Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,831,906 times
Reputation: 6438
Advertisements
Isn't it strange that the US didn't attack Saudi Arabia? Almosts all of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi.
Yet we attacked Iraq.
That's like attacking Arizona because all the immigrants coming through there are from Mexico. "Obviously, because they are a hotbed of illegal immigration activity."
The Saudi's have taken great effort to be personally connected with the Bush family and many of the American aristocracy. They have also recycled much of their oil wealth into the Wall Street markets thus holding the prices higher than might otherwise be expected. This makes the Saudi’s our friends that can do no wrong. This is why we attack countries that threaten the Saudi’s, not countries that provide the Soldiers of God for the al Quida butchers.
So because they were born in SA translates into SA being responsible for 9/11? Is California blamed if a native Californian kills someone in New York?
I'm not saying SA doesn't have issues but to somehow say that they should have been attacked after 9/11 simply because most of the hijackers were Saudis is absurd. Give me proof that the Saudi Royal Family is tied to the hijackers and you might have a point.
The Saudi's have taken great effort to be personally connected with the Bush family and many of the American aristocracy. They have also recycled much of their oil wealth into the Wall Street markets thus holding the prices higher than might otherwise be expected. This makes the Saudi’s our friends that can do no wrong. This is why we attack countries that threaten the Saudi’s, not countries that provide the Soldiers of God for the al Quida butchers.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01Snake
So because they were born in SA translates into SA being responsible for 9/11? Is California blamed if a native Californian kills someone in New York?
I'm not saying SA doesn't have issues but to somehow say that they should have been attacked after 9/11 simply because most of the hijackers were Saudis is absurd. Give me proof that the Saudi Royal Family is tied to the hijackers and you might have a point.
Give us proof that Saddam was tied to the hijackers and Bush might have a point.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01Snake
Typical response.
It makes sense, why shouldn't it be typical?
IF Iraq was ever the number one threat to the US, that all changed on 9/11.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
