much damage as anything incendiary. Very big difference between bomb and that. Everything else after that is questionable. If a terrorist organization wanted to pull a truck full of (pick your poison) and detonate at times square, they could easily do that. If they didn't have access to ANFO or other high explosives, they could make something else - but this would not be it, not by anyone who actually wanted to cause damage. I think that's crucially important to this story - and I think it's important I'm not looking at this politically - it's just not a viable device. I think we need to get to the bottom of this - but nothing adds up so far starting with the most important thing.

NJarhead
05-07-2010, 11:13 AM
Just saw your post - I explain above. My point is - closed propane tanks do not an explosive device make. A car with a full gas tank (all over times square) has the capability of as much damage as anything incendiary. Very big difference between bomb and that. Everything else after that is questionable. If a terrorist organization wanted to pull a truck full of (pick your poison) and detonate at times square, they could easily do that. If they didn't have access to ANFO or other high explosives, they could make something else - but this would not be it, not by anyone who actually wanted to cause damage. I think that's crucially important to this story - and I think it's important I'm not looking at this politically - it's just not a viable device. I think we need to get to the bottom of this - but nothing adds up so far starting with the most important thing.

I think:

A). There is nothing political about at all.
B). The "Improvised Explosive Device" had plenty of potential to cause damage and bodily harm.
C). The dude acted alone: He was an American who became disgruntled ONLY because things started not working the way he wanted them. I don't believe he was recruited. At least not until the former occurred.

UPDATE: I should have finished reading this mornings' paper. Scratch "C."

SteelMember
05-07-2010, 11:28 AM
Just saw your post - I explain above. My point is - closed propane tanks do not an explosive device make. A car with a full gas tank (all over times square) has the capability of as much damage as anything incendiary. Very big difference between bomb and that. Everything else after that is questionable. If a terrorist organization wanted to pull a truck full of (pick your poison) and detonate at times square, they could easily do that. If they didn't have access to ANFO or other high explosives, they could make something else - but this would not be it, not by anyone who actually wanted to cause damage. I think that's crucially important to this story - and I think it's important I'm not looking at this politically - it's just not a viable device. I think we need to get to the bottom of this - but nothing adds up so far starting with the most important thing.

I'm not going to argue your "bomb making expertise", which is a little disturbing in and of itself, but having "some" of the ingredients assembled together in a single area seems like a good enough reason to make an assumption that it could be used for such a reason.

I mean, the shit people use to cook up crystal meth is "highly explosive", and it's nothing more crude than some of this stuff. Sure, lithium batteries or coffee filters aren't anything by themselves, but put them in the vicinity of a few other choice components, and you have a pretty good picture of what was going on.

Besides, maybe this guy was just given a "recipe", or did some general research on the matter, and the fertilizer was just a simple mistake from his "lack of experience". That doesn't mean he still didn't want something to happen. Even if he was a novice. I'm sure the "contacts" didn't care if he was an expert. Just as long as he was willing to make the attempt, and give credit in their name... especially if it had been successful.

Leftoverhard
05-07-2010, 11:37 AM
I think:

A). There is nothing political about at all.
B). The "Improvised Explosive Device" had plenty of potential to cause damage and bodily harm.
C). The dude acted alone: He was an American who became disgruntled ONLY because things started not working the way he wanted them. I don't believe he was recruited. At least not until the former occurred.

I think it's a hard sell though calling it an IED though. It's more than just semantics especially if you're looking at this critically.
A pipe bomb is an IED but I would not call that a WMD.
A car with random everyday items, firecrackers, small gasoline cans and a closed bbq sized propane tank is an incendiary hazard.
The same car with open propane tanks and proper ignition (and how easy would it be to add shrapnel, which wasn't added) could definitely be called an IED.
If it was his intent to close down Times Square, then his plan worked. I've been racking my brain trying to come up with why someone would do such an amateur job - I can't do it. The only profile it fits is batsh** crazy.

Leftoverhard
05-07-2010, 11:44 AM
I'm not going to argue your "bomb making expertise", which is a little disturbing in and of itself

Let me stop you there - big difference between bombmaking expertise and knowledge of the subject matter (me). Also a big difference between knowing nothing about the subject matter (most people) and knowing a few important key elements (the experts) that make this whole thing suspect.

Venom
05-07-2010, 11:52 AM
Being a Liberal myself , I get my news from Comedy Central . As of right now , I dont know what to call it .

fansince'76
05-07-2010, 12:13 PM
I'm not going to argue your "bomb making expertise", which is a little disturbing in and of itself, but having "some" of the ingredients assembled together in a single area seems like a good enough reason to make an assumption that it could be used for such a reason.

I mean, the shit people use to cook up crystal meth is "highly explosive", and it's nothing more crude than some of this stuff. Sure, lithium batteries or coffee filters aren't anything by themselves, but put them in the vicinity of a few other choice components, and you have a pretty good picture of what was going on.

Besides, maybe this guy was just given a "recipe", or did some general research on the matter, and the fertilizer was just a simple mistake from his "lack of experience". That doesn't mean he still didn't want something to happen. Even if he was a novice. I'm sure the "contacts" didn't care if he was an expert. Just as long as he was willing to make the attempt, and give credit in their name... especially if it had been successful.

I look at it this way - if most of these terrorists are this frigging clueless (and from what I've seen, by and large, they are (see also: Richard Reid)), we thankfully don't have much to really worry about - just wait for them to trip over themselves and then nail their asses to the wall. And there is NO QUESTION in my mind that this dude was trying to blow shit up.

SteelMember
05-07-2010, 12:25 PM
Let me stop you there - big difference between bombmaking expertise and knowledge of the subject matter (me). Also a big difference between knowing nothing about the subject matter (most people) and knowing a few important key elements (the experts) that make this whole thing suspect.

I would agree that the "information" is out there, and I'm also sure that links and/or books to such information have certian flags attached to them when accessed. Just as the fertilizer needed probably has certian, necessary paper work that needs to be filled out when purchased even for agriculture. Which is a good reason why it is either "stolen" or substituted for.

In this case, the guy wasn't a chemist, or expert in the process. Maybe he thought the component was enough for what he needed. (looks at the label of ingredients, and assumes it can be used instead)

If the fertilizer was correct, would that be enough?

My point was that I think there were enough components present to make the assumption.

I mean, did the shoe bomber give a perfect example of his craft?

No, but (imo) the intent was there.

revefsreleets
05-07-2010, 12:37 PM
Woah....just listened to a panel of experts talking about this very issue. The reason this "bomb" didn't blow is the dude used a cheap M-80, some kind of firework that wasn't potent enough to get the bomb going. But the important point is that this guy was radicalized by a Muslim cleric, he went home for some training, and because he's NOT AN EXPERT, he effed up and the bomb didn't blow. He's a "B-team" terrorist. One of the main reasons they are using B-team terrorists is because so many of the seasoned vets, i.e. "A-team" are dead or being tracked. So they are shifting tactics again. This is what they have to work with.

Also, this was not a simple little IED. This bomb took a couple weeks to assemble. It was pretty intricate...now, of course, not nuclear bomb intricate, but they suspect he had help, because of the relative complexity.

Finally, this is terrorism. It wouldn't necessarily need to kill thousands of people to be "effective". When the bomb would have blown, the vehicle would have caused a lot of shrapnel to fly, and a LOT of people would have been injured, and several killed. It would have caused widespread panic.

IF the bomb would have blown, most of the evidence they now have would have been destroyed. It's likely this guy could have done this again, perhaps this time in a tunnel under one of the East River tunnels.

SteelMember
05-07-2010, 12:37 PM
I look at it this way - if most of these terrorists are this frigging clueless (and from what I've seen, by and large, they are (see also: Richard Reid)), we thankfully don't have much to really worry about - just wait for them to trip over themselves and then nail their asses to the wall. And there is NO QUESTION in my mind that this dude was trying to blow shit up.

Clueless and/or inept as they seem, they will be used as puppets for others.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

revefsreleets
05-07-2010, 12:48 PM
In fact, as of about 6 minutes ago (1:40PM Friday), Times Square has just been closed down due to a suspicious package.

THIS is how terrorism, even a failed act of terrorism, is effective in a society that is REactive, not PROactive.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100507/us_nm/us_timessquare_package_3

Leftoverhard
05-07-2010, 12:52 PM
Also, this was not a simple little IED. This bomb took a couple weeks to assemble. It was pretty intricate...now, of course, not nuclear bomb intricate, but they suspect he had help, because of the relative complexity.



Please elaborate.

MasterOfPuppets
05-07-2010, 01:09 PM
Whether Shahzad had ties to a foreign terrorist group or not, officials following the case earlier observed that the failed bombing seemed poorly plotted. Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism expert at Flashpoint Partners, was most struck by the amateurishness of what he calls "this so-called bomb." The alarm clocks designed to trigger the blast were 1960s-era technology. "Every terror group, every homegrown extremist cell, knows how to use remote detonators," he says. "It doesn't take a Ph.D. in electrical engineering." Beyond that, Kohlmann adds, its overall design — clocks setting off fireworks to ignite gas and gasoline — "doesn't exist outside of Tom and Jerry cartoons."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1986842,00.html#ixzz0nEcimutK

revefsreleets
05-07-2010, 01:16 PM
The bomb wasn't super complicated, but it was probably TOO complicated for this guy to make own...he most likely had some help with it, at least that is what the reports I heard on NPR were saying.

It had a detonator (the failed fireworks) and canisters of gas and propane, as well as a 200 lb "cabinet" filled with fertilizer. There were some wires connecting timers to the canister with the fireworks in it.

Anyway, why is it so difficult to believe he had connections to terrorists prior to this?

revefsreleets
05-07-2010, 01:18 PM
Oh Christ, I should know better than post anything up here...here comes the braintrust right behind me basically refuting anything I post.

He had a "Sugar Daddy"
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/05/07/2010-05-07_hunt_for_times_square_car_bomb_plot_money_couri er_who_funneled_cash_to_plotter_f.html

Only had "basic" bomb training
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7684967/Times-Square-bomb-evidence-mounts-of-Pakistan-Taliban-link.html


http://www.3news.co.nz/Times-Square-bomber-suspect-did-dry-run/tabid/417/articleID/154580/Default.aspx
Kevin Barry, a retired member of the New York Police Department's bomb squad, told the AP the design of the Times Square car bomb - which included fertilizer and an improvised fireworks-and-powder detonator - showed Shahzad had sufficient training to understand the basics of rigging an explosive device. But the bomb, which included fertilizer that was incapable of exploding, was a failure.

"He was trained, but he certainly didn't graduate at the top of the class," said Barry. "He had the design and the idea."

Officials have said the gray 1993 Nissan Pathfinder loaded with firecrackers, gasoline and propane could have created a huge fireball and killed nearby tourists and Broadway theatergoers if it had gone off successfully.

Leftoverhard
05-07-2010, 01:26 PM
Here's a great example of the kind of information that's out there on this "device." From Newsweek (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/05/03/times-square-bomber-made-relatively-clever-efforts-to-cover-tracks.aspx) - First they call it a "bomb" then they call a M-88 firecracker a "detonator" - the explanation of the propane tanks (the only potentially dangerous thing in the vehicle) is spot on - but then the liberal use of words like bomb and detonator are perplexing. An M-88 is a detonator no more than a match is. In this case, if you were carrying around some black cats in your car, your car is now a VBIED. Presto! That's like saying because I pointed my finger like it was a gun at someone, it's the thought that counts and I have a deadly weapon pointed at you.

The bomb was composed of the kind of household components—propane tanks, alarm clocks, gasoline cans, a gun carrier—that could be bought at hardware or household goods stores (except for the M-88 firecrackers used in the would-be detonator, which would have to be purchased in a state like Pennsylvania or Virginia where firecracker sales are legal). However, because propane tanks, which in this case apparently were intended to be the bomb's main explosive charge, are made of thick metal and designed to be fire resistant, a hot fire would have to burn for an extended period of time before the tanks exploded; in this case, emergency services arrived on the scene even before the initial firecracker detonators had initiated the gasoline which apparently was supposed to be the bomb's second stage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANFO

Terrorism experts say that better bomb-making designs can be found through online searches, though this is also a hit-or-miss proposition, since many bomb recipes posted on the Internet are of dubious provenance and validity.

Just try finding instructions on making this thing on the internet. You can't. But there is real info out there - t's scary how much info is out there - luckily the concepts elude most people.

While investigators and experts are saying that the bomb which authorities defused in an SUV at New York's Times Square on Saturday night was so crudely designed and constructed as to be almost idiotic, some investigators also say that one reason that the would-be bomber or bombers have not yet been arrested is that they made relatively sophisticated efforts to cover their tracks and conceal their identity (or identities).

Sophisticated? Like leaving the keys in the car or hopping on a plane a few days later after they "figured it out?" Wow, talk about irresponsible journalism... And this is the same bogus info that every news source is feeding to us. I'm sorry - if you aren't skeptical about this whole thing, then I don't know what else to say.

SteelMember
05-07-2010, 01:30 PM
The alarm clocks designed to trigger the blast were 1960s-era technology. "Every terror group, every homegrown extremist cell, knows how to use remote detonators," he says. "It doesn't take a Ph.D. in electrical engineering."

So a digital clock is soooo passay. I guess I need a new method of getting up in the morning. My routine is so antiquated.

Are remote detonators really that common knowlege? really.

I could walk down to Georgia Tech and find plenty of engineers who probably couldn't tell you how to use a cell phone, or the likes as a detonator for an explosive. In theory, yes maybe, but to actually do it... I'm not so sure.

I guess we need to take better notes when we attend the movies, or watch MacGyver.

revefsreleets
05-07-2010, 01:37 PM
Wikipedia?

What is your point, Lefty? That this wasn't terrorism? I simply don't understand what your position is. Are you defending this guy? Or claiming he didn't have any help? I rarely get your POV, and I'm lost here...

SteelCityMom
05-07-2010, 01:41 PM
Anybody can figure out how to build a bomb. And yes, all the basic info is on the internet. This guy did a piss poor job of it. If somebody trained him, they did a crap job of it. Meth heads can build a better bomb than this guy.

revefsreleets
05-07-2010, 01:54 PM
Anybody can figure out how to build a bomb. And yes, all the basic info is on the internet. This guy did a piss poor job of it. If somebody trained him, they did a crap job of it. Meth heads can build a better bomb than this guy.

Perhaps he got cold feet? I don't know...he's awful cooperative now. He spoke for awhile before they Mirandized him, and then, instead of lawyer up and zipping it....he kept right on gabbing.

Even though the bomb failed, it was still capable of shooting up a huge fireball, so it he at least engineered something capable of that...

Leftoverhard
05-07-2010, 02:06 PM
Wikipedia?

What is your point, Lefty? That this wasn't terrorism? I simply don't understand what your position is. Are you defending this guy? Or claiming he didn't have any help? I rarely get your POV, and I'm lost here...

Sorry - thought I'd make the links more comfortable for people. Go ahead and google it in case you're afraid the info isn't vetted constantly on Wikipedia for information like this.

My point is - I don't believe anything that is happening in this whole timeline because I happen to understand the subject matter quite well. The media's hype on the capabilities of this "bomb" makes me question any of the info that comes after. If you actually read anything I wrote you would get that. I'm not arguing with you - you get very upset for no reason a lot. I'm sorry I set you off so easily. Maybe you should just put me on ignore. That would be fine with me.

SteelCityMom
05-07-2010, 02:09 PM
Perhaps he got cold feet? I don't know...he's awful cooperative now. He spoke for awhile before they Mirandized him, and then, instead of lawyer up and zipping it....he kept right on gabbing.

Even though the bomb failed, it was still capable of shooting up a huge fireball, so it he at least engineered something capable of that...

Hell, I'd be cooperative too. The laundry list of charges he's facing is no joke. It's possible cooperating gives him a better chance of having a solitary cell than a cell where he might be killed in his sleep by a red-blooded American criminal ya know.

And yes, I know the bomb was still capable of doing some damage...it just sounds like this guy did this on his own. If he'd had outside training I imagine it would have been a little bit more sophisticated. Maybe he's just saying he had outside help to save some face?

GBMelBlount
05-07-2010, 07:12 PM
SteelCityMom

It's possible cooperating gives him a better chance of having a solitary cell than a cell where he might be killed in his sleep by a red-blooded American criminal ya know.



Fortunately for him, he will probably have as many sympathizers in jail as "red blooded Americans."

As was just pointed out in another thread, it is likely that the majority of people who live in this country don't even respect the American flag any more.

Hell, maybe he can run for office if he ever gets out...

7SteelGal43
05-07-2010, 07:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR62p-qrQSI


This Jim Acosta of CNN is saying that the terrorist had problems due to the foreclosure of his house. Maybe that was the reason he tried to kill hundreds in Times Square. Only a Liberal could turn a Terrorist into a Victim



AMEN !! and the TRUTH shall set you FREE

7SteelGal43
05-07-2010, 07:45 PM
come again? :chuckle:

i agree... dudes a bastard, even if he wouldve attempted to blow up a 'Pink Flamingo' festival in baltimore.

strange how nobody on this board even seemed to give a damn about this most recent attempted terrorist attack, until a partisan political spin could be slapped on it.

then again, looking at the 1st 2 posters in this thread, is there any suprise? they are the types who wish it wouldve actually went off so they could assign MORE blame and have even MORE fuel for their hatred.

it seems the forclosure angle brings to light how easy it would be for any fringe extremist idiot, who's down on their luck, to be bought off and become a puppet for a larger cause (whether that is or is not the case remains to be seen).

:shout:- BLAME!



I'm actually close to getting foreclosed on, but I havn't bought a Pathfinder recently.Terrorists are terrorists. They don't need a reason.

MACH1
05-07-2010, 07:54 PM
I'm actually close to getting foreclosed on, but I havn't bought a Pathfinder recently.Terrorists are terrorists. They don't need a reason.

Bet you haven't taken 13 trips to pakistan either.

Cut that down to two trips and viola, your house is paid for. :doh:


CBS has jumped on the poor poor terrorist bandwagon too.

revefsreleets
05-10-2010, 03:29 PM
Game.
Set.
Match.