It wasnt revenge. Most of terrorist were suadis, your allyNo afgani was involved in 9/11. The root cause was left untouched unpunished once again.
So you don’t even know why we invaded Afghanistan?
So you don’t even know why we invaded Afghanistan?
I said wrong country targeted so it wasnt revenge. Fake news
I said wrong country targeted so it wasnt revenge.Read a book
Or maybe even a wiki.
Wiki says 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia
Over to you
Afghanistan War, international conflict in Afghanistan beginning in 2001 that was triggered by the September 11 attacksI found it on the internet, so it has to be true.
And? Was the response the right one when Saudi is root problem and responsible for 9/11? Was it a good thing when we consider the death count, destruction and cost to tax payers?
I found it on the internet, so it has to be true.Well, there's also this:
The Saudi Connection: Inside the 9/11 Case That Divided the F.B.I. A small team of agents spent years investigating whether one of Washington’s closest allies was involved in the worst terror attack in U.S. history. This is their story.By Tim Golden and Sebastian Rotella
Jan. 23, 2020https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/magazine/9-11-saudi-arabia-fbi.html
FBI ‘mistakenly reveals Saudi official linked’ to 9/11 attackers Mistake was made in a declaration by an FBI official in response to lawsuit by families of 9/11 victims, report says.www. aljazeera. com/news/2020/5/13/fbi-mistakenly-reveals-saudi-official-linked-to-9-11
Or if you want the long version
TERRORISM: TWO YEARS AFTER 9/11, CONNECTING THE DOTS=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY AND HOMELAND SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION
SEPTEMBER 10, 2003. - TERRORISM: TWO YEARS AFTER 9/11, CONNECTING THE DOTS
Do word search for Saudi, 166 hits,
“Wahhabism” only 14 hits there, but certainly some eye openers. There’s plenty more evidence lined up.
But I don’t have the stomach for it. Bottom line Saudi guilty as hell, we’ve know that for a long time, because so much evidence points that way. What to do with that, who knows anymore, we can’t even stop ourselves from destroying our global life support system, and our nation’s civility. For being so smart people sure are dumb.
As for the Afghanistan War, lordie tough to decide when that one actually started.
https:// www. wbur. org/npr/178790557/first-western-war-in-afghanistan-was-an-imperial-disaster
. . . then of course there’s also Wilson’s War.
And? Was the response the right one when Saudi is root problem and responsible for 9/11? Was it a good thing when we consider the death count, destruction and cost to tax payers?So you agree that the Reason given to invade Afghanistan was to get rid of Al Qaeda that harbored the terrorists that plotted and executed the 9/11 attack.
Americans were looking for revenge, for blood. Bush was looking for a ratings boost. Do you think either would have been content to wait 2 or 3 years to announce “We’re going to bring a few people to trial”?
I stand by my statement. Afghanistan was invaded for Revenge.
Right or wrong is another debate with an answer that is not strictly black or white.
Thanks for the info. I’m not denying Saudis were involved. “Al Qaeda” is also all over those articles.
Saudis mate. They became radicalised in saudi not afganistan.
You didnt respond to the question about was the response a good thing as you say it had benefits for the MIC even though it cost lives and money.
You didnt respond to the question about was the response a good thing as you say it had benefits for the MIC even though it cost lives and money.Benefits = Good There's your answer, again.
Good for some, not so good for others, as is every decision and action.
They became radicalised in saudi not afganistan. -- mgNot seeing how waging a war on a country is going to change how some people are radicalized. Pretty sure Muslim extremist jihadi warriors get radicalized in Afghanistan. Definitely sure that's where bin Laden was.
What should have happened is we should have given them aid in the form of schools and whatever infrastructure they needed, after they helped us win the “cold” war against Russia. But, that’s what happens when you wage a secret war, it’s hard to come out and sell the idea that a very different culture put their lives on the line to fight a common enemy, and to come clean about how you did it. Afghanistan has a long history of keeping out foreign invaders, so on their side, it was very easy to sell the idea that the US was a threat. Malala’s first book is a good intro to how they did that.
:Benefits = Good There’s your answer, again.
Good for some, not so good for others, as is every decision and action."
You say at the end of day, overall it was a good thing to have happened.
after they helped us win the “cold” war against Russia.Are you referring to them draining resources from Russia during their war / support / whatever?
I hadn’t thought of it in that way.
And from what it sounds like, there’d be a question of who of the “them” would get the help.
I pretty much accept the story as told in “Charlie Wilson’s War”. Russia was kicking Afghanistan’s butt, then a few people in the CIA figured out how to apply the precise weapon’s technology for the people and climate of their country and they started dropping the Soviet helicopters, and raising the cost of their ability to continue to fighting. As you note, this did drain their economy, which was already strained. It caused division within the Soviet government, leading to them pulling back from countries they had occupied for decades and implementing economic reforms.
Good for some, not so good for others, as is every decision and action.” --mrmYou say at the end of day, overall it was a good thing to have happened. – mg
MissingGirl, you seem to have a problem with any kind of subtlety of nuance. Even when people consistently discuss the pros and cons, you want them to choose a side, make a black and white declaration, then you tell them how their declaration is wrong. I could literally do that with every major topic in this forum. It illuminates nothing. It adds “heat”, not “light”. It’s not the intention of this forum at all. If you want to “win” arguments, try facebook or reddit.
You say at the end of day, overall it was a good thing to have happened.Your comprehension amazes me.
“Your comprehension amazes me”
Overall, at the end of the day, weighing it up, give or take ,pluses and minuses the cost was worth it?
Just clarifying your thoughts on this
Overall, at the end of the day, weighing it up, give or take ,pluses and minuses the cost was worth it?
Just clarifying your thoughts on this
No give or take, or plus and minus or point of view.
The simplest answer, which is what you want, is: YES
The simplest explanation is: YOU
Ok yes for you. And as you said 9/11 triggered this.
Using your reasoning you must think 9/11 was a good thing as the end result was a net benefit.
Ok yes for you. And as you said 9/11 triggered this.
Using your reasoning you must think 9/11 was a good thing as the end result was a net benefit.
