It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why isn't U.S. attacking or nuking Saudi Arabia?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:19 PM

originally said by Bill Clinton

"Nine-eleven was NOT an inside job, it was an Osama Bin Laden job with 19 people from Saudi Arabia..."

So, how come they're not attacking Saudi Arabia then?

(source taken from

[edit on 3-2-2008 by TheoOne]

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 12:03 AM

I didn't find this till long after I had made the video:

9/11 commission report: Most (9/11) funds came from donations, with much money raised in Saudi Arabia.

The last picture in the above clip is Bush with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.

Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia? Because our leaders didn't want us to. Because the people were never told of these connections...

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 06:36 AM
Al-qaida despises the house of Saud, one of its key aims is:

• The termination of the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia as the corrupt, illegitimate and excessively pro-western Keeper of the Two Holy Places, and its replacement with a genuinely Islamic regime.

The only thing enabling US to import oil from Saudi Arabia is the highest echelons of the Saudi royal family. If America were to attack Saudi arabia it would make Iraq look like disney land.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 06:53 AM
Because then they'd 'attack' or 'nuke' you economically.

Saudi investors 'could withdraw US funds'

Saudi investors have threatened to withdraw some of the $750bn (£487bn; 766bn euros) they have invested in the US after families of 11 September victims filed a lawsuit against Saudi banks and charities for damages.

Far more suffering than any conventional or nuclear weapons would result.

Follow the money.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 07:26 AM
BeachComa has the absolute best answer for you right there!
The first priority of any U.S. Government is the Dollars first, than maybe justice. The only time this rule will be the exception. is if Justice provides more dollars than "just letting it slide". What I mean here is, the bullets you shoot have to be replaced.

Great reply Beach.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 07:54 AM

Originally posted by vance
BeachComa has the absolute best answer for you right there!
The first priority of any U.S. Government is the Dollars first, than maybe justice. The only time this rule will be the exception. is if Justice provides more dollars than "just letting it slide". What I mean here is, the bullets you shoot have to be replaced.

Great reply Beach.

Oil. Plain and simple; oil.

The thing USA-haters fail to realize, or mention, is most countries are in the exact same boat. It might be easy to constantly throw stones at the U.S. but, the simple truth is very few countries could 'afford' to attack Saudi Arabia.

Those few countries I mention? Saudi Arabia itself, the surrounding middle eastern countries that are oil rich and have a small population, Venezuela and Russia.

If we would only create more refineries and drill the resources that are present in our very own territory, we wouldn't be in the position we are in. The U.S. Has the resources to be completely off the middle eastern oil addiction, but chooses not to due to environmental hysteria.

That's my opinion, and nothing more.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 08:59 AM
the greatest threat to stability within Saudi Arabia is from within. They are so paranoid that only high level members of the royal family can take any kind of position within the military, even to the level of fighter pilots. They have large numbers of planes covered in dust sheets because they do not have enough pilots, not for lack of intelligent people but people they can 'trust'.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 09:15 AM
The house of Saud is an strong ally to the US and the free world, even if there are sometimes differences of opinion.

We are after all one of their strongest markets.

There are radical Islamists in Saudi Arabia as there are almost everywhere.

Bin Laden is Saudi.

Saudi Arabia's unique role in the Arab and Islamic worlds, its possession of the world's largest reserves of oil, and its strategic location make its friendship important to the United States. Diplomatic relations were established in 1933; the U.S. embassy opened in Jeddah in 1944 and moved to Riyadh in 1984. The Jeddah embassy became a U.S. consulate. Meanwhile, a U.S. consulate opened in Dhahran in 1944.

The United States and Saudi Arabia share a common concern about regional security, oil exports and imports, and sustainable development. Close consultations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have developed on international, economic, and development issues such as the Middle East peace process and shared interests in the Gulf. The continued availability of reliable sources of oil, particularly from Saudi Arabia, remains important to the prosperity of the United States as well as to Europe and Japan. Saudi Arabia is one of the leading sources of imported oil for the United States, providing more than one million barrels/day of oil to the U.S. The U.S. is Saudi Arabia's largest trading partner, and Saudi Arabia is the largest U.S. export market in the Middle East.

In addition to economic ties, a longstanding security relationship continues to be important in U.S.-Saudi relations.

The Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom demonstrated U.S.-Saudi cooperation in the areas of cultural accommodation, as well as in military operations. For example, the U.S. military issued general orders prohibiting the consumption of alcohol and setting guidelines for off-duty behavior and attire. Saudi Arabia accommodated U.S. culture and its military procedures by allowing U.S. servicewomen to serve in their varied roles throughout the kingdom--a major step for a highly patriarchal society. In August 2003, following the U.S.-led war in Iraq in March and April 2003, the United States withdrew its troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 12:02 PM
I do see your point but Saudi Arabi is far from 'strong', it is weak and reliant on the US.

posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 11:48 PM
The same could also be said about Pakistan... didn't Bush say that countries that harbor terrorist would be considered one and the same. but yet we know AQ and other targets are in there but yet we do nothing.

I am sick and tired of the double talk, quite personally I think that we are doing nothing to help anybody over there and we are just pouring money in the crapper.

That does not mean we can't be tough on them either. Bring our troops back home and stop using them as chum to bring out the sharks.

The terrorist are like cockroaches we go in and they scatter then they regroup. We could see remotely when they regroup and conduct quick strikes to take them out.

I support our troops fully and it pisses me off to see them used as bait and it needs to stop.

[edit on 8-2-2008 by Krycheck]

posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 10:34 PM
The reason the we don’t attack SA(and I don’t mean San Antonio), is because the west already controls them and has for a very long time.

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 03:33 AM
The reason we don't attack SA is called.....The Carlyle Group! The investment Banking firm which Geoge H.W.Bush heads. Remember it was this group who just happened to be holding meetings with the bin-laden family when 911 happened. They were responsible for the Saudi Royal Family getting out of the US by plane when everthing was "grounded"

Goto (check video link at midpage)

Google Carlyle Group and 911

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 03:45 AM
reply to post by Krycheck

At least this might be a partial answer for you regarding Pakistan.'

The roaches analogy is appropriate.

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 03:49 AM
I see such a lot of talk about "Nuking" these days. There sure a lot of bloodthirsty folks about

If a nutjob from Dallas goes on a shooting spree in Houston, does that mean Dallas should be turned into a green glass parking lot?

Sheesh!, enough of the Nuking talk please

Apart from the fact that a number of the identified dead suicide airmen are still alive and well, the fact remains that there are a lot of holes in the official account of what happened. The relationship with the Saudis is one of convenience. Our leaders buy their oil and they help to keep the military industrial complex churning out weapons. The oil sales and weapons are interlinked and there's a lot of money to be made for the few lucky enough, or corrupt and morally deficient enough, to be in on the deals. That explains why Tony Bliar was so keen on having the BAE corruption investigation dropped so quickly. It had nothing to do with protecting British jobs at BAE and everything to do with protecting those at the top of the gravy train.

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 04:11 AM
If you will allow me the use of a parable to illustrate:

It's a bit like wanting to kill the gators in the swamp.

You first have to get the permission of the guy that owns the swamp.

You have to not upset the surrounding swamps or their owners.

you have to have little or no collateral killing of the other warm fuzzies who live in the swamp with the gators.

You have to do it without damaging the swamp cause thats where a lot of your oil comes from. So you have to forego using your BIG weapons.

Some of the swamp neighbors support and protect the gators.

A lot of your own neighbors don't think you should be killing any gators or even be in the swamp.

But the gators killed a bunch of your friends so you try anyway.

How's that

[edit on 10-2-2008 by kerontehe]

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 04:24 PM
reply to post by TheoOne

you cannot necessarily attack a whole nation for the actions of 20 people...if this had been an act of war by saudi arabia, it would be understandable, but it wasn't.

...and we shouldn't nuke anybody

posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 08:00 AM
We do not have to use nukes but we could use, conventional tomahawks and UAVS to take out localized gatherings and training camps while using our troops to secure our borders.

If you go by the "Bush Doctrine" the country's involved should be allowing us to do this and if not then we take action to resolve the situation.

Basically what it boils down to with me is either "Put up or shut up" and do not make threats that you have no intention of carrying out.

By not living up to this it makes it look like we do not have the resolve to stand behind what we say thus now you have the Chavez's and Ahmadinejad's doing their Sabre rattling (and maybe even more) without a fear of response.

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I don't care. Yes you can attack the whole nation over any number of people.

There's been many wars over 1 person before.

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Yes, you are right, Bush just took his war to Iraq to spare his Royal friends that has been funding money to many terrorist group for years, had to keep the feudal royal monarchy in place or where else will bush go after his presidency.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by marg6043]

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by TheoOne

the acts of any 1 citizen are now to be taken as representing the whole of their nation?

...that's kind of unreasonable and unworkable.

there is no evidence that the 9/11 hijackers were linked to the government, so declaring war on the nation would be disproportionate response.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in