The Taliban tried to give America Osama Bin Laden but they wanted something in exchange, so they invaded and suffered 20 years of war over such audacious demands.
The thing about Al-Qaeda and 9/11 is that it was always a Saudi operation.
The 9/11 attacks done by Al-Qaeda were Saudi. Al-Qaeda itself is a bit different, right, but I meant strictly in the context of the US invading Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban.
So ‘the Al-Qaeda operation of 9/11 was Saudi’ would be a more accurate way to put it.
Al Qaeda’s primary goal is to overthrow the Saudi government and install a caliph in Medina. Why would Saudi Arabia be involved with a terrorist group whose goal is the destruction of the state they run?
The notion that the leaders of Saudi Arabia would be involved with Al Qaeda overlooks that really important fact. That’s why the claim has never been true.
In a strict legalist sense, yes. There is no direct connection with the governing Saudi monarchy and the operations of islamist organization Al-Qaeda. That is absolutely correct.
No, in any sense. When you start looking at the claims the closest you get is a wife of Bandahar Al Saud potentially writing a check maybe which is very far from the Saudis supporting Al Qaeda
Al Qaeda was all over the place. Wasn’t a single Afghani on any of those planes. There were, however, 15 Saudis (out of 19 hijackers). The attack was planned by a Saudi. The organization was run by a Saudi, and funded by Saudis.
And yet the army of Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan at the time of the attacks.
If I as an American write checks to a buddy in Mexico who rounds up cartel members in Mexico to invade Belize should the army of Belize look to stop the army fighting them in the nation of the guy who wrote checks or in the place where the army actually is located.
Anyone who thinks we should have attacked Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is really displaying how little they know about this conflict and conflicts in general.
And yet, when we finally got bin laden, it wasn’t in Afghanistan. He moved, easily, with Saudi money. Thousands of Americans were killed with weapons paid for by Saudi money, held by troops recruited and trained with Saudi money. Seems like if we had cut off the Saudi money this thing would have been over a hell of a lot faster.
Why would the blame the nation that was their primary target? Why would we blame the nation that some were born in rather than the nation that housed and protected the army?
Do you think those two wars were equivalent?
They were both unnecessary wastes of life and resources that were started for all the wrong reasons, so kind of.
Fair but I would argue that as Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and they attacked the USA that war is different than Iraq which never attacked the USA.
The Taliban tried to give America Osama Bin Laden but they wanted something in exchange, so they invaded and suffered 20 years of war over such audacious demands.
The thing about Al-Qaeda and 9/11 is that it was always a Saudi operation.
Can you clarify what you mean by Al Qaeda is a Saudi operation?
The 9/11 attacks done by Al-Qaeda were Saudi. Al-Qaeda itself is a bit different, right, but I meant strictly in the context of the US invading Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban.
So ‘the Al-Qaeda operation of 9/11 was Saudi’ would be a more accurate way to put it.
Al Qaeda’s primary goal is to overthrow the Saudi government and install a caliph in Medina. Why would Saudi Arabia be involved with a terrorist group whose goal is the destruction of the state they run?
The notion that the leaders of Saudi Arabia would be involved with Al Qaeda overlooks that really important fact. That’s why the claim has never been true.
In a strict legalist sense, yes. There is no direct connection with the governing Saudi monarchy and the operations of islamist organization Al-Qaeda. That is absolutely correct.
No, in any sense. When you start looking at the claims the closest you get is a wife of Bandahar Al Saud potentially writing a check maybe which is very far from the Saudis supporting Al Qaeda
Al Qaeda was all over the place. Wasn’t a single Afghani on any of those planes. There were, however, 15 Saudis (out of 19 hijackers). The attack was planned by a Saudi. The organization was run by a Saudi, and funded by Saudis.
And yet the army of Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan at the time of the attacks.
If I as an American write checks to a buddy in Mexico who rounds up cartel members in Mexico to invade Belize should the army of Belize look to stop the army fighting them in the nation of the guy who wrote checks or in the place where the army actually is located.
Anyone who thinks we should have attacked Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is really displaying how little they know about this conflict and conflicts in general.
And yet, when we finally got bin laden, it wasn’t in Afghanistan. He moved, easily, with Saudi money. Thousands of Americans were killed with weapons paid for by Saudi money, held by troops recruited and trained with Saudi money. Seems like if we had cut off the Saudi money this thing would have been over a hell of a lot faster.
He didn’t need Saudi money to walk across the border.
It’s weird how much certain people want to blame Saudis for this.
How dare they blame the country most directly involved
Why would the blame the nation that was their primary target? Why would we blame the nation that some were born in rather than the nation that housed and protected the army?