WHY IS IT THAT NONE OF THE 9/11 HIJACKERS WERE FROM NATIONS THE US HAD ATTACKED?

political : WHY IS IT THAT NONE OF THE 9/11 HIJACKERS WERE FROM NATIONS THE US HAD ATTACKED?

[+] serious ballot by herzog
created Wed Jun 14, 06
If terrorism is produced as a response to outside aggression, why is it that 0 of the 19 hijackers on september 11th came from nations we had attacked?

15 Came from Saudi Arabia, a nation we are friendly with (a little too friendly) and whom we protected from invasion by the Iraqis at their request.

The other 4 came from Egypt (we given them billions in aid every year), Lebanon (A nation conquered by Syria, we pressured the syrians to give them independence) and the UAE (which as always been fairly pro-western, and whom we enjoy excellent business relationships with).

So if terrorism comes about only as a response to a weaker group fighting back the only way they can against a stronger group, why were none of the hijackers from a nation that had actually fought and lost a war against the US?

I don't know
I do know and will explain below
that's a "Holy War" for yah :) (and of course the Evangelists will win)
It is a Clash of Civilizations- there is a pan-Islamic civilization that they perceive
Because 9/11 was a setup

Register to submit choices

Ballot #95838 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

similiar ballots:
32429. Were you ever attacked in any way by your own pet?
74482. If the Al-Quida had attacked London instead of the WTC, what do you think the U.S. would have done?
76869. Why hasn't Al Queda attacked Canada?
132781. So today I got attacked by at least ten cats.
77343. OK, if Russia attacked Turkey from behind, would Greece help?
93271. Who do you think attacked America on September 11, 2001?
45164. if america is attacked again do you think the rest of the world would care
134471. If you were attacked by a dark/shadow type of attack...
52409. If The world was attacked by aliens do you think the owrld would unite to drive them off?
54082. Saddam Hussein attacked and captured for THOUGHT CRIME?

COMMENTS:
and it has taken nearly 3 years for that question to surface???

by lightreaper on Wed Jun 14, 06 6:32pm [+]

^ I'm sure it was asked before. I just wanted to revist the topic in light of ballot 95832.

by herzog on Wed Jun 14, 06 6:34pm [+]

They were islamic and they could afford it.

Better question is, Why are the US in Iraq and not in saudi arabia or egypt??

by mobsie666 on Wed Jun 14, 06 6:44pm [+]

National borders aren't as important in the Islamic world.

by Counciltucky on Wed Jun 14, 06 7:43pm [+]

I know its not what you meant CT but i couldn't help thinking, Yeah thats why we as a nation attack islam at random.

by mobsie666 on Wed Jun 14, 06 7:49pm [+]

More logic flaws. I predict you'll get a career as a GOP press secretary.

If A causes B,
but you find a B with no evidence of A,
does that refute the premise?

No. If the assertion was that terrorism is produced ONLY by outside aggression, I'd agree. As it stands ... you have misunderstood the initial statement.

Again.

by Cathexis on Thu Jun 15, 06 6:29am [+]

This ballot represents a major flaw in neo-con thinking (just one of many). The extremist conservative fundamentalist Islamic isn't tied to any nation, it is associated with the Islamic world.

One of the prime errors that Bush and his crooks, and other ignorant neo-cons make, is to put too much importance on Islamic nations, when the people of the Middle East associate much more strongly with their ethnic and religious groups.

And I agree that it is appalling for Bush to practically fornicate with Prince Abdullah among the bluebonnets all for the sake of oil. Whoring will not preserve America's greatness.

MAG_afro

by cranky on Thu Jun 15, 06 6:34am [+]

' If A causes B,
but you find a B with no evidence of A,
does that refute the premise?'

Why not? Liberals for years have been saying: we bombed support Israel (A), terrorists hate us (B), therefore A causes B. I notice you have no problem with that correlation.

And as it stands outside aggression seems to be a minor factor, if relevent at all. Many of the terrorists in Iraq are being brought in from abroad, so that theory holds even less water.

by herzog on Thu Jun 15, 06 6:41am [+]

And the intial statement was 'does bombing create terrorists' followed by a list of people who claimed to have become terrorists after being bombed.

ButI see you didn't have any qualms with that bit of correlation either, despite the dearth of evidence and presenve of a great deal of counter-evidence.

When will you admit your bias?

by herzog on Thu Jun 15, 06 6:43am [+]

- That sounds an awful lot like Huntington's arguments about an 'Islamic Civilizational identity' and the Clash of Civilizations.

by Socrates on Thu Jun 15, 06 7:20am [+]

by _Beelzebubba on Thu Jun 15, 06 8:49am [+]

Actually the 15 men were hand picked by osama bin laden. All of them were from Suadi Arabia because he wanted a wedge to be driven between the two nations. Those are the facts.

by USRocks on Thu Jun 15, 06 11:21am [+]

^Not all but most. And if we attached Saudi Arabia wouldn't we be playing right into his hands? Plus if the terrorist are based in Afghanistan why invade Saudi Arabia (or Iraq for that matter).

by ClosetIguana on Thu Jun 15, 06 1:57pm [+]

It wouldn't be hard to find radicals willing to die for a fundy cause *anywhere* on the planet. Hell, just busted a load of them less than a hundred miles north of our own border.

by Truthseeker013 on Thu Jun 15, 06 2:46pm [+]