I'm willing to accept 9/11. I'm not willing to accept the absolute absurd leap in logic that nineteen Saudi's attacked us therefore we invade Afghanistan.
Uhh what? Al queda orchestrated the attack and were based in Afghanistan. Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin laden so therefore military action was pursued. Which part of that is the leap in logic?
If you think Osama Bin Laden was actually responsible... You know his family was meeting with the Bush crime syndicate like the day before and had dealings in the past. And there's documented shit about him going to our hospitals overseas and such... Guess he was a CIA asset or something from the old Afghan days where we trained and funneled weapons there. Oh and we killed him right? Burial at sea a few hours later but it was definitely him, trust us.
al queida declared war on the kingdom of saud for hosting the infidel americans after the gulf war. so they were SA traitors hanging out in Afghan.
what boggles my mind, is that after 50 years of islamic terrorism, bombings, hijackings, kidnappings, towers bombed and the Twin Towers themselves bombed just 8 years earlier, some people refuse to beleive they were capable and willing.
Especially because of how 'easy' the plot really was. There was basically no airline security pre-9/11 and the SOP was to surrender to hijackers, as it had been an off-and-on problem throughout the 70s and 80s.
Gotcha. That certainly gives me something to pivot on. Though I'll be honest, I still can't fathom the rationale for Afghanistan even if AQ was there. We went in aren't we still there?
I'm willing to accept 9/11. I'm not willing to accept the absolute absurd leap in logic that nineteen Saudi's attacked us therefore we invade Afghanistan.
Uhh what? Al queda orchestrated the attack and were based in Afghanistan. Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin laden so therefore military action was pursued. Which part of that is the leap in logic?
Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with it
Regardless you can see that isn’t a leap in logic right?
He was behind the first terror attack on WTC.
I know where I was that day, were you even born yet?
If you think Osama Bin Laden was actually responsible... You know his family was meeting with the Bush crime syndicate like the day before and had dealings in the past. And there's documented shit about him going to our hospitals overseas and such... Guess he was a CIA asset or something from the old Afghan days where we trained and funneled weapons there. Oh and we killed him right? Burial at sea a few hours later but it was definitely him, trust us.
OBL had been estranged from his family for many years. The connection you're trying to make there does not exist. Although it does look suspicious.
We did not "bury him at sea."
Were not nearly all the hi-jackers Saudi Arabian? Genuine question. Or were they defectors and were hanging out in Afghanistan?
al queida declared war on the kingdom of saud for hosting the infidel americans after the gulf war. so they were SA traitors hanging out in Afghan.
what boggles my mind, is that after 50 years of islamic terrorism, bombings, hijackings, kidnappings, towers bombed and the Twin Towers themselves bombed just 8 years earlier, some people refuse to beleive they were capable and willing.
Especially because of how 'easy' the plot really was. There was basically no airline security pre-9/11 and the SOP was to surrender to hijackers, as it had been an off-and-on problem throughout the 70s and 80s.
Gotcha. That certainly gives me something to pivot on. Though I'll be honest, I still can't fathom the rationale for Afghanistan even if AQ was there. We went in aren't we still there?
Taliban actually offered him up quite peaceably
And Iraq
The real question is (((who))) pushed us to invade Iraq
Yeah that is nuts. Somebody would hijack a plane and then it justifies his country to be invaded and raped off from any resources and gold.
No logic at all