Arrange the events that led to the spetember 11 attacks in the correct sequence

mark brainliest :)

Explanation:

The correct answer is the following.

The correct order of events is:

1) Cold War. 1945.

2) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. 1979.

3) US support of the Mujahideen with weapons and training. 1979.

4) Osama Bin Laden's organization of Mujahideen fighters. 1979.

5) Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. 1994.

6) Attacks of US embassies in North Africa. 1998.

7) September 11 attacks. 2001.

These incidents refer to the many different situations that involve terrorist groups and their attacks to US facilities since the Cold War in 1945. The Cold War was the period of tensions and conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union. The apex of the tensions became in 1964 with the Cuban Missiles Crises when the world was at the brink of another world war.

Then, in 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The United States response was to help Afghanistan, specifically Osama Bin Laden's organization of Mujahideen fighters. The US sent troops to train their man and also help with weaponry.

Then, Veterans from the Afghanistan War created the Taliban movement in 1994. They are Islam extremist that since those years are feared for their terrorist attacks such as the attacks on US embassies in North Africa in 1998, attributed to Al-Qaeda. This group also was the author of the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, where two planes hit the Twin Towers in New York, the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and the last plane crashed in Pennsylvania.

Read more on -

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

the allies' desire to seek retribution for germany's actions