1
   

62% of republicans thinks sadam was involved in 9/11

Forums: Politics, Idiots
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
freedom4free
 
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 03:52 pm
According to the most recent Gallup poll, 62% of Republicans think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Laughing

Source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 12,516 • Replies: 239
No top replies

 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 03:57 pm
Its Saddam actually, but no matter.

Personally involved? how, did he fly one of the planes?

I dont doubt the findings, except that 10% of Americans say they have been abducted by aliens.

What percentage think they have been anally probed by Saddam?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:00 pm
It's of little consequence. This isn't the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. He stated repeatedly that he was seeking the power to invade to look for WMD, and on that basis it was more than justified.

Furthermore, although I do not believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11, it certainly isn't impossible that there has occasionally been some contact between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I have no reason to believe there was, but it's not an absurd idea.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:06 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
It's of little consequence. This isn't the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. He stated repeatedly that he was seeking the power to invade to look for WMD, and on that basis it was more than justified.

Furthermore, although I do not believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11, it certainly isn't impossible that there has occasionally been some contact between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I have no reason to believe there was, but it's not an absurd idea.



bullshit as usual
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:07 pm
I don't find it impossible to think that the bloke in the next street knew the burglars who wrecked my house. That's why I went round there with fifty of my mates and beat the crap out of him.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:07 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
It's of little consequence. This isn't the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. He stated repeatedly that he was seeking the power to invade to look for WMD, and on that basis it was more than justified.

Furthermore, although I do not believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11, it certainly isn't impossible that there has occasionally been some contact between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I have no reason to believe there was, but it's not an absurd idea.



bullshit as usual

Inability to justify your ideas or your criticisms as usual.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:08 pm
I say we blame it on the English.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:09 pm
Lord Ellpus wrote:
I don't find it impossible to think that the bloke in the next street knew the burglars who wrecked my house. That's why I went round there with fifty of my mates and beat the crap out of him.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I stated at the outset that such a connection was not related to the reasons for invasion.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:09 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
It's of little consequence. This isn't the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. He stated repeatedly that he was seeking the power to invade to look for WMD, and on that basis it was more than justified.

Furthermore, although I do not believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11, it certainly isn't impossible that there has occasionally been some contact between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I have no reason to believe there was, but it's not an absurd idea.



bullshit as usual

Inability to justify your ideas or your criticisms as usual.


and the justification for your bullshit is?
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:12 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Lord Ellpus wrote:
I don't find it impossible to think that the bloke in the next street knew the burglars who wrecked my house. That's why I went round there with fifty of my mates and beat the crap out of him.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I stated at the outset that such a connection was not related to the reasons for invasion.


I was just going along with the opinion of my next door neighbour, Condopleaser Price. She reckons they did it.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:12 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
It's of little consequence. This isn't the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. He stated repeatedly that he was seeking the power to invade to look for WMD, and on that basis it was more than justified.

Furthermore, although I do not believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11, it certainly isn't impossible that there has occasionally been some contact between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I have no reason to believe there was, but it's not an absurd idea.



bullshit as usual

Inability to justify your ideas or your criticisms as usual.


and the justification for your bullshit is?

I have stated a few of ideas in my post. If you wish to argue that any is wrong, then say why, or ask me for proof of something specific. It's your pattern to take a properly formulated argument, and merely insult it, as though that were an argument. A very odd quality for someone "in the right."
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:14 pm
Lord Ellpus wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Lord Ellpus wrote:
I don't find it impossible to think that the bloke in the next street knew the burglars who wrecked my house. That's why I went round there with fifty of my mates and beat the crap out of him.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I stated at the outset that such a connection was not related to the reasons for invasion.


I was just going along with the opinion of my next door neighbour, Condopleaser Price. She reckons they did it.

If you have no serious challenges to my statements, I'll move on. How odd, that you lot, who are allegedly so right, has no ability to support anything you say.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:20 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
I say we blame it on the English.


Well of course we all know you were joking mr krustystrawhatgermanicfellawithstick.

On the other hand there has been many a true word said in jest. Have you looked in the eyes of Tony Blair when he talks about America or Saddam or indeed anything?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:22 pm
Brandon9000
Here we go again.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:30 pm
This is truly disturbing news.


Honestly, do these people NEVER read or watch anything but Fox and similar drek?

Such ignorance ought to be punishable by some damn thing or other.

Participating in democracy(such as it is) without due care, or something.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:31 pm
au1929 wrote:
Brandon9000
Here we go again.

It's odd that I can defeat five or six of you at once in argument, and you're reduced to getting personal to try to prevail.

I had a thread about the last round of UN inspections in the Politics section, where some actual progress could probably have been made on this issue, and which was not very conducive to emotional arguments, but it didn't arouse much interest.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:38 pm
yeah rabbit

Convicted of voting without due care and attention.

But they go out of their way to keep em ignorant and compliant.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 04:45 pm
Here's one for the thread titles which are funny when they appear together:

62% of republicans thinks sadam was involved in 9/11

Science & Mathematics An alternative to intelligence?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 05:19 pm
What makes you so sure Saddam wasn't somehow involved in 911?

With all the evidence of SH and OBL sending messages to one another, terrorists finding haven in Iraq, intermediaries of the two meeting more than once, Salman Pak.... It seems to me the more logical position is that Saddam DID offer some assitance to AQ, rather than trying to say he absolutely didn't.

Where is your evidence SH didn't have any role whatsoever in AQ's attack? Because to be so belligerant about those who have an open mind about it--you surely should have evidence to support your claim.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 05:25 pm
Lash.............please.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 62% of republicans thinks sadam was involved in 9/11
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.39 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 12:15:38
▲ ▼