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?
Are you under the impression that Al Qaeda had 19 members total? If not why would you state 15 of the 19 hijackers being Saudi as if that was significant?
The USA fought the group that attacked them in the nation that army was in. You seem to think they should have attacked the nation where they were not actually located. Why should they have attacked the nation that wasn’t sheltering them or aiding them rather than Afghanistan which did both?
I don’t think we should have attacked anyone. We should have sanctioned the fuck out of Saudi Arabia. Cut off the funding and al Qaeda dissolves on its own without firing a shot.
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?
Perhaps because it’s the same nation that funded them
Also lol at “some”. Yeah, 15 out of 19 is “some”.
Are you under the impression that Al Qaeda had 19 members total? If not why would you state 15 of the 19 hijackers being Saudi as if that was significant?
The USA fought the group that attacked them in the nation that army was in. You seem to think they should have attacked the nation where they were not actually located. Why should they have attacked the nation that wasn’t sheltering them or aiding them rather than Afghanistan which did both?
I don’t think we should have attacked anyone. We should have sanctioned the fuck out of Saudi Arabia. Cut off the funding and al Qaeda dissolves on its own without firing a shot.
So we should have targeted the people not responsible for these actions as sanctions would hurt regular Saudis the most.
Your entire approach to this subject is baffling.