this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
509 points (96.9% liked)
simpsonsshitposting
3215 readers
419 users here now
I just think they're neat!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Even when they do, few will admit it.
I wish I knew people in 2004 who defended the afghanistan/iraq war. I'd ask them today if they still feel it was justified.
My coworker said the other day he wished trump would be more like W Bush (both he voted for) so i presume not only does he still think it was good but wants more of it
I’m trying to not talk about it for my sanity
Some do, some don’t. Check the change in bush’s approval ratings for a decent approximation of likelihood
That's really not one conflict. Conflating them was what the US regime at the time tried to do to whitewash their decisions.
Also, at least you do know people who were completely cool when everyone just pulled out of Afghanistan leaving the folk that worked with them to suffer the reprisals of the Taliban, so ask them if it was worth it.
You mean the Trump plan? That Trump developed? No, we were not cool with it
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
Right. In the same way the King bears responsibility for the assassination of Kashoggi because he was King and it happened under his reign. Not because he had anything directly to do with it.
That’s a false equivalence.
To be clear your claim is untrue and relies on not understanding anything about Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda, or any of their actions.
While some people from Saudi Arabia are involved in Al Qaeda the government itself is not supporting a group looking to overthrow it. That would be really stupid.
Sure, as this dynamic is of a similar nature as the relationship between explicit anti-government organizations like the Oath Keepers and the American government.
No, because neither of those groups intend on overthrowing the US government.
The reason why your claim is not just false but actually ignorant is because the main goal of Al Qaeda is overthrowing the Saudi government that pays people.
You shouldn’t be continuing to try to prove yourself correct here. Your claim makes no sense at all.
It's quite fine that it doesn't make sense with such an interpretation of what I said. I haven't even disagreed with such refutation as a result.
Im not interpreting anything. You keep making false equivalences because you want Saudis ti be blamed for something that wasn’t created by Saudi Arabia.
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?
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.
As opposed to targeting the people not responsible for these actions with death, as the war hurt regular afghanis the most?
Your entire approach to to this subject is bordering on Bond villlan levels of evil. Why does your breath smell like al saud semen?
Oh they act like there were bad actors that manipulated the innocent US. The president was just making the best decisions he could smh.