Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia and had financial support from the House of Saud ( the ruling family in Saudi Arabia).
However, because of Saudi Arabia controlling much of the world's oil supply, and the Saud's family ties with the Bush family, the American public got distracted as to the more direct cause of 9/11.
World politics can get very complicated of course. So they didn't go after the ruling family of Saudi Arabia. Bush and his advisors, along with other politicians thought it better not to call attention to this connection. What's your opinion ?
2007-03-03 08:39:28 · 20 answers · asked by Count Acumen 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
To Alpha Male, Kerry's awards:
1 Silver Star
1 Broze Star
3 Purple Hearts
A lot of the rest of what you say is crap too.
2007-03-03 09:48:31 · update #1
Well, when your family is in bed with the enemy, I suppose you have to find a scapegoat. That seems to be how Bush looks at it anyway. You wouldn't want Bush to loose any of his Saudi investments would you? Isn't it much better to attack a poor country and take their oil than to attack a rich country that might just be able to defend itself? So what if thousands of Iraqi civilians and U.S. military men die in the effort? At least the Bush estate won't be in jeopardy.
Why is it that a good president can be impeached for having an affair and a bad president can't be impeached for lying to the people, undermining the Constitution that he is sworn to uphold, and killing thousands of innocent people? Strange, isn't it?
Osama bin Laden is probably safe and well on the Crawford ranch.
Love, Hope, Peace, & Christ Be With You,
Cal-el & Black Canary
2007-03-03 08:47:31 · answer #1 · answered by Prodigal Son 4 · 7⤊ 3⤋
Liberating Iraq is expensive in treasure and blood, but it's worthwhile. Read the October 2002 congressional resolution to authorize force against Iraq. Had nothing to do with 9-11. Has to do with freedom replacing terrorism, among other good reasons. What makes you think we're friends with the Saudis? Don't you think liberating Saudi Arabia would be like ten times harder than Iraq? And Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Heard of them? >> Why not finish the job in Afghanistan? << That's your one good point. Maybe we need like 100,000 more troops there. Maybe 200,000 more. Get the job done.
2016-03-28 22:29:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have screamed that since 9/11 to bad Im on my 3rd account or Id show you on this board! But yes the Saudis still finace Bin Ladden, we should of invadede them and nuked afghanstan with the surgical strike nukes! I am a veit nam vet and my sons are in this war now.
2007-03-03 09:08:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
My friend, it is obvious to anyone with any kind of abillity to think for themselves that your views have been skewed by the Liberal control of the media and educational systems. I'll bet you still believe that Bush was AWOL during his service and that Kerry was a decorated war vet huh?
Fear not young man, I am about to school you with some real and honest facts along with some good common knowledge. Hold on tight, for if you really open your mind and consider the facts you may begin to realize that the liberal agenda is running you life. You'll soon be a neoconservative (a liberal who switches to a conservative).
Despite what CNN, ABC, and the Treason (NY) Times want you to believe, Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with 9/11.
Yes, some of the terrorists were born in Saudi. However, once they adopted the beliefs of radical Islam they were brainwashed and trained in Afghanistan, along with radical Islamists from basically every Muslim country in the Middle East.
Bin Laden is originally from Saudi as well. However, his family is not the royal family and they actually disowned him a very long time ago. Part of the reason they were flown out of the country shortly after 9/11 is because it was clear that the **** storm that had just been kicked up would put them in grave danger, which is provably true by comments and attitudes like we see here. You can bet your hemp necklace and hacky sack that the CIA is monitoring that family to be sure they are not in contact with them. As a matter of fact, shortly after 9/11 Bin Laden's nieve posed in semi nude (like maxim and FHM) pictures to protest the beliefs that her estranged uncle supported.
Let's use some logic here for a moment. Let's say you have a brother. And let us also say that he sells marijuana for money while he's going to college. If he get's busted and goes to prison for what he did, does that make both YOU and YOUR FAMILY drug dealers as well? Certainly not. Yet you insist that the fact that some Saudi's being terrorists condemns the entire country.
Do the horrific acts that some of our military members have commited condemn both our military and our nation as one in the same? Absolutely not. Same principle though right?
Afghanistan was the right move to make. The Taliban government was literally renting out the country to Al Qaida for millions of dollars a year. In exchange, Al Qaida was allowed to operate the terrorist training camps that they did with impunity. Had we not overthrown the Taliban and run out Al Qaida we'd be in one hell of a spot right now.
These are all facts, you can check them. I urge you to do so and reevaluate the opinions that Leftists reporters are shoving down your throat. Even thouh the chances are you won't, I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt.
Good luck in your search for the truth.
2007-03-03 09:09:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Saudi Arabia is ruled by a brutal dictator and have been accused of violating numerous human rights. However, the royal Saudi family and the Bush family are very close business partners. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to the US government to invade Saudi Arabia.
2007-03-03 08:44:38 · answer #5 · answered by Murry 2 · 8⤊ 4⤋
Or at least question Osamas relatives who were living in the U.S. at the time of the attacks.
Maybe it has something to do with the kissing and hand holding that goes on between Bush and the Saudi Royal family.
2007-03-03 08:44:14 · answer #6 · answered by Honest Opinion 5 · 8⤊ 2⤋
Then Bush would not be able to walk hand in hand with The King through the rose garden as music by Air Supply is played. It is hard work to love a counrty like that, but Bush says "bring 'em on"!
2007-03-03 08:50:19 · answer #7 · answered by Speedracer 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
I agree. And no wonder if Bin Laden seats very comfortably somewhere in Saudi Arabia
2007-03-03 08:44:45 · answer #8 · answered by QQ dri lu 4 · 8⤊ 2⤋
may be it is high time for the usa to invade itself and rid the world of its terroristic bloodthirsty attacks on innocent civillians only to serve its interests. usa backsup isreal in oppressing the real owners of the land, the palestinians, invades iraq after its farcical performance that decieved the whole world , invades afganistan to capture one man who is till this momemt safe and sound ..it seems that the crimes of the usa outnumbers its population , more than enough to declare it as the enemy of world peace!!!
2007-03-03 09:00:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
You hit the nail on the head. All of the experts have said that Saudi Arabia is the number one terrorist threat, and they are in support of Wahhabism Islam (radical form) If it hadnt been for all of the close ties, we would have invaded them
2007-03-03 08:45:36 · answer #10 · answered by go 2 · 8⤊ 2⤋