this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
469 points (97.2% liked)
simpsonsshitposting
3212 readers
701 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
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.
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".