this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
451 points (97.1% liked)

simpsonsshitposting

3206 readers
680 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
[–] [email protected] 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

They were both unnecessary wastes of life and resources that were started for all the wrong reasons, so kind of.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

He didn’t need Saudi money to walk across the border.

It’s weird how much certain people want to blame Saudis for this.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

How dare they blame the country most directly involved

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Why would we blame the nation that some were born

Perhaps because it's the same nation that funded them

Also lol at "some". Yeah, 15 out of 19 is "some".

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The Taliban tried to give America Osama Bin Laden but they wanted something in exchange, so they invaded and suffered 20 years of war over such audacious demands.

The thing about Al-Qaeda and 9/11 is that it was always a Saudi operation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Can you clarify what you mean by Al Qaeda is a Saudi operation?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The 9/11 attacks done by Al-Qaeda were Saudi. Al-Qaeda itself is a bit different, right, but I meant strictly in the context of the US invading Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban.

So 'the Al-Qaeda operation of 9/11 was Saudi' would be a more accurate way to put it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Al Qaeda’s primary goal is to overthrow the Saudi government and install a caliph in Medina. Why would Saudi Arabia be involved with a terrorist group whose goal is the destruction of the state they run?

The notion that the leaders of Saudi Arabia would be involved with Al Qaeda overlooks that really important fact. That’s why the claim has never been true.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

In a strict legalist sense, yes. There is no direct connection with the governing Saudi monarchy and the operations of islamist organization Al-Qaeda. That is absolutely correct.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

No, in any sense. When you start looking at the claims the closest you get is a wife of Bandahar Al Saud potentially writing a check maybe which is very far from the Saudis supporting Al Qaeda

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Right. In the same way the King bears responsibility for the assassination of Kashoggi because he was King and it happened under his reign. Not because he had anything directly to do with it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

That’s a false equivalence.

To be clear your claim is untrue and relies on not understanding anything about Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda, or any of their actions.

While some people from Saudi Arabia are involved in Al Qaeda the government itself is not supporting a group looking to overthrow it. That would be really stupid.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, as this dynamic is of a similar nature as the relationship between explicit anti-government organizations like the Oath Keepers and the American government.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

No, because neither of those groups intend on overthrowing the US government.

The reason why your claim is not just false but actually ignorant is because the main goal of Al Qaeda is overthrowing the Saudi government that pays people.

You shouldn’t be continuing to try to prove yourself correct here. Your claim makes no sense at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

It's quite fine that it doesn't make sense with such an interpretation of what I said. I haven't even disagreed with such refutation as a result.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

Im not interpreting anything. You keep making false equivalences because you want Saudis ti be blamed for something that wasn’t created by Saudi Arabia.