Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (614447)	6/2/2011 4:49:18 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 1571682

So, no he never actually said that Saddam was behind 9/11. In fact GWB specifically said he had no evidence to suggest that SH was behind 9/11...but a dumbfukk like you would not remember that.... CJ, Prince of the Dumbfukks. J.

To: combjelly who wrote (614447)	6/2/2011 8:36:11 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571682

"If you went to Webster's, that would would be the definition for Tim Fowler." Sadly, it isn't just him. Smirk, for example, had mastered this one. Argument by innuendo Yup. And the innuendo is intended to generate fear. Strangely enough, its a tactic used by ME dictators. Before Bashar decided to slaughter his people, he told them that the demonstrations were caused by outsiders.....western terrorists.....who were determined to ruin Syria. When that didn't work, he amped up the fear by going after the demonstrators. When that didn't work, he began shooting and killing the demonstrators. When that didn't work, he called in the army. When that didn't work, he started torturing and killing 13 year old boys. Innuendo and fear.....usually a great combo in getting people to do what you want.