15 out of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.
2006-10-11 07:54:43 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Bush couldn't invade Saudi because his family has too many ties to the ruling family, and they're too great a friend of the US (too much invested in Wall St).
For republicans the WTC attacks were a good opportunity to coerce the sheep-like, caps-lock-using public into believeing that attacking Iraq was revenge, while they stole all the oil. Republicans are weak on terror because they use diplomacy and war solely as instruments of American capital and care little for the hopes, dreams or safety of the common people.
2006-10-11 08:07:06 · answer #1 · answered by James H 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
and..........what?
Unless you can prove that the Saudi government was directly involved in the attack then the nationality of the people involved in a terrorist attack is a moot point. Al Queda is made up of people from various nations with a common belief and objective one of those objectives is the destruction of the US and another is the elimination of secular governments in the Middle East and the establishment of a new Islamic Empire. The Saudi government just gets in the way of that objective so there's no benefit for the Saudi government to back Al Queda that's like handing someone who wants to shoot you the gun to do it with.
Look at Osama he's basically persona non grata in Saudi Arabia right now and why would the Saudi government seek to harm it's primary money source the US? Why would the Saudi government launch military style attacks on known Al-Queda safe houses in it's own territory?
You may want to ask yourself why blind party loyalty has blinded you to simple logic. Think for yourself and drop the hate. Don't be fooled by silly conspiracy theories that have been already disproven several times over by the 9/11 Commission Report and several news agencies worldwide (i.e. the Bush-Bin Laden investment ties, Bush giving special treatment to the Bin Laden family). Yeah if Bush and Bin Laden are tied to each other because they both just happened to invest in Carlyle then you'll have to go after John Kerry's chief backer George Soros who also invests heavily in Carlyle.
It's fun watching sheep call their political opponents sheep as they both feel so smug in their hypocrisy.
2006-10-11 08:11:23 · answer #2 · answered by sprydle 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What does hijackers (of what?) nationality have to do with Republicans stance on terrorism?
2006-10-11 08:02:20 · answer #3 · answered by Sherpa 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes they should adopt the surrender strategy of the Democrats. Hitler would have caved in weeks had we just surrendered faster.
2006-10-11 07:57:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
THATS THE DUMBEST THING I'VE READ HERE. YOU MUST LIVE IN ANOTHER WORLD. REPUBLICANS TOOK US TO WAR OVER TERRORISM. DEMOCRATS PAYED TO KEEP THEM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD. REPUBLICANS CONFRONTED DEMOCRATS HID.
2006-10-11 07:58:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Democrats have already surrendered to the terrorists.
2006-10-11 07:58:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They aren't weak on terrorism, it is the Liberal weak kneed DEMOCRATS who are weak on terrorism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-10-11 08:50:40 · answer #7 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋