Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > Archives > General Chat Archive
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Photo Album Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-11-2002, 02:00 AM   #1
So very sad about me
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down well its a good thing people want to detonate radioactive bombs on the US

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/11/national/11ARRE.html

June 11, 2002
U.S. Says It Halted Qaeda Plot to Use Radioactive Bomb
By JAMES RISEN and PHILIP SHENON


WASHINGTON, June 10 The Justice Department announced today that it had broken up a plot by Al Qaeda to detonate a radioactive bomb inside the United States by arresting an American citizen in the case.

"We have captured a known terrorist who was exploring a plan to build and explode a radiological dispersion device, or `dirty bomb,' in the United States," Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a televised announcement from Moscow where he was meeting with Russian official on unrelated matters.

Mr. Ashcroft identified the arrested man as Abdullah al-Muhajir, 31, a former Chicago gang member who American officials said was born Jose Padilla in Brooklyn and raised as a Roman Catholic but who converted to Islam and began using a new name.

Mr. Padilla has been in custody since May 8 when he was arrested on a sealed material witness warrant at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago as he arrived on a flight from Zurich.

Senior government officials said Mr. Padilla had discussed the bomb plot with top Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan, among them Abu Zubaydah, the Osama bin Laden lieutenant who was captured in Pakistan in March and later told United States officials about the plan. But they also said Mr. Padilla had not obtained the materials to make such a device.

Mr. Zubaydah, the most senior Qaeda leader in custody, told his American interrogators that several Qaeda members had come to him late last December with a proposal to acquire and detonate a radiological device, a so-called dirty bomb. Mr. Zubaydah did not identify Mr. Padilla by name, but provided enough information to allow the Central Intelligence Agency to check with other sources including documents seized in Afghanistan to narrow the search to Mr. Padilla, officials said.

"We were able to figure out who Zubaydah was talking about, and then screen him and follow him," said an American intelligence official.

In New York City, where Mr. Padilla was held after his arrest until being transferred on Sunday to a military jail in South Carolina, a law enforcement official described Mr. Padilla as someone who tried to make inroads with terrorists after his conversion to Islam.

Other officials said that before he left Pakistan, Mr. Padilla was told by Al Qaeda leaders to fly to the United States to conduct reconnaissance for several possible plots, including the possibility of blowing up hotel rooms and gas stations.

But the plot outlined by United States officials today centered on a plan to carry out an attack using a bomb that uses conventional explosives to spew potentially lethal radioactive material across a wide area.

American intelligence officials cautioned that the plot had been in early planning stages and no time for the operation had been set. They said that there was also no evidence that Mr. Padilla or any other Qaeda operatives had obtained the materials needed to construct a dirty bomb.

"They didn't seem to think they would have trouble getting radiological materials, but they didn't have any of it," said one official.

Donna Newman, Mr. Padilla's lawyer in New York, said that federal authorities had given her little information about the allegations against Mr. Padilla. She also expressed dismay that the government had suddenly transferred him to the military jail in South Carolina.

American officials said that Al Qaeda's leadership was apparently intrigued by Mr. Padilla's being an American citizen who might have an easier time of gaining entry to the United States than other Al Qaeda members.

The announcement of the arrest seemed to suggest that the Bush administration had succeeded in executing the kind of aggressive preventive action that officials say they have concentrated on since Sept. 11.

The announcement could also prove a lift for the F.B.I. and C.I.A., which have been under heavy criticism in Congress for missing potential warning signs last year that might have disrupted the the hijacking plot.

F.B.I. and C.I.A. agents picked up Mr. Padilla's trail after he and two other men were detained by Pakistani authorities on a passport violation in April, officials said. Mr. Padilla left Pakistan in early April and traveled from Switzerland to Egypt and then back to Switzerland.

F.B.I. agents secretly boarded his flight from Zurich to the United States to keep him under surveillance. But worried that Mr. Padilla might disrupt the Chicago-bound flight, agents asked airline security personnel in Zurich to inspect his luggage carefully and his personal effects, including his shoes.

"They checked to make sure his shoes weren't funky," said one official, referring to Richard C. Reid, a British convert to Islam who was charged with a terrorist act after officials said he tried to detonate a shoe bomb on a Paris-to-Miami flight last December.

Mr. Padilla was arrested as soon as the flight touched down, officials said, because agents hoped to obtain his cooperation. A search revealed that he was carrying about $10,000.

However, the New York law enforcement official said Mr. Padilla had been uncooperative during his month in detention at the Metropolitan Corrections Center in downtown Manhattan.

The decision to make an immediate arrest appeared to be part of the shift since Sept. 11 from lengthy covert surveillance operations to intervention to prevent further terrorist attacks.

Today, Mr. Padilla was being held in a high security jail at the Charleston Naval Weapons Station in South Carolina. Bush administration officials said that Mr. Padilla had been declared an enemy combatant, a status that makes it easier for the government to detain him without having to bring a criminal charge that would force it disclose sensitive intelligence sources.

There was also some question as to whether there was enough evidence, absent information gathered from intelligence sources, to bring a traditional criminal prosecution that could be won in court. That meant, officials said, that the best and perhaps only realistic alternative was to turn him over to military custody in which he could be held indefinitely.

Federal prosecutors said they announced the arrest today because they had faced a hearing scheduled for Tuesday when they could have been forced to decide whether to charge him formally with a crime.

The plot as explained by the authorities seemed to follow the outlines of a scenario that counterterrorism experts have long feared. They have predicted that a radioactive bomb would be easier for terrorists to obtain than a nuclear device.

Officials said Mr. Padilla met with Mr. Zubaydah in Afghanistan last December and raised the possibility of a dirty bomb attack on the United States with him then.

Mr. Padilla then traveled to Pakistan, where he received Al Qaeda training in the wiring of explosives, intelligence officials said.

Mr. Padilla stayed at a Qaeda safe house in Lahore, Pakistan, for a time, and conducted research on radiological devices on the Internet, officials said.

At Mr. Zubaydah's behest, Mr. Padilla also traveled to Karachi to discuss several possible plans, the officials said.

A senior administration official said that Mr. Zubaydah was not the only Qaeda member in custody who led them to find Mr. Padilla. "Abu Zubaydah was one of the sources, but not the only one," the official said. "It's a rather impressive variety of sources."

The official said that Mr. Padilla "has left an amazing number of tracks around."



------------------
http://www.wsu.edu/~swinn/sex.gif
You want to sleep with common people like me

 
Old 06-11-2002, 02:18 AM   #2
Irrelevant
 
Posts: n/a
Post

as a u.s. citizen he has the right not to be held indefinitely without charges against him. right?

all they can really charge him with is conspiracy. i wonder what kind of sentence that will carry.

[This message has been edited by Irrelevant (edited 06-11-2002).]

 
Old 06-11-2002, 02:21 AM   #3
KingJeremy
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Irrelevant:
as a u.s. citizen he has the right not to be held indefinitely without charges against him. right?

all they can really charge him with is conspiracy. i wonder what kind of sentence that will carry.

[This message has been edited by Irrelevant (edited 06-11-2002).]
Can't they charge him with treason which is punishable by death?



------------------
sear those thoughts of me
alone and unhappy
i never liked me anyway
if by chance
or circumstance
we should fail
don't be so sad

 
Old 06-11-2002, 03:29 AM   #4
13
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Wow, perfect timing for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. I'm sure Congress will now have no problems approving it.

Still, i think it does little to restore the reputation of the FBI

------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actric...es/dalle02.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 05:31 AM   #5
slunky_munky
 
Posts: n/a
Post

All too convenient.


 
Old 06-11-2002, 05:44 AM   #6
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

Quote:
"Patriotism" and "Treason": A New Trend in Irresponsible Wartime Rhetoric
by Ben Fritz
October 29, 2001


During a time of war, terms like patriotism and treason have a new context and a deeper meaning. War often stirs feelings of patriotism amongst citizens as the nation unites against a threat to its existence. Charges of treason, of course, carry much more weight when a country has enemies actively seeking its destruction.

However, while war may provide more opportunities to raise the issues of patriotism and treason, it has also historically provided opportunities to use this loaded rhetoric irresponsibly. Now, again, this is taking place. In the last week, there has been a significant rise in the inappropriate use of these terms by pundits discussing the American war against terrorism.

Beginnings with Paul Craig Roberts
It wasn't very long after September 11 that this sort of emotionally charged rhetoric began to surface. On September 19, conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts wrote a column entitled "Terrorism or Treason?". It's essentially an overview of recent history in which Roberts grossly simplifies American policy in order to blame liberal elements in the government for the terrorist attacks. As part of this, he charges that the U.S. government sold communications equipment that cannot be monitored to "the terrorists" and that the U.S. refused to extradite Mohamed Atta, one of the suspected perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, to Israel. Roberts also blames opponents of racial profiling and supporters of a U.S. immigration policy that has allowed in a "large Muslim population base [that] has allowed fanatical terrorists to integrate themselves in our society."

Regardless of the validity of these claims, the conclusion to his column is deeply disturbing. "Once Americans begin dying in droves," he writes, "we will remember that treason is real and deadly."

Treason is defined by dictionary.com as "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies." At a time of war, this is a serious charge indeed. Notice that there is absolutely no evidence for it in Roberts' piece. At the worst, his allegations amount to an argument that government officials made bad policy choices. There is no reason to believe, nor does Roberts even allege, that Muslims have been allowed into the U.S. or communications equipment was sold to terrorists by people who actually wanted to betray their country. Yet Roberts attempts to link those decisions to a vague charge of "treason." This is simply an early and particularly outrageous attempt by a pundit to condemn his enemies using a now heavily loaded word.

Picking up steam
As the U.S. has engaged an identifiable enemy--the Taliban--and deployed our armed forces, the use of loaded, war-related rhetoric has only expanded. In the past week, particularly, there has been a disturbing expansion of the trend.


One example of this trend already pointed out on this website came from Spinsanity's good friend Ann Coulter. As Brendan wrote last week, Coulter opens a recent column with this outrageous statement: "Liberals are up to their old tricks again. Twenty years of treason haven't slowed them down." What follows is a broad rant against any and all liberal targets, from the New York Times to Vietnam War opponents. Again, however, even if we were to assume all of Coulter's claims are true, she still has no evidence to back up her claim that liberals are actively supporting enemies of the United States.

Unfortunately, there have been yet more uses of the term treason. Another recent one came from columnist Paul Weyrich, a prominent conservative religious figure, who attempts to qualify his use of the term somewhat by writing, "In an earlier age, this kind of behavior would be considered treason." Regardless of when he says the term would be used, however, Weyrich is accusing his someone of betraying the United States.

Weyrich's accusation is particularly ******* as it is based on a blatant lie. His target is CNN, which he says gave Osama Bin Laden six questions "in advance" of an interview and is "giving the enemy time to expound his viewpoint over our airwaves." In fact, however, while CNN did submit questions to Bin Laden, they were not "in advance" of an interview but constituted the interview itself, as Bin Laden refused to be interviewed live. In addition, CNN chairman Walter Isaacson specifically said in a New York Times article that he would only air the interview if Bin Laden's responses were news and not if he "just spews propaganda." Not only is Weyrich's accusation of "treason" outrageous, but it is based on a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

Somewhat less egregious, but still disturbing, have been two recent uses of the heavily loaded term "patriotic" by liberals. A simple example came in an "op-ad" from the website TomPaine.com that ran in the New York Times. In opposing the economic stimulus bill as biased towards the wealthy and corporations, it questions the patriotism of the bill's author, Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA). "What do we call a man so willing to put the agenda of his political patrons above the national interest in times of war and economic hardship?" it asks. "Do we call him a patriot?" Not only is this questioning of Thomas's patriotism offensive and unfounded, but the supposition that it is specific to our current problems is faulty, as the tax policy in question is of the type often supported by Republicans.

Another example came from New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who utilized the patriotism line of attack recently in a column attacking the Bush administration for not taking the threats our nation faces seriously enough. In it, she wrote that the government should "[b]e critical of corporations for cutting back on jobs in order to boost profits and report earnings and have stocks go up, when the patriotic thing at this point is not to cut back on jobs but to employ as many people as possible."

Backhandedly calling businesses that lay people off unpatriotic is unfair. Dowd simply brushes over the fact that the United States is almost certainly in a recession, and businesses that don't cut back on costs face consequences ranging from severe losses to the prospect of bankruptcy. Patriotism cannot overrule the basic rules of a capitalist economy--and Dowd should be ashamed of accusing businesses that follow them of dismissing their duty to the country.

With great power comes great responsibility
No one can dispute that at a time of war, patriotism and treason are incredibly important concepts that have a real bearing on national politics. Terms like "patriotic" and "treason" are powerful words, however, and, as the saying goes, "with great power comes great responsibility." Those who value thoughtful, rational debate should be concerned when these terms are used irresponsibly by those who shape American political discourse. Their continued use to attack opponents will have two effects: to unfairly castigate political opponents and to dilute the terms of their real meanings. Neither outcome is a healthy one.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 05:46 AM   #7
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Irrelevant:
as a u.s. citizen he has the right not to be held indefinitely without charges against him. right?
Nope, actually I think they can...or at least for a longer period of time than usual. I don't recall how it actually all works...but, there's something about it being war time and terrorism...


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 05:56 AM   #8
slunky_munky
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
I don't recall how it actually all works...but, there's something about it being war time and terrorism...
Your government loves people like you right now.


 
Old 06-11-2002, 05:59 AM   #9
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by slunky_munky:
Your government loves people like you right now.

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/confused.gif



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:04 AM   #10
slunky_munky
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/confused.gif
What you said basically amounts to:

"I don't know if what the government is doing now is legal, I think it is but I'm not sure. With all this terrorism and war I'm sure it's ok."

they need more people thinking like that.


 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:09 AM   #11
bonsor
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/confused.gif
Exactly.


 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:10 AM   #12
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by slunky_munky:
What you said basically amounts to:

"I don't know if what the government is doing now is legal, I think it is but I'm not sure. With all this terrorism and war I'm sure it's ok."

they need more people thinking like that.

No. What I was saying is that in times of war, there is some sort of exception or something. Sorry, I can't be assed to search out and find for you exactly how it all works. I never said whether or not I agreed with it.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:14 AM   #13
13
 
Posts: n/a
Post

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

"And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." - Julius Caesar

------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actric...es/dalle02.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:15 AM   #14
Irrelevant
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
Nope, actually I think they can...or at least for a longer period of time than usual. I don't recall how it actually all works...but, there's something about it being war time and terrorism...
we're not at war, though.

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:16 AM   #15
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...vil_11-27.html

After 9/11 Bush signed a bunch of Executive Orders broadening the government's ability to detain, investigate, and prosecute those suspected of terrorism.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:19 AM   #16
slunky_munky
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
No. What I was saying is that in times of war, there is some sort of exception or something. Sorry, I can't be assed to search out and find for you exactly how it all works. I never said whether or not I agreed with it.
It doesn't really matter if you agree with it or not, you're not sure, so you can't make a judgement on it. What you do have is apathy.

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:21 AM   #17
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by slunky_munky:
It doesn't really matter if you agree with it or not, you're not sure, so you can't make a judgement on it. What you do have is apathy.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...vil_11-27.html

After 9/11 Bush signed a bunch of Executive Orders broadening the government's ability to detain, investigate, and prosecute those suspected of terrorism.




------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:24 AM   #18
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Angry

Quote:
Originally posted by slunky_munky:
What you do have is apathy.
No. I stood on the streets of NYC and watched as thousands of people died. What I have couldn't be further from apathy.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:25 AM   #19
slunky_munky
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...vil_11-27.html

After 9/11 Bush signed a bunch of Executive Orders broadening the government's ability to detain, investigate, and prosecute those suspected of terrorism.
So how does that make you feel ?

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:25 AM   #20
13
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Irrelevant:
we're not at war, though.
yes we are- we're at war with terrorism, whatever that is. I think it's a country located somewhere in the Middle East.


------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actric...es/dalle02.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:27 AM   #21
Irrelevant
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by 13:
yes we are- we're at war with terrorism, whatever that is. I think it's a country located somewhere in the Middle East.
in the same sense that we're at war with poverty and at war with drug abuse.

we don't seem to know where they are either, but we've been fighting them for years.

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:29 AM   #22
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by Irrelevant:
in the same sense that we're at war with poverty and at war with drug abuse.

we don't seem to know where they are either, but we've been fighting them for years.
No. Drug lords never attacked America. What occured on 9/11 was essentially an act of war. And the president and the rest of the U.S. government and the U.S. military are acting as if this is a time of war.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:30 AM   #23
13
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Nixon's war on drugs ended a while ago, with the country of Drugs winning, of course.

Timothy Leary was captured and prosecuted for treason during the war.

------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actric...es/dalle02.jpg

[This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-11-2002).]

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:32 AM   #24
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by Irrelevant:
we're not at war, though.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/attack_front.asp?0ql=cbp

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:32 AM   #25
slunky_munky
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
No. I stood on the streets of NYC and watched as thousands of people died. What I have couldn't be further from apathy.
consider

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
Sorry, I can't be assed to search out and find for you exactly how it all works.
Despite the fact that you could be assed in the end (just to argue your case), this illustrates apathy. Resigning yourself to the fact that a situation could be one way or another and not being bothered to establish which is apathy, pure and simple.


 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:34 AM   #26
scouse_dave
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

it doesn't matter whether it's legal to detain these suspects or not - the US will do what it wants....no matter what

land of the free indeed

i'm more pissed off that the rest of the world just sits around and blatantly lets the US disregard international and domestic law; nevermind ethics

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:35 AM   #27
Homerpalooza
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Does anyone remember those 200 or so (could have been more) people who were arrested and thrown in jail for no reason other than the government thought they had ties to the terrorists? Or that they had some kind of immigration violation? That was the most bullshit thing I had ever seen our government do. I know it was scary times and all post-9/11, but shit, who knows what's happened to these people?

Shortly after the USA Bill was passed, I read the message that Sen. Russ Feingold (the most kick-ass senator by far) addressed to the Senate. The Bill passed 96-1 with Feingold being the lone dissenter. The speech is really long but it basically sums up why our government has got to check its head and not get power-crazy in order to battle terrorism.

Here's a good passage:
As it seeks to combat terrorism, the Justice Department is making extraordinary use of its power to arrest and detain individuals, jailing hundreds of people on immigration violations and arresting more than a dozen "material witnesses" not charged with any crime. Although the government has used these authorities before, it has not done so on such a broad scale. Judging from government announcements, the government has not brought any criminal charges related to the attacks with regard to the overwhelming majority of these detainees.

For example, the FBI arrested as a material witness the San Antonio radiologist Albader Al-Hazmi, who has a name like two of the hijackers, and who tried to book a flight to San Diego for a medical conference. According to his lawyer, the government held Al-Hazmi incommunicado after his arrest, and it took six days for lawyers to get access to him. After the FBI released him, his lawyer said, "This is a good lesson about how frail our processes are. It's how we treat people in difficult times like these that is the true test of the democracy and civil liberties that we brag so much about throughout the world." I agree with those statements.


The full link is: http://www.counterpunch.org/feingold1.html

Anyway I realize this news is like 8 months old but I thought I'd rant again with the recent news of this Padilla guy.

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:35 AM   #28
Irrelevant
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
No. Drug lords never attacked America. What occured on 9/11 was essentially an act of war. And the president and the rest of the U.S. government and the U.S. military are acting as if this is a time of war.
what is an act of war?

what is an act of terrorism?

what makes it an act of war rather than terrorism?

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:35 AM   #29
BlueStar
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally posted by slunky_munky:
Resigning yourself to the fact that a situation could be one way or another and not being bothered to establish which is apathy, pure and simple.

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/confused.gif No, what I know is that Bush acted as president and altered the laws on detainment when it comes to terrorism and war. And there already existed some law differences during a time of war. What I cannot be assed to do is find the exact Executive Order and what it exactly says.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

 
Old 06-11-2002, 06:40 AM   #30
Irrelevant
 
Posts: n/a
Post

we're not at war until congress says we're at war. which they never do anymore. i didn't think we even declared war in vietnam.

 
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:28 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright 1998-2014