Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Aneristic Illusions => Topic started by: Cain on March 02, 2012, 01:07:53 PM

Title: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on March 02, 2012, 01:07:53 PM
Two former Senators believe this to be the case

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html?ref=ericlichtblau

QuoteFor more than a decade, questions have lingered about the possible role of the Saudi government in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, even as the royal kingdom has made itself a crucial counterterrorism partner in the eyes of American diplomats.

Now, in sworn statements that seem likely to reignite the debate, two former senators who were privy to top secret information on the Saudis' activities say they believe that the Saudi government might have played a direct role in the terrorist attacks.

"I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia," former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks.

His former Senate colleague, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the separate 9/11 Commission, said in a sworn affidavit of his own in the case that "significant questions remain unanswered" about the role of Saudi institutions. "Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued," Mr. Kerrey said.

Their affidavits, which were filed on Friday and have not previously been disclosed, are part of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit that has wound its way through federal courts since 2002. An appellate court, reversing an earlier decision, said in November that foreign nations were not immune to lawsuits under certain terrorism claims, clearing the way for parts of the Saudi case to be reheard in United States District Court in Manhattan.

Its long been rumoured that Al-Qaeda were being used by the Saudi government for a number of covert ops overseas, and that the major financiers of the group could be found among the Saudi elite.  This is going to be one to keep an eye on...
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on March 02, 2012, 01:50:04 PM
HEY, THE SAUDIS TOOK OUT A FULL PAGE AD IN THE NEW YORK TIMES RIGHT AFTER THE ATTACKS TO TELL US THEY LOVED US AND THEY WERE SORRY THAT IT HAPPENED. HOW DARE YOU LUMP THEM INTO THE SAME CATEGORY AS ALL THE OTHER SMUGDY BROWN PEOPLE WITH RELIGIOUS VIEWS WE DON'T AGREE WITH. JUST BECAUSE THEIR TREATMENT OF WOMEN IS ATROCIOUS, THEIR GOVERNMENT IS RUN BY A DISCONNECTED ARISTOCRACY, AND THE MAJORITY OF ACTUAL PEOPLE WHO GOT ON PLANES TO MURDER PEOPLE ON 9/11 HAPPENED TO BE ACTUAL SAUDI CITIZENS IS NO REASON TO BESMIRCH THE HONOR OF THAT PROUD NATION. THEY'RE THE GOOD BROWN PEOPLE. ADVERTISING WOULD NEVER LIE TO US.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: navkat on March 02, 2012, 03:26:57 PM
Uncomfortable Topics.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 02, 2012, 03:31:34 PM
So how does it reflect on Bush if it turns out that his butt-buddies were the bad guys all along? That'll certainly fuel the Truther fire...  :lulz:
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: navkat on March 02, 2012, 03:36:41 PM
I just watched a Frontline docu about the BAE defense contract bribing scam. It seems, at one point, the Saudis threatened to "discontinue counter-terrorism cooperation" if the whistleblowers didn't go away and the bribes keep a-crankin.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Faust on March 02, 2012, 03:52:09 PM
Quote from: navkat on March 02, 2012, 03:26:57 PM
Uncomfortable Topics.
Was there any point to this post?

Quote from: Cain on March 02, 2012, 01:07:53 PM
Two former Senators believe this to be the case

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html?ref=ericlichtblau

QuoteFor more than a decade, questions have lingered about the possible role of the Saudi government in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, even as the royal kingdom has made itself a crucial counterterrorism partner in the eyes of American diplomats.

Now, in sworn statements that seem likely to reignite the debate, two former senators who were privy to top secret information on the Saudis' activities say they believe that the Saudi government might have played a direct role in the terrorist attacks.

"I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia," former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks.

His former Senate colleague, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the separate 9/11 Commission, said in a sworn affidavit of his own in the case that "significant questions remain unanswered" about the role of Saudi institutions. "Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued," Mr. Kerrey said.

Their affidavits, which were filed on Friday and have not previously been disclosed, are part of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit that has wound its way through federal courts since 2002. An appellate court, reversing an earlier decision, said in November that foreign nations were not immune to lawsuits under certain terrorism claims, clearing the way for parts of the Saudi case to be reheard in United States District Court in Manhattan.

Its long been rumoured that Al-Qaeda were being used by the Saudi government for a number of covert ops overseas, and that the major financiers of the group could be found among the Saudi elite.  This is going to be one to keep an eye on...

The Saudi wealthy are inextricably linked to U.S businesses, especially in the financial sector. Sure knowing in advance that the attacks were going to happen would have allowed them to make a lot of money off the event but if they were ever caught it would be financial suicide for them, I can't imagine the Sauidi government would gamble like that.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on March 02, 2012, 03:56:27 PM
That they did.  The implied threat, of course, was that they would allow Saudi-based militants and/or Al-Qaeda to attack the UK, if the corruption charges were investigated.

And Nigel, I've always believed there was alot of...well, not so much conspiracy, the classic Reichstag Fire scenario that Truthers go on about, but a lot of potential embarrassment down the line for many people who had a vested interest in portraying 9/11 as purely an attack by a non-state group.  We know for example that elements of the ISI likely had knowledge of the attack, most notably General Hamid Gul.  We know there are the Saudi connections too, the backers of Al-Qaeda and the family links cultivated between the Bushs and the Bin Ladens via the Carlyle Group, and Bush Jr's oil ventures (it is also worth noting the Saudi Ambassador to the United States acted as unofficial "foreign policy tutor" to Bush Jr during his first run for the Presidency).  Finally, it seems possible the CIA had orders not to pursue the 9/11 hijackers too hard, in hope of recruiting them, either as moles within Al-Qaeda, for some some wacky adventure or other the CIA had planned, such as in Kosovo or Chechnya, where US interests and Al-Qaeda interests were mostly aligned.

That's a lot of powerful people, being made to look really stupid or foolish.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on March 02, 2012, 04:04:16 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 02, 2012, 03:52:09 PM
The Saudi wealthy are inextricably linked to U.S businesses, especially in the financial sector. Sure knowing in advance that the attacks were going to happen would have allowed them to make a lot of money off the event but if they were ever caught it would be financial suicide for them, I can't imagine the Sauidi government would gamble like that.

There were suspicious patterns of trading in the days leading up to 9/11.

I'd be very surprised if attacking the USA were the official Saudi policy, I must admit.  If the Saudi regime wanted, it could cosy up to China, or Russia, or both, and wage economic warfare on the US through other means.

Which suggests it is, at worst, an element within the Saudi government.  There are factions which want a more hardline position against the US, religious fundamentalists and fanatics who hold positions of relative importance, and those would be the ones I would suspect most strongly of being involved.  It could be that there were rumours among the Saudi elites of something involving terrorism and the USA going down, but they decided to protect their own fanatics (and thus their reputation as a reliable and stable country...certainly not a chaos-exporting mess like Afghanistan) rather than tip off the US authorities and have to handle the political fallout.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: navkat on March 02, 2012, 04:07:45 PM
Just to annoy you, Faust.  :wink:
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Precious Moments Zalgo on March 02, 2012, 09:56:58 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 02, 2012, 04:04:16 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 02, 2012, 03:52:09 PM
The Saudi wealthy are inextricably linked to U.S businesses, especially in the financial sector. Sure knowing in advance that the attacks were going to happen would have allowed them to make a lot of money off the event but if they were ever caught it would be financial suicide for them, I can't imagine the Sauidi government would gamble like that.

There were suspicious patterns of trading in the days leading up to 9/11.
I remember hearing a reporter mention something about an unusually high volume of put options on various airlines in the days before the attack, but that story was dropped and I never heard any more about it.

Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on March 02, 2012, 10:03:18 PM
There were investigations, and the majority of it was innocuous in explanation, it should be pointed out.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on March 14, 2012, 12:25:04 PM
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/13/10656262-classified-documents-contradict-fbi-on-post-911-probe-of-saudis-ex-senator-says

QuoteFormer Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired Congress' Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has seen two classified FBI documents that he says are at odds with the bureau's public statements that there was no connection between the hijackers and Saudis then living in Sarasota, Fla.

"There are significant inconsistencies between the public statements of the FBI in September and what I read in the classified documents," Graham said.

"One document adds to the evidence that the investigation was not the robust inquiry claimed by the FBI," Graham said. "An important investigative lead was not pursued and unsubstantiated statements were accepted as truth."

Whether the 9/11 hijackers acted alone, or whether they had support within the U.S., remains an unanswered question — one that began to be asked as soon as it became known that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens. It was underlined when Congress's bipartisan inquiry released its public report in July 2003. The final 28 pages, regarding possible foreign support for the terrorists, were censored in their entirety — on President George W. Bush's instructions.

...

The FBI-led investigation a decade ago focused on Abdulaziz al-Hijji and his wife, Anoud, who moved out of their home in the upscale, gated community of Prestancia, near Sarasota, and left the country in the weeks before 9/11. The couple left behind three cars and numerous personal belongings, such as furnishings, clothes, medicine and food, according to law enforcement records. After the 9/11 attacks, a concerned neighbor contacted the FBI.

Analysis of Prestancia gatehouse visitor logs and photographs of license tags showed that vehicles driven by several of the future hijackers had visited the al-Hijji home at 4224 Escondito Circle, according to a counterterrorism officer and former Prestancia administrator Larry Berberich.

Al-Hijji, who now lives and works in London, recently called 9/11 "a crime against the USA and all humankind" and said he was "saddened and oppressed by these false allegations." He also said it was "not true" that Mohamed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers visited him at his Sarasota home.

The FBI has backed up al-Hijji. After initially declining to comment, the bureau confirmed that it did investigate but said it found nothing sinister. Agents, however, have refused to answer reporters' specific questions about its investigation or its findings about the Prestancia gate records.

The FBI reiterated its position in a Feb. 7 letter that denied a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records from its Sarasota probe. The denial said their release "could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

...

Graham sees the information now emerging about Sarasota as ominously similar to discoveries his inquiry made in California. Leads there indicated that the first two hijackers to reach the U.S., Saudis Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, received help first from a diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles and then from two other Saudis, one of whom helped al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi find a place to live. Multiple sources told investigators they believed both the latter Saudis had been Saudi government agents.

...

Graham is troubled by what he sees as FBI headquarters' apparent effort to conceal information, including the fact that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi lived for months in California in the home of a paid FBI informant. Even when that emerged, the FBI denied his inquiry access to the informant. Graham wonders if that was merely because of the bureau's embarrassment, or because the informant knew something that "would be even more damaging were it revealed."

The newly surfaced FDLE documents containing informant Hammoud's troubling 2004 information about al-Hijji have reinforced Graham's concerns because they conflict with the FBI's public statements.

Hammoud's statement that al-Hijji introduced him to Saudi terror suspect Shukrijumah is consistent with the report that Prestancia gate logs showed Shukrijumah had visited the al-Hijji house – and buttresses longstanding official suspicion that he was linked to the hijackers. When Mohamed Atta visited a federal immigration office in Miami to discuss a visa problem in May 2001, a 9/11 Commission footnote reports, a man who closely resembled Shukrijumah accompanied him.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on March 14, 2012, 01:03:44 PM
I really wish we were not in the time zone situation that we happen to be, Cain, because you put up these awesome dense posts about how goddamn fucked the government is and they come up when I'm way too sleepy to comprehend them.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on March 14, 2012, 02:18:12 PM
Im not sure what to think of all of this.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: LMNO on March 14, 2012, 02:43:22 PM
This somewhat makes sense.  However, I'm not convinced that everyone involved in giving aid and assistance knew precisely what was going to happen.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on August 20, 2013, 11:36:57 AM
Bump

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/06/05/fbi-knew-about-saudi-911-hijacker-ties-but-lied-to-protect-national-security/

QuoteThe FBI apparently has known for a decade about links between powerful Saudi interests and the alleged 9/11 hijackers, and has been forced to tacitly admit that it lied about it for all of these years.

In case the import is not clear, let us state emphatically: this is a huge development.

***

In court filings seeking to stave off a media Freedom of Information request, the FBI has stated that releasing documents relating to this issue will harm "national security."  As proof of the sensitivity of the matter, the FBI gave the judge a document dated April 4, 2002, in which the FBI states that its own inquiries "revealed many connections" between a well-connected Saudi family with a house in South Florida and "individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001."

And http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/09/22/saudi-royal-ties-to-911-hijackers-via-florida-saudi-family-0/

QuoteBuilding on these revelations, WhoWhatWhy has found documents laying out the Ghazzawis' royal connections through a nest of Saudi corporations that share the name EIRAD. Esam Ghazzawi is director of EIRAD Management Company, the UK division of EIRAD Trading and Contracting Co. Ltd., which among other things holds the Saudi franchise for many multinational brands, including UPS. Esam's brother Mamdouh, whose name shows up on public records associated with family properties in the U.S., is the Executive Managing Director of the parent firm, EIRAD Holding Co. Ltd. EIRAD has connections to the US government via contracts. In 2008, records show, the State Department paid EIRAD $11,733 for rental of facilities, presumably in Saudi Arabia.

There is no indication that the company itself, or any of its officers or employees, have any connection to the 9/11 incident, or knowledge of anything regarding Mr. Ghazzawi's activities in the United States.  Calls for comment to the company's main switchboard went unanswered during normal business hours; its website was not functioning properly and Saudi trade officials in the United States had not furnished alternative contact information at publication time.

But the now-revealed link between the Ghazzawis and the highest ranks of the Saudi establishment reopens questions about the White House's controversial approval for multiple charter flights allowing Saudi nationals to depart the U.S., beginning about 48 hours after the attacks, without the passengers being interviewed by law enforcement—despite the identification of the majority of the hijackers as Saudis.

QuotePhone records showed communication, dating back more than a year, that connected those in the house with the alleged plot leader, Mohammed Atta and his accomplices, including eleven of the other hijackers. Other records, kept by guards at the gated community, documented numerous visits to the house by a vehicle known to have been used by Atta, and indicated the physical presence in the car of Atta's purported accomplice Ziad Jarrah. It appeared as if the Ghazzawi house was some kind of nerve center for the entire operation.

According to the senior counterterrorism officer, both Esam Ghazzawi and his son-in-law al-Hiijjii had been on a watch list at the FBI predating 9/11. An unnamed U.S. agency tracking terror funds had also taken an interest in them. "464 was Ghazzawi's number," the officer said. "I don't remember the other man's number."

QuoteSultan's brother Prince Ahmed was the most westernized of the Saudi set. He raised racehorses in Kentucky and was the owner of the 2001 Kentucky Derby winner, with the perhaps unfortunate name "War Emblem." Allegations concerning Prince Ahmed emerged in the 2003 book, Why America Slept, by the bestselling author Gerald Posner. Posner says that intelligence sources told him how in March, 2002, under interrogation (but before he was waterboarded 83 times in August), Al Qaeda's purported chief of operations, Abu Zubaydah, relaxed and began cooperating. Tricked into thinking he was in Saudi custody, Zubaydah asked his interrogators to call a senior member of the Saudi Royal family, who he said was his contact. He provided, from memory, the man's private home and cell phones. This contact, according to Posner, was Prince Ahmed.

Zubaydah is alleged to have said that Osama bin Laden had cut a deal with a top Pakistani military official, Air Marshal Mushaf Ali Mir, who was close to Islamist elements in Pakistani intelligence. According to this account, the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki, signed off on this, and agreed to provide aid to the Taliban in Afghanistan and not to go after Al Qaeda so long as the terrorist group kept its gun sights trained away from the Saudi royals.

In this version of events, Zubaydah is said to have also implicated Prince Sultan, along with another cousin, Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, as Al Qaeda backers, and to have claimed that the Pakistani Air Marshal Mushaf Ali Mir and Saudi Prince Ahmed knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks.

Though the interrogators were skeptical of these claims, Zubaydah often proved credible. Information he provided led to the capture of a senior al-Qaeda operative in Southeast Asia. Zubaydah would only talk when he thought he was in Saudi hands. When U.S. personnel, no longer posing as Saudis, confronted him, Zubaydah said he had made up his earlier statements. But investigators found no basis for believing the information to be false—and even found material that corroborated his claimed ties to high level Saudis. Not surprisingly, the Saudi and Pakistani governments insisted his claims were false in all respects.

QuoteSeveral of those alleged to have had knowledge of this putative scheme and its enormous implications met with untimely ends shortly after Zubaydah's interrogation. In June, 2002, three months after Zubaydah's capture, the man he identified as his controller, Prince Ahmed, died of what officials said was a heart attack while asleep. Another brother of Ahmed's and Sultan's, Prince Fahd bin Salman bin Abdulazziz, died of a heart attack on July 25, 2001, about six weeks before the 9/11 attacks. The death of Fahd, who preceded his brother as head of EIRAD, is described in a Riyadh-datelined article by Middle East Newsfile, as follows:

QuotePrince Fahd died suddenly. Prince Fahd did not show any symptoms of any ailment. He had, however, made an appointment with a dentist at King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh to check a toothache.

A cousin, Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, died when his car crashed en route to Salman's funeral. Zubaydah had supposedly implicated Prince Sultan bin Faisal, and another royal, Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir. as Al-Qaeda supporters. All these men were in their forties. Still another key figure in Zubaydah's monstrous scenario met an untimely death. On February 20, 2003, Mushaf Ali Mir, the Pakistani air force chief, his wife and fifteen others, were killed in a plane crash.

QuoteThe first sign of the Ghazzawi clan on the east coast of the United States was in 1992, when Esam bought a penthouse apartment in the D.C. suburb of Rosslyn, Virginia. In various accounts, Esam is described as a banker or financier, who also works as an interior designer. He accrued additional property in Arlington, Virginia and Longboat Key, Florida, and his name turns up in connection with a fancy office building in the K Street lobbying corridor.

In this period, Esam's name surfaced when investigators probing the monumentally corrupt Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) sought to recover assets from Saudi Prince Fahd bin Salman—brother of Prince Sultan bin Salman.  The prince argued that his assets were being held in another account under Esam Ghazzawi's name. Only low-level BCCI officials went to jail in the sprawling scandal, which involved banks and governments all over the world. Prince Fahd bin Salman is one of the relatives who died unexpectedly in the year of the 9/11 attacks. (The Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations were repeatedly accused by investigators into the BCCI mess of obstructing their inquiries; it is worth noting that the Treasury Department official responsible for scrutinizing BCCI's affairs in the Reagan-Bush administration was assistant secretary for enforcement John M. Walker Jr.—who happened to be George H.W. Bush's cousin.)

QuoteTellingly, the venerable British insurance company Lloyd's of  London actively investigated Saudi complicity in 9/11. As reported by the U.K. paper The Independent, a Lloyd's unit has launched what is described as "a landmark legal case" against Saudi Arabia, claiming that the kingdom is indirectly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Lloyd's asserts that Saudi banks and charities acting as surrogates for the royal family gave the terrorist group the sustenance it needed to carry out the 2001 assault. (Lloyd's is seeking to recover sums it paid to firms and individuals affected by the event.)

QuoteBizarrely, several days ago, Lloyd's quietly withdrew its suit, declining to explain why. But the move was conducted in such a way to suggest a possible settlement, thereby raising still more questions for investigation.

Obviously, this all needs to be corroborated.  But if even half of this is accurate...
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 20, 2013, 05:41:06 PM
I've read some reports of pretty corrupt shit from the Saudis so I don't find it implausible, at all.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on December 11, 2013, 06:46:21 PM
Bump

http://www.ibtimes.com/911-link-saudi-arabia-topic-28-redacted-pages-government-report-congressmen-push-release-1501202

QuoteIt took Jones six weeks and several letters to the House Intelligence Committee before the classified pages from the 9/11 report were made available to him. Jones was so stunned by what he saw that he approached Rep. Lynch, asking him to look at the 28 pages as well. He knew that Lynch would be astonished by the contents of the documents and perhaps would join in a bipartisan effort to declassify the papers.

Quote"I was absolutely shocked by what I read," Jones told International Business Times. "What was so surprising was that those whom we thought we could trust really disappointed me. I cannot go into it any more than that. I had to sign an oath that what I read had to remain confidential. But the information I read disappointed me greatly."

The public may soon also get to see these secret documents. Last week, Jones and Lynch introduced a resolution that urges President Obama to declassify the 28 pages, which were originally classified by President George W. Bush.

And since the USA is no longer so invested in protecting the reputations of ungrateful, spoilt, childish Saudi Princes who played at being terrorist financier to Bin Laden, who knows?  Maybe those pages will finally see the light of day. 
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: LMNO on December 11, 2013, 07:07:22 PM
That would be fairly surprising, considering the lack of transparancy this "transparent" president has shown.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on December 11, 2013, 07:09:22 PM
True.  But the Saudis did try to humiliate and bully him into a war with Syria, with Israeli help.

In his place, who would not be inclined to fuck with them?
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Junkenstein on December 11, 2013, 08:52:58 PM
I can't see them going as far as actually declassyfing papers on this. That's surely just asking Saudi Arabia to take it up a notch and given the apparent access to nuclear weapons, that's a a pretty serious push to tweak a nose.

Or to put it another way, how do you think the state that is fond of using terrorists is likely to respond to these implications?

What I'd say may be more likely, is that the report loses a few sections and it all comes down to one/a few bad apples. Find a scapegoat, remove a problem with a little bad PR and promises of change and reform and everyone can get back on with the plan.

Excellent thread, no idea how I missed this one.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on December 11, 2013, 09:13:05 PM
If America is willing to let bloated, drug-addled 7th century theocrats who grease their beards with oil and own dirty bombs intimidate them, they may as well hand in their imperial credentials right now.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on December 11, 2013, 09:13:14 PM
Oh, wait.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Junkenstein on December 11, 2013, 09:17:47 PM
Good point, well made.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 11, 2013, 10:18:43 PM
 :lulz:
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 12, 2013, 12:04:08 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 11, 2013, 09:13:05 PM
If America is willing to let bloated, drug-addled 7th century theocrats who grease their beards with oil and own dirty bombs intimidate them, they may as well hand in their imperial credentials right now.

:spittake:
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on December 20, 2013, 11:28:33 AM
More info (http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/):

QuoteThe Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found "incontrovertible evidence" that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: LMNO on December 20, 2013, 01:34:36 PM
Whoa.

By why the NY Post, of all publications?  That paper isn't usually listed very high on the "journalistic integrity" charts.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on December 20, 2013, 02:23:47 PM
Not sure about that myself.  Paul Sperry is a bit more legitimate...well, as legitimate as anyone who works for the Hoover Institute and is listed as a "conservative pundit" can be.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: LMNO on December 20, 2013, 02:50:54 PM
Maybe that was the only publication that would give him the space.  I have a feeling most Big Media wouldn't want to have anything to do with this story.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on December 20, 2013, 03:25:37 PM
That's certainly the way things are going so far.  Unlike the statements last year, these are getting very little coverage, for some reason.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Cain on April 16, 2016, 11:33:15 PM
The Saudi government has threatened to sell off $750bn in US bonds, if Congress names Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of 9/11 and thus allows them to be sued for their role in the attacks.

I'm reminded of a quote from one of Steven Erikson's books "Children who can't be touched end up getting away with murder."  The Saudi elite, exemplified in the current Crown Prince, are brats and the second generation children of brats, used to getting their own way, doing exactly as they please and throwing money at problems to make them go away.  They're so far gone they thought they could in effect start a war with the US government, then blackmail it with threats and bribe it with money to make it ignore that.

Quite frankly, a lot them should've been killed off long ago.
Title: Re: Saudi government "had direct role" in 9/11 attacks?
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on April 17, 2016, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 16, 2016, 11:33:15 PM
The Saudi government has threatened to sell off $750bn in US bonds, if Congress names Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of 9/11 and thus allows them to be sued for their role in the attacks.

I'm reminded of a quote from one of Steven Erikson's books "Children who can't be touched end up getting away with murder."  The Saudi elite, exemplified in the current Crown Prince, are brats and the second generation children of brats, used to getting their own way, doing exactly as they please and throwing money at problems to make them go away.  They're so far gone they thought they could in effect start a war with the US government, then blackmail it with threats and bribe it with money to make it ignore that.

Quite frankly, a lot them should've been killed off long ago.

Agreed 100%