CNN airs footage of Iraq sniper attacks - Page 10 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #91 of 106 (permalink) Old 10-22-2006, 09:08 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
BadBenz94's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2003
Vehicle: 2001 Jaguar XJR, 1994 E320(sold)
Location: Kankakee,IL
Posts: 1,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane
^^Bot is quite intelligent, so is FTL in his own way. Hopefully you can recognize that and not just what appeals to you on a personal experience basis.

Iam begining to ignore anything FTL says as if you dont agree ,he name calls, and/or makes derogatory remarks. He plays one string and throws a litney or articles in the face and WILL NOT LOOK at any other possibility.

Unlike him I read all the posts and try to see things at a different view, objective point etc. I enjoy debate but not with him as it is like arguing(not debating) with a 15 year old know it all. I am a Republican(no surprise) Catholic who values differing opinions and enjoy talking to my friends(one who is/was an elected Democrate, one who is an atheist, one who is Jewish, etc) about specific subjects that most are afraid to discuss with friends. I have been opened to other ideas while still believing in my core values beliefs etc.

But there is always more appeal to ideas who I side with, wether through personal experience or not . I would be lying if I were to tell you different.

My Car WOO HOO...... Now SOLD
New car.... 2001 Jaguar XJR!!!!

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
BadBenz94 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 106 (permalink) Old 10-22-2006, 09:13 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadBenz94
But there is always more appeal to ideas who I side with, wether through personal experience or not . I would be lying if I were to tell you different.
You also have to understand that many of us have been debating the same topics with each other here and elsewhere FOR YEARS. You can't just open the book of Internet debate and jump in the middle. Well, you can, but it's going to take a while to catch up.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #93 of 106 (permalink) Old 10-22-2006, 09:20 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1763 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadBenz94
Iam begining to ignore anything FTL says as if you dont agree ,he name calls, and/or makes derogatory remarks. He plays one string and throws a litney or articles in the face and WILL NOT LOOK at any other possibility.

Unlike him I read all the posts and try to see things at a different view, objective point etc. I enjoy debate but not with him as it is like arguing(not debating) with a 15 year old know it all. I am a Republican(no surprise) Catholic who values differing opinions and enjoy talking to my friends(one who is/was an elected Democrate, one who is an atheist, one who is Jewish, etc) about specific subjects that most are afraid to discuss with friends. I have been opened to other ideas while still believing in my core values beliefs etc.

But there is always more appeal to ideas who I side with, wether through personal experience or not . I would be lying if I were to tell you different.
Sounds like a tone problem, not content. This is the internet after all, and if people were all polite it would go out of business.
Shane is offline  
post #94 of 106 (permalink) Old 10-22-2006, 09:23 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Before I continue I have to reiterate that the whole WMD thing was never an important argument to me. Just as with Iran and NK, I know that military intelligence must always assume the worst-case argument. To assume otherwise would be dereliction, IMO. In any case, the only reason I supported deposing Saddam is taht he presented a real and demonstrated threat to the global energy supply and thus, the economy and food supply of the planet. I needed nothing more and didn't pay much attention to the whole humanitarian/WMD thing. If WMD was the problem we'd have nuked the USSR in the 1950's. If humanitarian we'd be all over Africa righting wrongs and moralizing our asses off.

be that as it may, to assume that Powell was selectively provided intel does Powell a disservice. Given his career in the military and political arenas I think it reasonable to assume that when he said he spent several days researching the WMD claim that he would have smelled a rat had people provided him with selective intel. That would imply that he was easily duped or that the analysts whom he interviewed were adept at deception of political appointees. Occasionally I brief elected and political appointees. I have rarely suspected that the people I have briefed would be easily deceived. They are not scientists but they are bright men and women and have a keen nose for bullshit. they may not understand the bullshit but they know it when it is presented.

For example I recently participated in the briefing of a deputy secretary. that appointee was very sharp and had a good staff. between them I don't think I could have successfully misrepresented the subject on which I was briefing them. I have briefed both Repos and Demos and I have been under both Repo and Demo administrations. In my experience, both groups have wanted honest, complete assessments, not something that agreed with what they wanted.

My experience with classified information is not especially deep. But I do know that a civil servant who would use intel to intentionally deceive an appointed or elected official is right on the edge of violating espionage laws.

IMO we are left with two choices: Powell is a fool or Powell came to a reasonable conclusion, if wrong.

Look, people in low stakes issues misinterpret data all of the time. Things like ecology or medicine or chemistry or physics or whatever. It happens. When the issue is intelligence assessments there is a natural bias toward assuming the worst at any given juncture. That's what Powell did as a career army officer and intelligence expert. He got it wrong. He wont be the first person who misread intelligence. Unfortunately, he wont be the last, either. Therein lies the danger. If everybody in the intel community becomes more "fair and balanced' in their appraisals of threats then it increases the likelihood that some threat gets through the net.

That's why we pay them the big bucks.

B
it certainly seemed important to you in 2003-4 in the thread "Weapons of Mass Destruction" at MBS. That thread chronicled the collapse of the rationale for this war, and much of yours collapsed along with it. Without WMD's, Saddam being a "threat" goes up in smoke. It also denies simple logic: given the power of the United States, I am sure we could do quite well in protecting our own oil supplies. The only oil supplies in question seemed to be those under the feet of the Iraqi people, whom we murdered for it.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #95 of 106 (permalink) Old 10-22-2006, 10:37 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Before I continue I have to reiterate that the whole WMD thing was never an important argument to me. Just as with Iran and NK, I know that military intelligence must always assume the worst-case argument. To assume otherwise would be dereliction, IMO. In any case, the only reason I supported deposing Saddam is taht he presented a real and demonstrated threat to the global energy supply and thus, the economy and food supply of the planet. I needed nothing more and didn't pay much attention to the whole humanitarian/WMD thing. If WMD was the problem we'd have nuked the USSR in the 1950's. If humanitarian we'd be all over Africa righting wrongs and moralizing our asses off.

be that as it may, to assume that Powell was selectively provided intel does Powell a disservice. Given his career in the military and political arenas I think it reasonable to assume that when he said he spent several days researching the WMD claim that he would have smelled a rat had people provided him with selective intel. That would imply that he was easily duped or that the analysts whom he interviewed were adept at deception of political appointees. Occasionally I brief elected and political appointees. I have rarely suspected that the people I have briefed would be easily deceived. They are not scientists but they are bright men and women and have a keen nose for bullshit. they may not understand the bullshit but they know it when it is presented.

For example I recently participated in the briefing of a deputy secretary. that appointee was very sharp and had a good staff. between them I don't think I could have successfully misrepresented the subject on which I was briefing them. I have briefed both Repos and Demos and I have been under both Repo and Demo administrations. In my experience, both groups have wanted honest, complete assessments, not something that agreed with what they wanted.

My experience with classified information is not especially deep. But I do know that a civil servant who would use intel to intentionally deceive an appointed or elected official is right on the edge of violating espionage laws.

IMO we are left with two choices: Powell is a fool or Powell came to a reasonable conclusion, if wrong.

Look, people in low stakes issues misinterpret data all of the time. Things like ecology or medicine or chemistry or physics or whatever. It happens. When the issue is intelligence assessments there is a natural bias toward assuming the worst at any given juncture. That's what Powell did as a career army officer and intelligence expert. He got it wrong. He wont be the first person who misread intelligence. Unfortunately, he wont be the last, either. Therein lies the danger. If everybody in the intel community becomes more "fair and balanced' in their appraisals of threats then it increases the likelihood that some threat gets through the net.

That's why we pay them the big bucks.

B
I think the idea that Colin Powell would have been able to sniff out the rotten intelligence story in a few days is poppycock. If that was the case why don't we just have guys with his training and smarts replace the CIA's analysts and layers of management? How much "research" do you think he could do in "several days" of a week or so getting ready to put on the show he put on at the UN? Without a special staff of better than the CIA's intelligence staff, how do you outperform the CIA in a few days when this was supposedly the highest internal CIA priority over the past nearly 18 months?

I think Powell, unfortunately, did not suspect the data was cooked because being from the environment, it was too outlandish to actually conceive for him. He asked for, and got, the data used to make the case, not all the data available, in all likelihood. Today, it is clear it was not all the data. Like the Aluminum tubes being for centrifuges when they were for rocket bodies. He, in all likelihood, did not personally research the metallurigical characeristics that were known at the time, and determine himself that the Aluminum in question was high grade Aluminum, but fell short of what is needed for the centrifuge duty. In all likelihood he accepted Tenet's assurances the data was properly vetted and validated. To suggest otherwise denies what was published in the 9-11 Commission Report, that there was a great deal of data that contradicted the conclusions reached, including the Aluminum tube story, at the time, and it was all conveniently disregarded in favor of the data that has been proven to be fabricated by the likes of Chalabiswine and other two bit spy vs. spy characters we knew were cartoons but used because their inputs resonated with the drumbeat for war.

I think Powell was neither a fool, nor did he review the data and come to the wrong conclusion. I think Powell was never given the whole body of evidence and the charter to figure it out for himself. He was given time to prepare a speech to the UN, and he took the CIA director's word for the CIA's assessment of all the data they had. In that he was wrong, but never would have assumed the CIA director was either the incompetent one, or a pawn in a political game who would lie about intel being used to send American troops to invade Iraq. Because he wouldn't have thought it possible to ever do something like that as an employee of the American people.

Well, for someone who purports to not have a crystal ball Bot, you did some serious mind reading and crystal ball reading to come up with your story. So did I, but much of what I based my conclusions on was in the 9-11 report. The one they got to issue to the public. What ever happened to Volume II? Jim
JimSmith is online now  
post #96 of 106 (permalink) Old 10-22-2006, 11:55 PM
~BANNED~
 
deathrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 1992 W126 300 SE
Location: Head in the clouds
Posts: 11,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
^^^^^^^

Spot on Jim. There were plenty in the UK, both in government and opposition, who voted in favour of war based on the intelligence provided to them, but who have subsequently accepted that they were juped- along with the majority of the public. When Bliar's government no longer control the spin, he will be remembered for his duplicity and disasterous foreign policy. Not the legacy he was hoping to create. Ditto Dubya.
deathrattle is offline  
post #97 of 106 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 05:42 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
...
...I think Powell was never given the whole body of evidence and the charter to figure it out for himself. He was given time to prepare a speech to the UN, and he took the CIA director's word for the CIA's assessment of all the data they had....

Well, for someone who purports to not have a crystal ball Bot, you did some serious mind reading and crystal ball reading to come up with your story. So did I, but much of what I based my conclusions on was in the 9-11 report. The one they got to issue to the public. What ever happened to Volume II? Jim
Mind reading? Not at all. I am not projecting Powell's thoughts, what I have done is provided what I believe are several alternative explanations including the one that you buy into.

To me, that explanation doesn't wash because of Powell's huge experience in that very realm. He had been dealing with intelligence and policy for decades. He had command of the entire analysis apparatus at State. If he couldn't smell a skunk then he was a fool. It maybe that Powell was a fool, there is ample evidence to suggest that.

Powell himself said that he interviewed the CIA analysts and went over the intel with them. Analysts are not politicians nor are they policy makers. Many are PhD's and experts in different aspects of their craft. Few have been covert because it is simply not in their nature or training to deceive. If Powell is not a fool and if he is not a liar, then we are left with him having read and studied and listened to all of the evidence and come to the wrong conclusion.

Why is that so difficult a concept? Heck, I look at data and various sources of imagery all day long. Mercifully, I don't keep track of how often I am completely wrong in drawing a conclusion, but it isn't so infrequent as to be a total shocker.

Data interpretation, especially imagery data, is highly subjective. In my shop we have multiple QA/QC stops along the way in which different eyes re-evaluate analyses. I have no doubt that CIA has the same processes or better. I have provided incorrect conclusions that I later had to amend. I wasn't lying for a particular policy outcome nor to undermine some politician, I my shop misinterpreted ambiguous data.

It happens.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #98 of 106 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 06:02 AM
~BANNED~
 
deathrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 1992 W126 300 SE
Location: Head in the clouds
Posts: 11,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
^^^^^^
He was fed selective information and leaned on to toe the line. It's not very complicated.
deathrattle is offline  
post #99 of 106 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 06:15 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
....... He asked for, and got, the data used to make the case, not all the data available, in all likelihood. Today, it is clear it was not all the data. Like the Aluminum tubes being for centrifuges when they were for rocket bodies. He, in all likelihood, did not personally research the metallurigical characeristics that were known at the time, and determine himself that the Aluminum in question was high grade Aluminum, but fell short of what is needed for the centrifuge duty. In all likelihood he accepted Tenet's assurances the data was properly vetted and validated....... Jim
Why, it was all just one big shit sandwich:


CIA Skewed Iraq Reporting, Senate Says

By Dafna Linzer and Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 11, 2004; Page A19


Last August, a small team of Senate investigators trying to determine how U.S. intelligence assessments of Iraq had failed went looking for answers in a place where the Bush administration believed there were not any: the offices of U.N. nuclear inspectors in Vienna. The inspectors had determined, before the war, that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program.

During the secret, day-long meeting at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the congressional sleuths focused on aluminum tubes the CIA had said Iraq was seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. It was that claim that led the CIA to conclude that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

The U.N. teams had investigated and rejected that claim, much to the anger of the White House. But others, it turned out, had rejected it, too. When the Senate investigators left Vienna that day, they took back to Washington the names of U.S. intelligence community analysts who never agreed with the CIA's claims and, in many cases, refuted them.

The information, some of which is included in the extraordinary critique of U.S. prewar intelligence efforts released Friday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, reveals the extent of the CIA's determination to keep alive the Iraqi nuclear issue long after it had been thoroughly rebutted both inside and outside the agency. The report also exposed the true nature of the CIA's relationship with U.N. inspectors whose determinations about Iraq's nuclear programs ultimately prevailed.

Contrary to public statements from outgoing CIA Director George J. Tenet and other senior officials, the CIA had not provided U.N. weapons inspectors with all of the best information it had on possible weapons locations in the run-up to war, according to the report.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice told Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), a member of the intelligence committee, two weeks before the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, that "United Nations inspectors have been briefed on every high- or medium-priority weapons of mass destruction, missile, and UAV-related site the U.S. Intelligence Community has identified."

The committee report characterized that statement and others as "factually incorrect." Of the 148 suspect sites identified by the CIA before the war, 67 were shared with the United Nations.

Not only was the CIA keeping information from the inspectors -- whose reports on Iraq's weapons would greatly influence international support for the war -- its rationale for deciding what information to share with them was "subjective, inconsistently applied and not well-documented," according to the Senate report .

The teams led by Hans Blix, director of the U.N. effort to find chemical, biological and missile programs, were stunned by how little the CIA seemed to know about suspected sites, according to a Senate source familiar with the investigation. Senate investigators interviewed Blix and the head of intelligence analysis for the U.N. inspection teams whose headquarters were in New York.

Among the details that have not surfaced in the report but were shared with Senate investigators, was that requests by the U.N. teams to interview Iraqi defectors who were providing public accounts of Iraq's weapons programs were flatly denied, according to foreign diplomats associated with the investigation. Also, nuclear inspectors were not given information on any new sites at all -- mostly because the aluminum tubes made up the extent of the CIA's nuclear case.

The CIA was convinced the tubes were to be used in centrifuges that could enrich uranium for use in a nuclear weapon. But other U.S. intelligence analysts and the IAEA produced substantial evidence that the tubes were for conventional rockets that Iraq was allowed to possess under U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The Senate report shows that when the CIA put together its intelligence on the tubes, it withheld some evidence that did not accord with its conclusions, circulated other data in ways the Senate said was "at minimum, misleading," and tried to tilt ostensibly independent consulting reports toward the conclusion that the tubes were evidence of a nascent Iraqi nuclear program.

Speaking Friday, John E. McLaughlin, the acting CIA director, said the agency's error was to write reports "without sufficient caveats and disclaimers where our knowledge was incomplete."

The bipartisan Senate report, however, depicted something more troubling: an agency that knowingly skewed its reports to fit its convictions about an Iraqi nuclear threat.

"Who could have believed that about our intelligence community, that the system could be so dishonest?" said David Albright, an expert on Iraq's nuclear establishment who has close working contacts inside the U.S. government. "People were not only not told the truth, they were given half-truths. . . . The evidence was stacked deliberately."

Much of the Senate's narrative centers on an official identified in the unclassified report only as a "centrifuge analyst" in the CIA's Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control, or WINPAC, which was established to provide U.N. inspectors with information about Iraq's programs.

WINPAC analysts gave briefings to U.N. inspectors about potential weapons sites and were enormously influential because they provided their assessments to inspectors and policymakers. Among them was the centrifuge analyst, on whom the Washington Post reported last August and identified only as "Joe."

The Senate report said he was the principal author of a CIA analysis from April 10, 2001, excerpted in Friday's report, which said that the tubes "have little use other than for a uranium enrichment program" to build the core of a nuclear warhead.

That was flatly incorrect, and an Energy Department intelligence unit explained why in detail the following day in a report titled, "Iraq: High-Strength Aluminum Tube Procurement," according to the Senate report. It said the tubes were "only marginally large enough" for use in uranium enrichment and had other specifications "not consistent with a gas centrifuge end use." The rotor casing would be only one of many parts required for a centrifuge, yet "we have not seen related procurement efforts."

CONTD

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address

Last edited by FeelTheLove; 10-23-2006 at 06:18 AM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #100 of 106 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 06:15 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
CONTD

The Energy Department report did not identify any such rocket program specifically. But on May 9, 2001 -- much earlier than previously known -- the Energy analysts did exactly that. "Further investigation reveals," the Energy analysts said, that Iraq had bought tens of thousands of identical tubes in the 1980s and 1990s -- 900mm long, 81mm in diameter, with walls 3.3mm thick -- to build a rocket called the Nasser 81. U.N. inspectors had counted 66,737 of the tubes on the ground in 1996.

The Post reported last August that U.S. intelligence officials serving with U.N. inspectors in Iraq documented the Nasser rocket program in early 2003.

The Senate report reveals that Joe and other CIA officials knew about the Nasser rocket program nearly two years earlier.

Yet throughout 2002 and 2003, long after learning that Iraq built tens of thousands of rockets using essentially identical tubes, the agency told policymakers the tubes were not suitable for rockets and could not be intended for a rocket program.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, after a two-day marathon of CIA briefings, used precisely that argument before the U.N. Security Council in February 2003.

One CIA argument was that the high-strength aluminum alloy in the tubes, known as 7075-T6, was needlessly strong and expensive. Its officials did not reveal, even when asked specifically by analysts at other departments and the IAEA, that at least two NATO munitions -- the U.S. Mark 66 rocket, or Hydra, and the Italian-built Medusa -- used the same alloy. CIA officials reported numerous times that the Iraqi tubes had specifications far more precise than any U.S. rocket, another argument Powell repeated.

In fact, the Senate committee found, the Pentagon has 25 pages of specifications for its Mark 66 rocket tubes, with considerably finer tolerances.

Defense Department rocket engineers told the Senate committee that CIA analysts rebuffed them when they said the tubes resembled an Italian rocket casing. One engineer said the CIA analyst "had an agenda" and was "trying to bias us."

The tube debate continued for 18 months.

On Sept. 16, 2002, Joe sought expert support in preparation for the CIA's most extensive analysis, titled "Iraq's Hunt for Aluminum Tubes: Evidence of a Renewed Uranium Enrichment Program." He hired consultants to conduct "spin tests" on the tubes to determine whether they could withstand the extraordinary rotational speeds required for enrichment of uranium in its gaseous form.

In interviews for this story, present and former U.S. government officials with direct knowledge described details not cited in the Senate report. Joe gave the job to two engineers with ties to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Andrew Szady and Joseph Dooley. He instructed them to conceal their work from the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, a major repository of expertise on Iraq's nuclear infrastructure.

"It was meant to be done independently," said one source involved in the events. In a single day, Joe reported, Dooley and Szady succeeded in spinning a tube to 60,000 rpm and concluded the tubes were well-suited as centrifuge rotors.

What Joe did not report was that the great majority of spin tests led to failures of the tubes. An Energy Department analysis, conducted after the CIA was twice forced to disgorge more test data, concluded that none of the tubes demonstrated sufficient strength for long-term operation in a centrifuge.

Szady and Dooley, reached at their homes, declined to be interviewed.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address

Last edited by FeelTheLove; 10-23-2006 at 06:20 AM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Ebay sniper bidders suck anus ThrillKill Off-Topic 48 01-31-2006 10:31 PM
    Our Discovery Times Channel Show Airs Friday! E55RAT W210 E50 AMG, E55 AMG 0 09-01-2005 08:46 AM
    Marine sniper team wiped out in possible betrayal FeelTheLove Off-Topic 27 08-04-2005 03:20 PM
    coolest benz footage zaystev W126 S,SE,SEC,SEL,SD,SDL Class 25 04-08-2005 09:38 PM
    Did they catch the sniper ??? i jay (new jersey) R170 SLK-Class 3 10-24-2002 12:49 PM

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

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome