I am not for war, but is it sometimes necessary? Ask Americans why we are at war and you will get different answers.
We provide healthcare for other countries when thousands of Americans can't afford insurance. We put our troops in danger for another country's "freedom". We have alliances that make enemies of other countries. We supply and support Israel. All for what? How exactly does this benefit America?
Should we continue doing what we have been doing or should we just stay over here and mind our own business? I am eager to see how other atheists view this.
The "evidence" is just a summary of the World Views as seen from Riyadh and Teheran.
If you wish to learn more, I suggest checking out the introductory curriculum to top rated Universities in the field of history and find the courses specifically aimed at Islamic tension and not get your info from Huffington Post or other pundits to either side. What has happened is not really interesting, the question is always 'Why' and needs to have the full backstory and analysis can't start at an arbitrary date.
Not unless you are willing to get a proper education on the subject. Then the evidence is self-evident.
Why do you think Americans always get put down for not knowing history..? :)
You are perfectly welcomed to do that, but it speaks to your lack of a proper understanding of historical events.
There is no right or wrong in history, there just is.
Documents Back Saudi Link to Extremists (punditry)
From the latter's abstract:
Third, Al Qaeda has built a significant base of Islamic charities in Saudi Arabia with international divisions that have not been scrutinized or controlled by the regime.
Read: The Saudi regime at least tacitly supports AQ. Most likely also directly, but that is more a point which I won't speak for certain upon.
The second source lists the author as Mark Basile, who seems to be a chemical engineer at the heart of the 911 truth movement.
That first source, however, is convincing on it's own. So assuming that purported evidence is valid - why isn't the U.S. going after the Saudi Regime? I mean if this war on terror is actually about stopping terrorism, then shouldn't they be toppling the Saudi Regime? Still not justification for Iraq, or even for this extended occupation of Afghanistan. Cutting off that funding, however, should be a huge priority - shouldn't it?
1. I provided a peer reviewed article which has been cited 42 times. That implies it is interesting and closer to the truth than most articles which are rarely cited.
2. Whatever M Basil does on his free time, which also assumes that he is the same M Basil as in the video below (which I cannot be certain of), is a moot point. For reference, Newton wrote a lot of smart stuff about Gravity, and a lot of dumb stuff about Christianity. His dumb stuff does not impede on his smart work.
3. "That first source, however, is convincing on it's own."
No it's absolutely not convincing. It's a newspaper. It is not peer reviewed, thus just punditry. Punditry is only acceptable as evidence if linked to science or taken with a massive grain of salt. Newspapers do not form the base of an informed opinion, neither does subjective books.
First you have to read the introductory and intermediate textbooks (summary of commonly accepted position on a subject), then you can read the subjective books, and wade through newspaper non-sense.
"Direct" as in the US having a "direct" involvement in the overthrow of Allende. Speculation with quite weak documented evidence, but it is the most plausible explanation for the events which followed. :)
There's probably no paper trail if the Saudi state actively support(ed) terrorism (it's not something countries write down or make public), and the perpetrators are either dead or not talking. It's an effort to interpret what the most likely outcome expectations of the actors at the time of the event. Iraq being an OPEC country sort of negates the US invading with oil as a major consideration.