4 ms·

The hijackers were Saudi nationals, but the operation was in no way sponsored by the Saudi state, which is a staunch US ally. Which is why the US proceeded to (

The hijackers were Saudi nationals, but the operation was in no way sponsored by the Saudi state, which is a staunch US ally. Which is why the US proceeded to (attempt to) flatten Afghanistan instead.

jacquesm 7mo ago
> Which is why the US proceeded to (attempt to) flatten Afghanistan instead. It seems to have made things better for the Taliban.
- bluGill 7mo ago
  It is a very different taliban
- cucumber3732842 7mo ago
  The current Taliban are an almost completely different organization despite there being continuity from then to now. A good comparison point is the church of England in 1520 vs 1620.
orochimaaru 7mo ago
There wasn’t anything to flatten in Afghanistan. They were coming off a 20 yr civil war.
- temp8830 7mo ago
  Proxy war. And that's an awful lot of years and billions spent on flattening nothing, don't you think?
  - pengaru 7mo ago
    Donating fuel to terrorists on the other side of the planet isn't cheap
bparsons 7mo ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/september-11-attacks-saudi-arabia-lawsuit/678430/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/september-...
xorcist 7mo ago
> the operation was in no way sponsored by the Saudi state, We do not know this. There are plentiful evidence to suggest direct involvement of the state itself, and the bin Ladin family is certainly hard to untangle from the Saudi state. That is just from what we can know from unclassified sources.