Terrorist thought exercise

[Adrian II]

I have been thinking. Don't ask me why, this just happens to me from time to time and I can't stop it. Those who don't recognise the phenomenon, please bear with me anyway.

I have been thinking about the best possible target for terrorists in a given country. You will excuse the macabre connotations-- this exercise is not meant to support terrorism in any way, it is meant to think one step ahead of what may one day materialise.

The '9/11' perpetrators clearly went for their three targets because they were both symbols as well as operative centres of American power: the White House (politics), the Twin Towers (business) and the Pentagon (U.S. military might). Three 'jugulars' as it were, only one of which they eventually hit. If you are American, what do you feel would have been the worst of those three possible hits? The White House, the Pentagon, or the Twin Towers after all?

If I were a terrorist and wanted to hit my own country as hard as possible, in its very soul, what would be my target? It would have to be either a landmark building in the center (for instance Central Station) of the capital, Amsterdam; the Queen's residence in The Hague because the House of Orange, despite the countless constitutional restrictions imposed on it, symbolises our political independence since the early seventeenth century; or the oil terminals in the port of Rotterdam, which is the economic lifeline of the nation so the economic damage would be greatest. Regardless of the political fall-out, the reconstruction of our infrastructure and economic potential would constitute an uphill struggle of many years. If pushed, however, I would go for the Queen's residence.

In Great Britain? It wouldn't be the Underground, nor Parliament or Whitehall, nor Islington (headquarters of the chattering classes) nor the City (business center). It would have to be the BBC's Broadcasting House.

In France? Not the Eifeltower, obviously. Algerian islamists tried that in 1998 and were thwarted in a textbook operation by French security services, and it wouldn't hurt the soul of the nation anyway. Many Parisiens, in their heart of hearts, would probably think 'good riddance'. The Élysée would be at least a very probable target.

How about other countries? Show me your nation's weak spots and I will tell you who you are. I mean, it would be interesting to know what spot or building is both highly symbolic for your nation as well as an operative center of its existence.

[Redleg]

Well in the United States the way to really effect the nation is to actually time the event to hit Congress when it is in full session - however that is not going to happen with the air restrictions placed around Washington D.C.

There are others - but that is the only governmental one that I am going to mention. The others well I don't want to mention them incase someday it happens. Given the nature of the conflict and the very real desire of certain elements in the world to have another successful strike on the United States the hypothetical (SP) exercises is not one I wish to play on the internet.

By the way two of the three targets were hit in the 9/11 attacks - The twin towers and the Pentagon were both hit. The one that hit the Pentagon penerated deep into the rings of the Pentagon - it just wasn't a complete destruction like the Twin Towers.

[Reverend Joe]

it would be interesting to know what spot or building is both highly symbolic for your nation as well as an operative center of its existence.

:thinking:

:inquisitive: wait...

:stare: TERRORIST!

[Adrian II]

Well in the United States the way to really effect the nation is to actually time the event to hit Congress when it is in full session - however that is not going to happen with the air restrictions placed around Washington D.C.There are other ways than suicide flights to produce mayhem. I suppose the targets you refuse to mention are military ones. Without going into their precise nature, could you tell me why they would touch the soul of the nation more than anything else?
The one that hit the Pentagon penerated deep into the rings of the Pentagon - it just wasn't a complete destruction like the Twin Towers.Correct of course, but I do not count that one as a true hit in the nation's 'heart'. That attack merely demonstrated the superior construction of the building.

[Adrian II]

:thinking:

:inquisitive: wait...

:stare: TERRORIST!Alright, I confess. I am writing this out of a Dutch prison. I was just bored with those 95 tv channels.

[Beirut]

Tim Horton's

[Adrian II]

Tim Horton'sEh?

EDIT
Ah! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hortons)

[Kanamori]

A palestinian w/ a bomb strapped to his chest could blow that up~:rolleyes:

~;p

[Redleg]

There are other ways than suicide flights to produce mayhem. I suppose the targets you refuse to mention are military ones. Without going into their precise nature, could you tell me why they would touch the soul of the nation more than anything else?Correct of course, but I do not count that one as a true hit in the nation's 'heart'. That attack merely demonstrated the superior construction of the building.

None are military ones. The targets would show how vulnerable any nation is to an attack of such nature.

The very vulnerablity of such a target would be what takes the soul out of America - or wake up an even greater fury then what 9-11 created for the short period of time.

Since like before this is a open internet discussion I am hestiant to give what I think would be such high payoff targets out in the open. Such a thought process that you have opened up for discussion is one I did back in 2002 - and I don't like my answer at all - and I really don't see the Government of the United States making the necessary changes to the border, transporation and immigration policies for me to want to give voice to my concern.

[Adrian II]

None are military ones. The targets would show how vulnerable any nation is to an attack of such nature. The very vulnerablity of such a target would be what takes the soul out of America (..)I see what you mean now. It would be the weakness revealed, rather than the loss of the target itself, that would be the biggest shocker.

By the way, I think there is no specific target in any nation whose destruction would truly destroy that nation's spirit. Alarm, despair and anger, yes. Paralysis, no - at least not after the initial phase of shock.

[bmolsson]

As a Swede, I would have to say Vadstena Monestary... ~;)

Living in Indonesia, I would have to say Singapore (its there all the Indonesian money are placed)...... ~;)

[Tribesman]

the oil terminals in the port of Rotterdam, which is the economic lifeline of the nation so the economic damage would be greatest.

Amature~;) , wait for the spring tide or a storm surge and wreck the flood control system , you not only get the terminal , you get the whole port and a damn big slice of the entire country .

By the way, I think there is no specific target in any nation whose destruction would truly destroy that nation's spirit. Alarm, despair and anger, yes. Paralysis, no - at least not after the initial phase of shock.
hmmmmm....what about St. James Gate Dublin ? ~:cheers: or not~:cheers: as the case would be .

[Soulforged]

Well perhaps nobody knows it, because our history, as our country, is of so little importance that everyone ignores it...but on the 18 of July of 1994, here occurred an attack to the israeli emabassy, and the AMIA. Said that, I don't think that there's actually an especifical place to attack here. The state is so descentralized (not for altruistic purposes, but because of lack of capacity) and the institutions are so poor, that everybody attempting a terrorist attack will be frustrated. However if I must say one, it's the Supreme Court, just because the attack will burn decades of jurisprudence and all the case files guarded there, this way turning our country in a war zone, it's almost a war zone (in Buenos Aires), but this will definetely cause unbearable trouble. But right now it will be the Casino at Mar del Plata, where the american leaders are gathering to have an "interesting" intercourse.

[Redleg]

I see what you mean now. It would be the weakness revealed, rather than the loss of the target itself, that would be the biggest shocker.

:bow:



By the way, I think there is no specific target in any nation whose destruction would truly destroy that nation's spirit. Alarm, despair and anger, yes. Paralysis, no - at least not after the initial phase of shock.

True - the question has always been can a nation come out of the initial phase of shock in time to make a decision - or does the shock disable them long enough for the advantage of action to remain with the attacker?

[Kongamato]

I believe the most damage that can be dealt in one attack on the US would be to destroy the Hoover Dam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the power generated by that dam lights up a lot of the west coast and nearly the entire city of Las Vegas. I don't think there's enough power from the rest of the US and Canada to compensate for the loss of this dam. A massive, western US blackout could create large-scale anarchy if dealt with poorly. Think Katrina on a much higher scale. Also, the damage to the stock market would make everyone in the world feel the effects in their investment accounts.

And I don't know if you'd call this a "terrorist" attack, but if a group managed somehow(this is very unlikely) to take down an aircraft carrier, it would make for an incredible strategic and symbolic victory.

[Tribesman]

the question has always been can a nation come out of the initial phase of shock in time to make a decision
A "Sensible" descision Red , its easy to make a descision , but making the right one is the challenge .

[Redleg]

the question has always been can a nation come out of the initial phase of shock in time to make a decision
A "Sensible" descision Red , its easy to make a descision , but making the right one is the challenge .

agreed - but sometimes its the necessity to make a decision that counts in such cases. One must be careful on how far the knee jerks in such an event - but sometimes its best to see some type of decision being made then nothing at all.

[Papewaio]

Thats the military problem with terrorism... if you don't actually bring your target to their knees they are in all likely hood going to hit you back hard.

Pearl Harbour... Aircraft Carriers were not there. So although a horrific attack all it did was galvanise support against the Japanese.

Or if someone hits another guy in the groin... you had better hope you knock the wind out of him, because if he gets up he will rip you apart in anger.

So terrorists can't really reveal who did it... because they would get ripped apart, at the same time if they don't ante up they lose the whole point of attacking. Terrorism often works better when it is lower scale and less horrific, it is the gradual drip, drip, drip that will get change. If the opposite occurs then all it does is back people into a corner.

[Tribesman]

but sometimes its best to see some type of decision being made then nothing at all.
Nah , a badly thought out reaction can often have worse consequences than a proper one .
The Reichstag fire is a prime example , but history is littered with other knee-jerk reactions that have been entirely counter productive , when the politicians felt the need to be seen to be doing something instead of thinking things through .

[Redleg]

but sometimes its best to see some type of decision being made then nothing at all.
Nah , a badly thought out reaction can often have worse consequences than a proper one .
The Reichstag fire is a prime example , but history is littered with other knee-jerk reactions that have been entirely counter productive , when the politicians felt the need to be seen to be doing something instead of thinking things through .

Like I said earlier, agreed - but look at the heat Mr. Bush took for his seeming inaction when the news about the Twin Towers being hit by airplanes reached him.

Edit: There are other exambles in history where a lack of a visible decision process has negative effects on the events as well. The balance is a very fine line - the decision process should not be complete knee jerk reaction - but it could be along the lines of the Response of an immediate alert of the military and an activiation of the governmental emergency response. Basically the cataylist to bring about the reduction of shock in the civilian population is often just a few necessary simple decisions. Nothing that can not be stopped if it is deemed un-necessary after careful review of all the information.

A simple decision that give re-assurance to the population that the government is on the job and that order will be restored before any action outside of that is taken.

[Tribesman]

But that was momentary inaction , or more accurately complete bemusement (and not just over the difficulty of the words in the book~;) )

[Redleg]

But that was momentary inaction , or more accurately complete bemusement (and not just over the difficulty of the words in the book~;) )

Well you should of seen my face when I saw the news - I don't image I was much more prepared for the news of that event then the President. The problem was that I didn't have a camera in my face - when the news was given to me.

The individual who gave that news should of motioned the President out from under the glare of the camera.

But I am sure they were just as shocked about the events as the rest of us.

[LeftEyeNine]

Schools..Especially universities..

Retired old guys who have relatives or friends working at faculty's deanery or something apply for a security officer's job there and get recruited.. What they may be protecting us from is only tea surplus.. They drink it so much that Turkey's macro economical structure is grateful to them for preventing it.

Sinful students who may be thinking or believing in anything that is an infidel's deed and those places where Qoran is not obliged for teaching..

Enough excuses, simple targets and effective actions..

AdrianII, I'm joining your organization.. :knight:

[JimBob]

Terrorism often works better when it is lower scale and less horrific, it is the gradual drip, drip, drip that will get change.
That is the kind of terrorism I fear the most. When terrorists aim for monuments we know what to guard. It is the terrorists who detonate bombs that kill 5 people. But they detonate one every day. And they do it on a crowded city street, a train at rush hour. Then uncertanty comes into play and you start questioning if you're safe steping outside.

[Sjakihata]

In denmark, possibly one of our bridges. More specifically, the one connecting Fyn with Seeland. Or the little mermaid ~;)

[Adrian II]

AdrianII, I'm joining your organization.. :knight:That makes two of us. I say, let's split over some ideological difference.

Since when do true revolutionaires take two lumps of sugar in their tea?!
You traitor! :furious3:

[Adrian II]

Or the little mermaid ~;)Awwwww... ~:pat:

[Byzantine Prince]

Or the little mermaid ~;)
I love that little mermaid! I would consider becoming a counter-terrorist to save that.

[Sjakihata]

Actually, (inspired by the beheading thread) the little mermaid have been beheaded on numerous occasions, even blown off i believe. So it has suffered a great deal of malicious damage and vandalism.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Alright, I confess. I am writing this out of a Dutch prison. I was just bored with those 95 tv channels.

LOL~:)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

the oil terminals in the port of Rotterdam, which is the economic lifeline of the nation so the economic damage would be greatest.

Amature~;) , wait for the spring tide or a storm surge and wreck the flood control system , you not only get the terminal , you get the whole port and a damn big slice of the entire country ..

Ouch -- glad you aren't working for them.

By the way, I think there is no specific target in any nation whose destruction would truly destroy that nation's spirit. Alarm, despair and anger, yes. Paralysis, no - at least not after the initial phase of shock.
hmmmmm....what about St. James Gate Dublin ? ~:cheers: or not~:cheers: as the case would be .[/QUOTE]

:bow: :bow: Incisive analysis. You and I concur. :bow: :bow: ~;)

[Dutch_guy]

In Holland it would be something like the NS Central Station ( railway station in the center of Amsterdam )
Or Maybe our primairy broadcasting studios in Hilversum ( mediapark).

Now I don't think that bombing the Queens home would completely cripple our Nation, but destroying one of the above mentioned locations would, for a certain amount of time .

:balloon2:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Against the USA:

Long-term damage:

Take out the Hoover and Grand Coulee dams, the Oil Terminal at Grand Island, and the 6 Biggest fuel pipelines including the Trans-Alaska. Guaranteed to trigger at least 2 quarters of recession along with other problems.


Horror:

1. Nerve toxin gas dispensed from several crop dusters at one or two of the big college stadiums during rivarly weekend. 80-120k per stadium.

2. Pirate an LNG transporter, sail it into a port like Frisco or Boston (most others aren't close enough to the ocean to pull it off, and then make the Halifax incident look like a small-town fireworks show.

[Dutch_guy]

hmm what effect would bombing wallstreet have in the would you say ?

Central New York hit again, that would be devastating for the morale of hte people I would say.

Though seeing what kind of protection there is over there in NY since 9/11 , the chances of an attack like that would be slim.

:balloon2:

[Byzantine Prince]

Actually, (inspired by the beheading thread) the little mermaid have been beheaded on numerous occasions, even blown off i believe. So it has suffered a great deal of malicious damage and vandalism.
You Danes! ~;p

It's the only thing that you have that's worth anything and you defile it? GAH!

Perhaps it should be moved somewhere more safe, like here in Western Canada. ~D

[Husar]

I just can´t think of anything in Germany that could be destroyed to make me fear the destruction of my country or whatever. Not many would really miss our polititians in the "Bundestag" in the political sense I guess, though as being humans even they deserve not to be killed of course. Apart from that, who cares about a building?~:rolleyes:

[Fragony]

An attack on our deltaworks would pretty much suck. Half of the Netherlands would be under water. But there is always a bright side, I would live at a coasttown.

[gaelic cowboy]

For America just put a suitcase marked Biological Hazard in central park it doesent even need to be real just sit back and watch the panic. Pretty soon the media blows it all out of proportion a few people might actually believe that an attack took place nuff said

[Idaho]

I have long said that the AQ strategy is a loser. It just won't work. Attack and terrorise the people in the hope that they will pressure their governments to act.

It's nonsense and totally counterproductive. Not only do governments not care what happens to a few civilians, but can in fact use such attacks to strengthen their own position and bring in the kinds of repressive laws they could only previously dream about. We are about to get imprisonment without trial or lawyers for 90 days!

Likewise it is a propaganda disaster for those groups. Their message becomes one of violence and all else can be swiftly ignored.

If I ran AQ I would change tactics radically. You want to have an effective propaganda arm producing leaflets and campaigning in the countries. That wing would have to be able to distance itself to some extent from the armed wing.

The armed wing would focus on expensive and difficult to insure infrastructure. Bombs in the city of London with warnings so no people are hurt. Oil pipelines, electricity generation, rail tracks (with warnings well in advance to avoid accidents but disrupt transport for weeks).

The expence and disruption to business will make them pressure the government. Now political parties know which side their bread is buttered and will listen and be forced to take action.

The public will be annoyed by the disruption but won't be unified against the terrorists as there isn't much actual terror. No-one is that afraid. They will have been softened by the propaganda wing - which will be convieniently in place when the government wants to start negotiating.

It is a campaign that works - the IRA used it well.

[Kagemusha]

If i have to think a worst possible hit against my country Finland. It would be attack against our two nuclear plants in the middle of the Winter.First those reactors are very close to a population centers,so the direct conseguences could be devastating.Second it would have devastating effect on our industry and third very many people would simply freeze to death in Finlands Urban areas ,without electricity.~:(

[English assassin]

I don't think the UK really does symbolism too much, but to the extent that we do, Mr Fawkes probably had it right. We may not like our politicians but blowing up the mother of parliaments would have to be the biggest possible symbolic attack on the UK.

For an easier symbolic attack, which would certainly be my first action as leader of the Whimsical Brigade, our non-English posters may not be aware of the legend that if the ravens ever leave the Tower of London, the Tower will fall, and if the Tower falls, England will fall. (I'm afraid I don't think this includes Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland). Therefore the downfall of England could easily be brought about by smuggling a couple of sacks into the Tower of London, quickly stuffing all the ravens in them, and running out the gate.

I know what you are thinking. You are thinking the Whimsical Brigade could never pull this off because ravens are hard to catch. Well, you are wrong, because the ravens in the Tower have their wings clipped to make sure they can't fly away (and thereby precipitate the downfall of England.) So the very measure adopted to safeguard England would be her downfall.

[Ming the Merciless Evil laugh]

[yesdachi]

Places where people are, sports events, concerts, malls, hospitals, police stations, courts, etc. places you would normally think would be safe but not too big because that would unite the entire nation. To hit the statue of liberty, white house, hover dam, TV network studios, etc. would piss off so many that there would be a rally of support to find and kill all terrorists.

[Tribesman]

Therefore the downfall of England could easily be brought about by smuggling a couple of sacks into the Tower of London, quickly stuffing all the ravens in them, and running out the gate.

No no no , sloppy work assassin .
Bring in a sack full of ferrets and let them go , that way you can make a quick getaway without being encumbered by a sack of ravens .~;)

[Crazed Rabbit]

It is a campaign that works - the IRA used it well.

The only thing is that AQ doesn't want change-they want to destroy the west.



Well, you are wrong, because the ravens in the Tower have their wings clipped to make sure they can't fly away (and thereby precipitate the downfall of England.) So the very measure adopted to safeguard England would be her downfall.

Sounds like they'd be a bit inbred.

Crazed Rabbit

[Idaho]

The only thing is that AQ doesn't want change-they want to destroy the west.
This is a good example of the paucity of their propaganda machine. In the early days it was quite simple and relatively coherant. It wanted US troops out of Arabia and Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. However they have allowed their propaganda to get taken over by the west and by fringe groups who both agree on some kind of vague holy crusade.

Now everyone seems to believe, more convieniently for the west I might add, that AQ want some pan-world holy war (which some in affiliated groups no doubt do). However combine this with the targets and you get 'a group that can't be reasoned with' - which is a grave strategic error on their part.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It wanted US troops out of Arabia and Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

Had this happened it would have served only to embolden them, and they would have picked something else. One of Osama's gripes is the Turk's defeat at Vienna - about 500 years ago.

After all, why are terrorists (nothing to do with the rioters) trying to attack the Saddam-friendly France? Or why French ships are attacked, and the terrorists say "We wanted to strike the US, but any infidel will do."

Nor was their 'propaganda taken over'. It was a concious and deliberate goal to destroy the west, even if they were smart enough to not claim it at first.

Crazed Rabbit

[Papewaio]

The Outback... if they dropped a couple of nukes in the middle there Australians would be devastated. :hide:

[Meneldil]

After all, why are terrorists (nothing to do with the rioters) trying to attack the Saddam-friendly France?

Because Saddam isn't linked in any way with terrorists and muslim extremists ? ~:rolleyes:
Or is that because France had some nasty stuffs going on with Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia a few decades ago ?

[LeftEyeNine]

One of Osama's gripes is the Turk's defeat at Vienna - about 500 years ago.

??

I bet that freak does not know a single letter of Ottoman history. Do you really support that idea ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Because Saddam isn't linked in any way with terrorists and muslim extremists ?
Or is that because France had some nasty stuffs going on with Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia a few decades ago ?

I don't want to get into an Iraq war discussion (and it's not like Saddam was a great guy even if he had no connection with AQ). I'm just saying that it would seem that the French have taken a postion very favorable to Osama's demands (not that they really had to give up anything, like move troops out of Arabia), and sentiment is, from what I can tell, pro-palestinian. They are doing all that Osama claimed he wanted them to do, yet terrorists still try and attack them.

Yes, France has had hard dealings with some North African countries, but that was a while ago, and the (attempted) terror attacks aren't by Algerian nationalists (since Algeria is already independent) but by fanatic Muslims in the name of Islam, though they may happen to be from Algeria.


I bet that freak does not know a single letter of Ottoman history. Do you really support that idea ?

Who's the freak? Me or Osama? I see now that the siege of Vienna was only a little more than 300 years ago. Truth be told, I cannot find the resource saying Osama's mad about Vienna, but I do remember hearing about it.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Yes, France has had hard dealings with some North African countries, but that was a while ago, and the (attempted) terror attacks aren't by Algerian nationalists (since Algeria is already independent) but by fanatic Muslims in the name of Islam, though they may happen to be from Algeria.

Perhaps you might want to view some news from Algeria and France from the past couple of decades .

I'm just saying that it would seem that the French have taken a postion very favorable to Osama's demands (not that they really had to give up anything, like move troops out of Arabia),
Perhaps you might want to view your French allies role in the post-USS Cole operations . I am sure Al-Qaida really loved that .
Not to mention Afghanistan .

[Adrian II]

I'm just saying that it would seem that the French have taken a position very favorable to Osama's demands (..)Caution my friend, you are entering the realm of metaphysics.

It amazes me that many Americans are blind to that fact they have so much in common with the French.

1. Cult of individualism. There is no more individualistic culture in the world than French culture. In the U.S. at least individualism has always been mitigated by social control and civil society, churches, sports clubs, etcetera. The French are actually the pure, unadulterated individualists that many Americans imagine themselves to be. If you give a German a gun, he will report it to the authorities. If you give an American a gun, he will take it into to woods to practice. If you give a Frenchman a gun, he will immediately use it to shoot his next-door neighbour.

2. Distrust of authorities. The French distrust, despise and hate their own government and politicians, their national and local authorities, their police, judges and lawyers, their tax collectors and their school boards even more than most Americans. And there is just as much local patriotism, with just as many deep historic roots, in France as there is in the United States.

3. Fixation on national interest. The French state is just as obsessed by the national interest and matters of national security as the American state. At its best, it works to spread (French) republican values around the world. At its worst, it lies, flip-flops and kills in cold blood in order to further French interests around the world.

Sound familiar? Two great nations with conflicting national interests, yet with a similar political outlook. Both have vested interests in the Middle East and act upon them. This has brought them into conflict more than once. For their own national reasons the French have been fighting islamism from the 1970's onwards, at a time when the United States was stimulating islamism as an alternative (and counterweight) against the influence of the Soviet Union in the Arab world and on the subcontinent. And it is hardly fair to say that the French are accommodating Osama bin Laden just because they took an opposite view on Iraq and were proven right. They made their own mistakes, i.e. in Vietnam and Suez, and were berated by the United States which took an oppositie view and was proven right.

I know this is only the Backroom, but it couldn't hurt to see some things in the proper perspective every now and then.

[Idaho]

Truth be told, I cannot find the resource saying Osama's mad about Vienna, but I do remember hearing about it.

Crazed Rabbit

So basically you made it up. Like the bit about 'giving in with embolden them'.

I think in the early post 11/9 days I think Bin Laden, suprised by being placed at the head of this group he previously didn't realise he was head of, decided to make a play for power in Saudi. I think he was hoping for a popular uprising there that he could lead.

He doubtless has fantasies about being the Caliph of Arabia - but I think that's as far as his ambitions went. All this world domination and kill all the infidel stuff is just played up by our governments to scare us into line.

[Sigurd]

If you want to hurt the Norwegians economically you could destroy the land based oil depot/refinery installations e.g. Mongstad, Sture, Kollsnes or Kårstø (the four main ones).
To hurt moral or incite shock would be to kill the entire royal family.
A political blow would be to destroy Stortinget (the great ting) when the entire political leadership were in session.
If you did all three… the effect would be devastating.

[Bartix]

I will not be telling!
You tickle me and see! :charge:

[LeftEyeNine]

Who's the freak? Me or Osama? I see now that the siege of Vienna was only a little more than 300 years ago. Truth be told, I cannot find the resource saying Osama's mad about Vienna, but I do remember hearing about it.

I assure you CR, it takes harder for me to insult people :bow: Of course it is Osama freak I'm talking about..

Not everything you heard may be true, as you may well agree.. What's more I'd like to share nothing with that freak - my history? No, not all..