80% of them came from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden first denied involvement in the attacks , but has since admitted his involvement.
One response to 9-11 was to invade and occupy Iraq. Given that, what horrible punishment have we heaped on Saudi Arabia?
Why has Bin Laden never even been indicted for his role?
2007-09-11 06:20:48 · 15 answers · asked by truth seeker 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Richwilliams, by virtue of the fact that 80% of them are from Saudi Arabia, we can safely assume that they, as a country, are harboring terrorists and Saudi Arabia has terrorist breeding grounds which is more than enough reason for sanction. Just because bin Laden is persona non grata doesn't mean that he doesn't have millions of sympathizers living there who are more than willing to take up his cause. I'm not saying that we should have stormed into SA but I'm getting kind of sick of people making an argument that basically amounts to "well, they said they were sorry." Their reaction to the situation was to protect their interests not ours. They couldn't have done any differently without the American public screaming for blood meaning the government wouldn't have had any choice but to go into SA and that wasn't in their plans. There is no indication that prior to the war (according the UN, our international allies and our own intelligence) that Iraq was a breeding ground for anything. As for punishing an entire country for the actions of a few, as we speak, an entire country is suffering for the actions of one man.
We didn't take SA to task because they're friends (i.e. they have money and oil and share it with us). This is the way of the world and it's naive to think otherwise. How else can you possibly explain our disdain for Cuban communism when China is keeping our economy afloat? Don't try to make things sound noble or righteous. Nation building is a dirty job and sometimes you have to look the other way to accomplish a "greater goal." That's exactly what this administration did.
2007-09-11 06:56:11 · answer #1 · answered by I'm back...and this still sucks. 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hmm.. what punishment for Saudi Arabia? Good question. I understand your logic. I don't see any punishment going on right now. The worst punishment may be that the Saudis holding the US dollars may take a hit because the US dollars are going down. But then, I'm sure the Saudis already bought stuff (like weapons and gold) with the dollars, so not much loss there.
2007-09-11 07:31:15 · answer #2 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that our officials decided that killing Bin Laden and making it public wouldn't serve the best interest of our country's safety. He would be seen as a martyr and the possibility of attacks would surge. Who knows, maybe he is dead and his death has just not been made public?
2007-09-11 08:45:31 · answer #3 · answered by Libby 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Israel is a important authority non-obligatory via the people, terrorists are people who inflame the people, in assorted circumstances unfavourable uneducated people into taking on their reason which isn't yours, you do not have to any extent further have been given any determination the two you bypass alongside are die, interior the propose time they could build you a wellness facility are 2.
2016-11-14 23:04:17 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did Saudi Arabian government support these animals? Did they applaud their actions? Do they seek to train and give aid to terrorists bent on attacking international targets?
No. The Saudi government has a warrant out for Osama's life. Osama's family has disowned him and has vowed to turn him over to authorities if they see him. Have you noticed that Osama is hiding in a cave in Pakistan and not in Saudi Arabia? Is an entire nation guilty because of the actions of a few? Perhaps in your narrow little world.
Indict Osama? Heck. We don't want to arrest him, we want to kill him. You've still got this law enforcement view of fighting terrorism. Sorry, it's not like that any more. We don't want to arrest and try these maggots, we don't want to read them their rights, we want to kill them. Period. End of story.
Get it now? Probably not.
2007-09-11 06:32:05 · answer #5 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Wouldn't it have been so much simpler to indict him, try him in court (even in absence of his physical body), and declare a war on Al Qeda?
I think with half the funding, and support from every nation in the world, it would have been more effective than tangling around in a religious civil war for years...
2007-09-11 06:27:27 · answer #6 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Bin Laden was indicted.
2007-09-11 06:29:49 · answer #7 · answered by vinny_says_relax 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
OBL is against the kingdom, but the kingdom are more our friends than enemies - supposedly.
We do pay them well.
2007-09-11 06:52:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It makes ZERO difference where the terrorist were from , do you think countries should attack the US because some of their citizen are idiots??
2007-09-11 06:32:06 · answer #9 · answered by TyranusXX 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
none.
saudi arabia remains trusted at the highest levels of our govt and our president's family has made over $1,000,000.00 from saudi arabian interests over the past 20 years.
i find it astonishing that our president has survived, given his close relationship to those who attacked america on 9/11...
2007-09-11 06:26:22 · answer #10 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋