• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Saudi Arabia really might have funded 9/11

theprestige said:
Presumably you haven't endorsed terrorism either. But terrorism has resulted just the same. Shall we examine your undeniable contribution to this result?
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:

I don’t endorse terrorism, but then again, I also am not a government official who had directed accredited diplomats and intelligence officers to assist known al-Qaeda operatives in settling in a country.

Why do you go out of your way to give Saudi Arabia the benefit of the doubt? These weren’t random “rogue” members of the royal family or minor government officials funding jihadists in their spare time. These were accredited diplomats at the Saudi embassy in Washington, the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, and people believed by the FBI to have been Saudi intelligence officers.

The hijackers had help and the full extent of it is being hidden.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I'm pretty sure that's not how monarchies work. A duchess doesn't speak for the crown just because she happens to be the queen's sister, and has royal income of her own that she invests in her personal interests or even "in the interests of the crown".

Historically, royal family seems to be a source of conflict and rebellion as often as not. But I admit I haven't examine the Royal Charter of Saudi Arabia, or whatever doctrine of entitlement establishes the kingdom and its authorities. Maybe being born into the House of Saud actually does make one a minister of the crown. But that's not the way it is in the UK, is it?
Click to expand...

No, the UK royal family doesn’t ever hold Ministerial posts. In Saudi Arabia, though, certain Ministries do tend to be governed by Saud family members. Their foreign Ministers, for instance, have only not been a member of the house of Saud for 8 years of the 88 that KSA has existed. The Defence and National Guard posts are similar.

In Brunei, the Sultan is also Prime Minister, Defence Minister, and Foreign Minister. His son is Senior Minister. Qatar has lots of its ministerial posts filled by al-Thani members. I’m not sure how representative that is of monarchies, though it’s probably a good indicator of whether you’re living in a constitutional monarchy or an absolute monarchy in all but name.
 
gypsyjackson said:
No, the UK royal family doesn’t ever hold Ministerial posts. In Saudi Arabia, though, certain Ministries do tend to be governed by Saud family members. Their foreign Ministers, for instance, have only not been a member of the house of Saud for 8 years of the 88 that KSA has existed. The Defence and National Guard posts are similar.

In Brunei, the Sultan is also Prime Minister, Defence Minister, and Foreign Minister. His son is Senior Minister. Qatar has lots of its ministerial posts filled by al-Thani members. I’m not sure how representative that is of monarchies, though it’s probably a good indicator of whether you’re living in a constitutional monarchy or an absolute monarchy in all but name.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Mycroft is suggesting that being a member of the royal family of Saudi Arabia automatically makes you a government minister, and makes everything you do automatically an official act of the Saudi government.

I'm pretty sure that even in monarchies that commonly assign government positions to family members, being a family member doesn't by itself automatically make you a government agent acting in an official capacity.
 
theprestige said:
You're missing the point. Mycroft is suggesting that being a member of the royal family of Saudi Arabia automatically makes you a government minister, and makes everything you do automatically an official act of the Saudi government.

I'm pretty sure that even in monarchies that commonly assign government positions to family members, being a family member doesn't by itself automatically make you a government agent acting in an official capacity.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that would apply to democracies as well. As a mid level government official, does the choices I make, even during work hours, reflect the position of the federal government? If so, I really need to make better lunch choices.
 
Leftus said:
I wonder if that would apply to democracies as well. As a mid level government official, does the choices I make, even during work hours, reflect the position of the federal government? If so, I really need to make better lunch choices.
Click to expand...

It's actually been a point of dispute, whether President Trump's tweets are official government communications.

Last time I checked, the dispute orbited around an equivocation between "yes, it's official: the president really did tweet these things and they are rightly part of the historical record of his presidency" and "these tweets have the force of official government policy, equivalent to an executive order or a signed treaty".

ETA: And even in the case of an official like the Pope, there's the concept of ex cathedra - of speaking officially with the full authority of the office, as opposed to speaking unofficially and informally, rather than Pontiff-as-such.*

Or here on this forum we see the same distinction writ small, every time a mod appends "not as mod" to their post.

---
*This is actually a good example of "the exception proves the rule". The fact that there exists a specific term for when the Pope is speaking officially implies that the Pope can also speak unofficially.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
You're missing the point. Mycroft is suggesting that being a member of the royal family of Saudi Arabia automatically makes you a government minister, and makes everything you do automatically an official act of the Saudi government.

I'm pretty sure that even in monarchies that commonly assign government positions to family members, being a family member doesn't by itself automatically make you a government agent acting in an official capacity.
Click to expand...

I was just clarifying.

In answer to your second paragraph, it probably depends how much the king likes you! But, no, you’d probably end up with a pretty schizophrenic government when the royal family has 2000 members, as the house of Saud is reputed to.
 
theprestige said:
It's actually been a point of dispute, whether President Trump's tweets are official government communications.

Last time I checked, the dispute orbited around an equivocation between "yes, it's official: the president really did tweet these things and they are rightly part of the historical record of his presidency" and "these tweets have the force of official government policy, equivalent to an executive order or a signed treaty".

ETA: And even in the case of an official like the Pope, there's the concept of ex cathedra - of speaking officially with the full authority of the office, as opposed to speaking unofficially and informally, rather than Pontiff-as-such.*

Or here on this forum we see the same distinction writ small, every time a mod appends "not as mod" to their post.

---
*This is actually a good example of "the exception proves the rule". The fact that there exists a specific term for when the Pope is speaking officially implies that the Pope can also speak unofficially.
Click to expand...

But those tweets are done in his official capacity under his title. I'm talking about me, going to Wendy's or Jack in the Box and not, say McDonalds, as some sort of endorsement of bacon cheeseburgers on behalf of the federal government. Or posting here on breaks, not under my real name or official position.
 
Leftus said:
But those tweets are done in his official capacity under his title. I'm talking about me, going to Wendy's or Jack in the Box and not, say McDonalds, as some sort of endorsement of bacon cheeseburgers on behalf of the federal government. Or posting here on breaks, not under my real name or official position.
Click to expand...

So far we have seen no evidence that any member of the Saudi royal family has supported Al Qaeda as an official policy of the Saudi Arabian government. I think Mycroft's suggestion that being a member of that family automatically makes one an official in that government is very, very silly.
 
theprestige said:
So far we have seen no evidence that any member of the Saudi royal family has supported Al Qaeda as an official policy of the Saudi Arabian government. I think Mycroft's suggestion that being a member of that family automatically makes one an official in that government is very, very silly.
Click to expand...

Was Prince Turki Al Faisal as head of Saudi intelligence supporting Al Qaeda when Saudi intelligence was utilizing Osama bin Laden as an asset in the 1980s? That seems like it could reasonably be interpreted as official Saudi government policy. And what are we to make of Fayd al-Thuinary, the accredited Saudi diplomat through the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs in Los Angeles, the imam of a large, Saudi-funded mosque who was known to have extremist views and whose mosque was attended by members of the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles - and who appears to have personally met with two of the hijackers on several occasions, and who furthermore, was apparently directed to assist those hijackers by a higher-ranking Saudi official who was posted at their embassy in Washington?

Seems like there was at the very least, an organized effort by multiple Saudi government officials in some embassies and consulates to support jihadists. Not sure if it was officially sanctioned Saudi government policy, but forgive me for being suspicious.
 
Last edited:
Allen773 said:
Was Prince Turki Al Faisal as head of Saudi intelligence supporting Al Qaeda when Saudi intelligence was utilizing Osama bin Laden as an asset in the 1980s? That seems like it could reasonably be interpreted as official Saudi government policy.
Click to expand...

Al Qaeda was created by the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments, as a means of funneling wannabe fighters from the Gulf into Afghanistan, to fight the Russians.
Once that invasion was over, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda went rogue. Both the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments cut off funding and disowned them. It's a bit of a stretch, then, to claim that they continued to support Al Qaeda's terrorism as a part of their official government policies.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Al Qaeda was created by the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments, as a means of funneling wannabe fighters from the Gulf into Afghanistan, to fight the Russians.
Once that invasion was over, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda went rogue. Both the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments cut off funding and disowned them. It's a bit of a stretch, then, to claim that they continued to support Al Qaeda's terrorism as a part of their official government policies.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. But what of the rest of my post?

To be clear, I am not taking a position on whether the mid-level and lower-level Saudi government officials named in the post-JASTA lawsuit were assisting the 9/11 hijackers because they were directed to by more senior officials or out of some official, albeit covert policy, or whether they were going rogue themselves. Nor do I take a position on the level of knowingness or foreknowledge of the attacks, etc. of said Saudi officials. But there is enough circumstantial evidence, suspicion, and controversy regarding this subject that I would welcome a more complete account, as I hope will be provided as the lawsuit goes forward.
 
Allen773 said:
Fair enough. But what of the rest of my post?

To be clear, I am not taking a position on whether the mid-level and lower-level Saudi government officials named in the post-JASTA lawsuit were assisting the 9/11 hijackers because they were directed to by more senior officials or out of some official, albeit covert policy, or whether they were going rogue themselves. Nor do I take a position on the level of knowingness or foreknowledge of the attacks, etc. of said Saudi officials. But there is enough circumstantial evidence, suspicion, and controversy regarding this subject that I would welcome a more complete account, as I hope will be provided as the lawsuit goes forward.
Click to expand...

I didn't comment on the rest of your post because I didn't have any problem with it.
That Saudi officials of varying rank were involved with the hijackers is pretty much beyond doubt. However, I find the idea that the attacks were somehow officially aided or sanctioned by the Saudi government as an act of government policy implausible: it would have been completely counterproductive. They need the US as allies, then as now, and Al Qaeda itself was a direct threat to the Saudi monarchy.
As you say, though, there would still seem to be plenty more to be uncovered yet.
 
Allen773 said:
Fair enough. But what of the rest of my post?

To be clear, I am not taking a position on whether the mid-level and lower-level Saudi government officials named in the post-JASTA lawsuit were assisting the 9/11 hijackers because they were directed to by more senior officials or out of some official, albeit covert policy, or whether they were going rogue themselves. Nor do I take a position on the level of knowingness or foreknowledge of the attacks, etc. of said Saudi officials. But there is enough circumstantial evidence, suspicion, and controversy regarding this subject that I would welcome a more complete account, as I hope will be provided as the lawsuit goes forward.
Click to expand...

You'll never get a complete account.

There is no Black & White when it comes to any country in the Middle East, and especially in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Here are the problems:

1.You have to establish that those Saudis who gave money to Al Qaeda knew the US would be directly targeted.

2. You have to establish exactly when the donations took place.

3. You need to link these Saudis with the leadership and prove that they had their blessings.

4. You'll have to prove that Al Qaeda didn't misrepresent themselves to their Saudi donors.

Good luck with that.

The bigger problem is Wahhabism, which is also Saudi-funded. Wahhabism gave us Islamic Fundamentalism, and continued to fuel the Taliban. Al Qaeda drew and continues to draw members from Wahhabi madrassas funded by the Saudis and other wealthy Arab states.

You are engaging in whack-a-mole.

Look, Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy family quietly gave money and openly supported the IRA from the 1970s on. Does this mean Ted Kennedy killed Lord Mountbatten in 1979? Or is it a case where the PIRA used his money to conduct the operation? The answer depends on where you stand on the IRA and how much you like or dislike the Kennedys. The same thing with the Saudis.
 
Axxman300 said:
You'll never get a complete account.

There is no Black & White when it comes to any country in the Middle East, and especially in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Here are the problems:

1.You have to establish that those Saudis who gave money to Al Qaeda knew the US would be directly targeted.

2. You have to establish exactly when the donations took place.

3. You need to link these Saudis with the leadership and prove that they had their blessings.

4. You'll have to prove that Al Qaeda didn't misrepresent themselves to their Saudi donors.

Good luck with that.

The bigger problem is Wahhabism, which is also Saudi-funded. Wahhabism gave us Islamic Fundamentalism, and continued to fuel the Taliban. Al Qaeda drew and continues to draw members from Wahhabi madrassas funded by the Saudis and other wealthy Arab states.

You are engaging in whack-a-mole.

Look, Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy family quietly gave money and openly supported the IRA from the 1970s on. Does this mean Ted Kennedy killed Lord Mountbatten in 1979? Or is it a case where the PIRA used his money to conduct the operation? The answer depends on where you stand on the IRA and how much you like or dislike the Kennedys. The same thing with the Saudis.
Click to expand...

Agreed in full. The Americans funding the IRA (like the Kennedys) comparison is a good one.
 
The Washington Post is reporting that a dozen people on the FBI's terrorist watch-list were in Washington D.C. during the 1/6/21 Capitol Siege, in case you are wondering how on top of things the Bureau is these days.
 
Axxman300 said:
Look, Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy family quietly gave money and openly supported the IRA from the 1970s on. Does this mean Ted Kennedy killed Lord Mountbatten in 1979? Or is it a case where the PIRA used his money to conduct the operation? The answer depends on where you stand on the IRA and how much you like or dislike the Kennedys. The same thing with the Saudis.
Click to expand...
The Kennedy's and the Saudi's would be considered Terrorist, if for nothing else, the Patriot Act and subsequent Congressional beefing up of the Terrorist definition contain the inchoate offenses will make the both accomplices of Terrorism.
 
No Other said:
The Kennedy's and the Saudi's would be considered Terrorist, if for nothing else, the Patriot Act and subsequent Congressional beefing up of the Terrorist definition contain the inchoate offenses will make the both accomplices of Terrorism.
Click to expand...

The Patriot Act is not retroactive.

The Saudis have been brutal to those in their ranks who knowingly support Al Qaeda and ISIS.
 
I was disappointed and disgusted by the Kennedy Family's support for the PIRA. It went against what they claimed to stand for in this country, and was an insult to JFK.
 
Axxman300 said:
The Saudis have been brutal to those in their ranks who knowingly support Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Click to expand...

...to a point. They certainly have no tolerance for jihadists who mount attacks within Saudi Arabia - hence, why AQAP is based in Yemen.

But I question the Saudis’ commitment to combating the Al Qaeda and ISIS jihadists who attack Shia Muslims in Iraq and Syria, for example. The powerful Wahhabi clerics certainly are no fans of the Shia, and that also feeds into the Saudi conflict with Iran.

Of course, when it comes to jihadists organizing and fighting in other countries, there’s only so much the Saudis (or anyone) can do. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies continue to be sources of ideological and financial support for these groups, if often indirectly. It’s complicated.

And for the record, MBS’s crackdown on “extremist clerics” has ensnared a lot of nonviolent, moderate clerics whose main crime was calling for broader political participation within the Kingdom. Seems like accusations of extremism and supporting terrorism are as often a pretext for punishing one’s enemies as much as anything, especially for ruthless authoritarian regimes who tell the US and the UN what they want to hear: “we’re fighting terrorism.”
 
Last edited:
Allen773 said:
...to a point. They certainly have no tolerance for jihadists who mount attacks within Saudi Arabia - hence, why AQAP is based in Yemen.
Click to expand...

A country which is being attacked by a coalition of Gulf countries led by Saudi Arabia.
Granted, their main thrust is against the Houthis, but I'm sure that it's giving AQAP a bit of a headache as well.

Allen773 said:
But I question the Saudis’ commitment to combating the Al Qaeda and ISIS jihadists who attack Shia Muslims in Iraq and Syria, for example. The powerful Wahhabi clerics certainly are no fans of the Shia, and that also feeds into the Saudi conflict with Iran.
Click to expand...

What do you suggest that the Saudis could do to combat AQ in those countries? More invasions and bombings?

Allen773 said:
Of course, when it comes to jihadists organizing and fighting in other countries, there’s only so much the Saudis (or anyone) can do. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies continue to be sources of ideological and financial support for these groups, if often indirectly. It’s complicated.
Click to expand...

Again, there's a distinction between the state and individuals within that state.
There are undoubtedly individuals around the Gulf funneling money to Islamist insurgents. However, to extrapolate that into state-sponsored 'ideological and financial support' is, I think, a stretch.
 
It's always possible to allege a black money operation and connect the dots.

"Having some no-name emergency backup prince divert his <finger quotes>personal funds</finger quotes> to Al Qaeda is exactly what the Saudi government would do, if they wanted to support AQ in secret!"
 
Connecting dots gives you stellar constellations. The result is often guided more by the images already in the connector's head than by reality.
 
And the reality is that Al Qaeda and the Saudi royal family are at odds. They hate each other. I see no reason why it would be official Saudi government policy, even as some kind of black op, to aid AQ in any way.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
And the reality is that Al Qaeda and the Saudi royal family are at odds. They hate each other. I see no reason why it would be official Saudi government policy, even as some kind of black op, to aid AQ in any way.
Click to expand...
You are spot on if you are defining your observation beginning in 2003. Prior to that year the Saudi government was very slow to react to Al Qaeda as the interior of Saudi Arabia was not threatened... at least by the Royal family estimation. Nayef bin Abdelaziz thought Al Qaeda was a result of USA propaganda and initially said 9/11 was a Zionist plot but when Al Qaeda started attacking Saudi ex-Pats and security forces... everything changed.
 
NYT Editorial Board:

Fighting, While Funding, Extremists

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opinion/saudi-arabia-qatar-isis-terrorism.html

Haaretz

ISIS and Saudi Arabia: A Dangerous Double Game

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/isis/isis-the-saudis-a-risky-double-game-1.5382041

New Yorker:
Saudi Arabia possibly planned to use Al-Qaeda in assassination plot against Ali Soufan

For the Saudis to attack (Soufan) directly would be an unprecedented act of aggression. His concern is that, given the regime’s history with Al Qaeda, militants could attempt to kill him in Qatar—and the attack could be traced to the death threats planted on social media. “It wouldn’t be the first time a state actor uses militants or terrorists to do its dirty work,” he said.
Click to expand...


https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...ment-plotting-against-another-us-based-critic

CNN:
The US shipped weapons and secrets to the Saudis and Emiratis. Now, some are in the hands of fighters linked to al Qaeda and Iran.


(This has eerie parallels with the anti-Assad efforts in Syria - and the anti-Soviet efforts in Afghanistan...)

Amid the chaos of the broader war, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) made its way to the frontlines in Taiz in 2015, forging advantageous alliances with the pro-Saudi militias they fought alongside.

One of those militias linked to AQAP, the Abu Abbas brigade, now possesses US-made Oshkosh armored vehicles, paraded in a 2015 show of force through the city.

Abu Abbas, the founder, was declared a terrorist by the US in 2017, but the group still enjoys support from the Saudi coalition and was absorbed into the coalition-supported 35th Brigade of the Yemeni army.
Click to expand...


https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/02/middleeast/yemen-lost-us-arms/
 
The latest move with the lawsuit: A letter to Biden...

https://www.aol.com/news/khashoggi-report-spurs-9-11-184614780.html

James Kreindler, a lawyer who has been representing the families in the 9/11 lawsuit, said in an interview he believes that the Khashoggi report gives his clients new leverage to demand full disclosure of the still-buried 9/11 documents, including a complete copy of a 2012 FBI report into suspected links between some Saudi government officials and the hijackers. Last year, then-Attorney General William Barr and then-acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell blocked disclosure to the public and families of that report’s most important details, declaring them a “state secret.”

“I don’t understand how our government can release the documents on the murder of one man two years ago but not the documents on the murder of 3,000 people 20 years ago,” said Brett Eagleson, a spokesman for the families, whose father was killed in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.
Click to expand...

The point:

The timing of the families’ letter is also potentially significant because the U.S. government’s Public Interest Declassification Board — a federal panel that is charged with making recommendations about the disclosure of classified documents — is expected to take up the issue of still-secret 9/11 material, possibly in the next few weeks.
Click to expand...

Stay tuned...
 
Families of three slain U.S. service members and 13 others wounded in a mass shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola in 2019 alleged...that the government of Saudi Arabia facilitated the attack, which U.S. authorities concluded was an act of international terrorism.

A 152-page complaint in federal court in Pensacola, Fla., makes new allegations that the shooter, Royal Saudi Air Force 2nd Lt. Ahmed Mohammed al-Shamrani, executed the attack with the support of “accomplices.” They included fellow Saudi air force trainees, whom he told of his plans at a dinner the night before and during a November visit to the 9/11 memorial in New York City to pay tribute to the hijackers, the plaintiffs alleged.

Shamrani, who was killed by responding sheriff’s deputies, worked with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) for five years to plan the Dec. 6, 2019, attack, U.S. authorities said in May after de-encrypting his phone.
Click to expand...

The families’ Pensacola lawsuit makes more-specific allegations. They claim that Saudi authorities knew of the radicalization of Shamrani — an al-Qaeda operative who made his first contact with AQAP by at least 2015 — and of anti-American and anti-Jewish statements he shared via Twitter.

Shamrani was nevertheless one of two out of hundreds of students in his Royal Saudi Air Force Academy class awarded a scholarship to enter a joint military training program in the United States, the suit asserts.

It also claims that the Saudi commanding officer on base and 11 other trainees it did not name knew that Shamrani purchased and stored a 9-millimeter handgun and ammunition on base in violation of U.S. and Saudi policy and that Saudi officials left the commanding officer’s post unfilled from September 2019 until after the shooting.

“None of the Royal Saudi Air Force trainees at the scene of the attack reported Al-Shamrani’s behavior nor did they try to stop the NAS Terrorist Attack. Because they supported it,” the suit asserts.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...b66e7a-7303-11eb-b8a9-b9467510f0fe_story.html

Obama absolutely had the right idea re: US rapprochement with Iran.
 
A lawsuit that accuses Saudi Arabia of being complicit took a major step forward this year with the questioning under oath of former Saudi officials, but those depositions remain under seal and the U.S. has withheld a trove of other documents as too sensitive for disclosure. The information vacuum has exasperated families who have tried to make the case that the Saudi government facilitated the attacks. Past investigations have outlined ties between Saudi nationals and some of the airplane hijackers, but have not established the government was directly involved.

“The legal team and the FBI, investigative agencies, can know about the details of my dad’s death and thousands of other family members’ deaths, but the people who it’s most relevant to can’t know,” said Brett Eagleson, whose father, Bruce, was among the World Trade Center victims. “It’s adding salt to an open wound for all the 9/11 family members.”
Click to expand...

One former (FBI) agent, Stephen Moore, stated in a 2017 declaration that al-Qaida wouldn’t have sent Hazmi and Mihdhar to the U.S. “without a support structure in place.” He said he believed Bayoumi was a “clandestine agent” and that Thumairy knew the hijackers “were on a complex pre-planned mission” that would involve the use of airplanes. He said he’d concluded that Saudi Arabian diplomatic and intelligence personnel had knowingly given support to two of the hijackers.
Click to expand...

https://apnews.com/article/sept-11-saudi-arabia-lawsuit-1b5fec1d2507eb27fffdac25bab79bb4


FBI tried to flip Saudi official in 9/11 investigation

Even while the 9/11 commission report grabbed big headlines, and a paperback version rocketed to the top of the bestseller lists, FBI agents were aggressively investigating a Saudi Embassy official in Washington, D.C., suspected of directing assistance to two of the al-Qaida hijackers in Southern California, including getting them an apartment and setting them up with a bank account and flight lessons.

The agents questioned the ex-official, Mussaed al-Jarrah, at least three times and even threatened him, confronting him with photos of child pornography found on his home computer in an apparent attempt to “flip” him and gain his cooperation, according to a closed-door deposition of the Saudi national taken last month by lawyers for the families of the 9/11 victims. A copy of the deposition — with some redactions for law-enforcement sensitive material — was obtained exclusively by Yahoo News.
Click to expand...

…under questioning from Megan Bennett, a lawyer for the 9/11 families, Jarrah said he was unable to recall virtually anything the FBI agents asked him about or what he discussed with them. Asked in multiple questions by Bennett whether the agents questioned him about terrorism, or Saudi involvement with the 9/11 plot, or any conversations he had had with Thumairy or Bayoumi, Jarrah repeatedly responded: “I don’t remember.”

He used those identical words 103 times.

The deposition of Jarrah was also repeatedly thwarted by Andrew Shen, the lawyer for the Saudis, who instructed him not to respond to questions about any of his official activities at the Saudi Embassy — including any communications with Thumairy and Bayoumi or even the Saudi ambassador at the time, Prince Bandar — on the grounds that it was a violation of a 1961 Vienna Convention providing immunity to accredited diplomats on foreign soil.
Click to expand...

https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-tried-to-flip-saudi-official-in-911-investigation-090041290.html
 
Last edited:
“I don’t remember” 103 times.

A way of saying everything while saying nothing. The jig is up regarding these Saudi officials’ complicity in 9/11. Now if only the Saudi government—and their protectors in the US government—just came clean and admitted responsibility for two decades of evasion, obfuscation, and deception, and that Saudi Arabia apologized and took responsibility for the actions of its officials, paid out compensation to the victims’ families, and seriously committed to rooting out terrorism—I mean seriously, not pinky-promise swear—some modicum of trust could be restored.

After all, as everyone has known since Watergate: the cover-up is what bites you in the end, not the crime itself. Better to come out early with the truth than sweep things under the rug and hope no one notices. The latter only breeds cynicism, distrust, and conspiracy theories.
 
Last edited:
I thought this might be a good place to share my newest email/newsletter from the 9/11 Memorial & Museum:

As we approach the milestone 20th anniversary of 9/11, the 9/11 Memorial & Museum’s public program season will explore a range of topics reflecting on the ongoing impacts and continued resonance of the attacks, their historical context, and their aftermath. We are pleased to present

Seeking Justice: The 9/11 Community & the Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia
Thursday, August 26, 2 p.m. ET


Since the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) became law in 2016, members of the 9/11 community have been engaged in a legal struggle to determine whether the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was directly involved in supporting some of the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. In the wake of over 20 recent depositions with former Saudi officials, 9/11 family member Brett Eagleson, former FBI special agent Ken Williams, and chairman and chief executive officer of The Soufan Group Ali Soufan discuss this significant moment in the lawsuit and share the evidence that has been publicly amassed thus far.

Visit 911memorial.org/watch to attend this live, online event.

Captioning will be provided.
 
I have not read nor followed this thread about SA's involvement in 9/11. I intend to study the matter further. However, from the little I know/heard/read it appears to me that SA was involved. The issues for me is what part of the kingdom "sponsored/support" the 9/11 attack but more importantly ... why? What did they want to achieve?

My hunch is that it will be difficult to find documents/evidence. Any.. I will SPECULATE.

SA is a wahabi (fundamental) Islamic state. The kingdom likely have competing (for power) factions. Wahabism seeks to expand Islam throughout the world by violent conflict.... holy wars. This is true for the Taliban, and AQ. Apparently in that branch of Islam... all wars against infidels are "good". I don't suspect that their war is organized under one central "command". All know who the enemies are.

The Saudi royals pissed off the radicals when they partnered with the West in the oil biz.. and that led to military alliances and a flood of weapons that the Saudis purchased with their billions. Arming nations is "all good" for the MIC as long as the weapons are not used against the USA or its allies. It's not clear how high tech weapons can convert or infidels to Islam. But an excuse is that they can be used to protect SA from infidels and less radical (unacceptable) form of Islam.

So for decades MIC was getting richer... SA was getting bloated with advanced military hardware (and training) and were officially not engaging in Jihad or wars of adventure to spread Islam. This did not sit well with the radicals... so there probably were internal struggles in SA between the radicals and the so called moderates. Power was I think distributed among or fought over by... the princes.... I suppose the US was trying to suck up to the SA princes so that they would not go postal if they were elevated to the throne.
The anti "evolved" culture of SA's Islam was a sort of embarrassment to the USA. How could we support and ally with such a socially backward nation? I suppose as long as SA did not make too much noise the relationship could proceed... and it did for decades. But I suspect that the Saudis wanted to "secure" Afghanistan and it was a fertile area for jihad. They fought the USSR which wanted a left wing socialist nation to add to its orbit. USA of course fought proxy wars with USSR and tried to contain its socialism expansion. We are stilled pissed off about Cuba which is clearly no threat to the USA.

My speculation is that some wahabist faction in SA believed that the USA could be tricked into entering wars in the ME where Jihadis thought they could win by "attrition" much the way the USA "lost" Vietnam. They reasoned that the USA would respond to the 9/11 event by engaging in war in the ME and likely in the hell hole of Afghanistan. Iraq was also an "enemy" of SA... as was Iran... And of course lickity split the USA decided to clean up Iraq which was a enemy of out ally Israel. Israel was not going to initiate war with Irag or Iran... USA kept Israel on a "short leash"....letting them respond to attacks.... But that is a ongoing tit for tat.
Iraq was another Vietnam like disaster... a war fought against a nation which was no threat to the USA... but perhaps a threat to Israel.
Anyway the politics of the ME is a mess and something the USA should not be involved in were it not for the oil and the international shipping through the Gulf and Suez canal. International commerce IS dependent on free navigation on the seas. We also witnessed the shipping hijackings off the ME which is all related.
It's not Islam... but radical Islam. They are very different. Both oppressive to women, for example... but radical is violent and promotes Jihad.
So it appears that some rich radical Saudis wanted to promote Jihad and drag the USA into wars in the ME... more "Vietnams"... unwinnable foreign interventions. We're finally out of Afghanistan after 20 years.... and radical Islam scores a point. It also inspires Jihadis that the great satan can be defeated in battle. Watch out SE Asia.
OBL was one such radical Saudi and there were others.

I suspect they devised the plan to attack the USA on 9/11 knowing the USA would then retaliate in the ME staring another Vietnam or two where the USA would again lose. It's a sensible plan. Afghanistan fell because the locals are largely Islamic fundamentalists and the society they want is not compatible with western values.

I suppose they Wahhabi believe that they can grow a strong Wahhabi state in the ME to eventually challenge the west.

So the USA is not wanting the fact that our "Ally" SA has many who hate the US and want to see us "go down"... and will do all manner of things to promote our "demise" including drawing us into insane dumb wars. It's bad enough that they have such motives but even worse that we provide them with weapons, buy their oil and treat them as an allie. The Khashoggi murder is yet another example of an insane relationship with a radical regime which does not have "humanitarian" values.

SA has so many pols in their pocket things are not likely to change... it 9/11 and the Khashoggi murder didn't what could?

++++

It may be true that some in USA intel were aware of the 9/11 plot. But I doubt anyone would take them seriously and cut off the "partnership" because there was some chatter about some crazy radicals. The paper trails has largely been kept from the public... despite the efforts of some to get it out. Exposing the truth would be too embarrassing and burn too many in high places in the USA and of course we'd lose all those military sales that Trump spoke about. And we are not going to declare war with radical wahabi "princes" in SA, especially now that OBL is a gone.

Wait.... there is more to come.
 
It would have been helpful to have divided this great wall of text into smaller sections, to make commentary easier, but anyway...
I'll address a few of your points.

JSanderO said:
I have not read nor followed this thread about SA's involvement in 9/11. I intend to study the matter further. However, from the little I know/heard/read it appears to me that SA was involved. The issues for me is what part of the kingdom "sponsored/support" the 9/11 attack but more importantly ... why? What did they want to achieve?

My hunch is that it will be difficult to find documents/evidence. Any.. I will SPECULATE.
Click to expand...

Not a promising start.
'My theory is based on minimal knowledge, and will be essentially impossible to substantiate'.
Nice.

JSanderO said:
SA is a wahabi (fundamental) Islamic state.
Click to expand...

Um. Yes and no. The Wahhabis have control over religion: the Sauds have political power. This was agreed in a treaty in 1744.

JSanderO said:
The kingdom likely have competing (for power) factions.
Click to expand...

This is very vague. Do you mean within the Al Saud family, within Wahhabism, between the various tribes, or something else?
What effect do you think this had with regard to 9/11?

JSanderO said:
Wahabism seeks to expand Islam throughout the world by violent conflict.... holy wars.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is true at all. Do you have a source for this?

JSanderO said:
This is true for the Taliban, and AQ.
Click to expand...

The Taliban are not Wahhabis: they are Deobandis.

JSanderO said:
Apparently in that branch of Islam... all wars against infidels are "good". I don't suspect that their war is organized under one central "command". All know who the enemies are.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a very speculative claim. Parts of that are definitely untrue: the splits between ISIS and AQ, and ISIS and the Taliban, and ISIS and Boko Haram are real, and often violent.
Takfiri doctrine is by no means universally accepted, either.

I'm going to leave that there, but I think I've made my point: speculating in this way from a position of a lack of knowledge is unwise. I suggest you do some reading first. I'm not being patronising: this is an enormous and complicated subject, and it takes time to get even a basic level of understanding. I'm not saying I have that either, but I do have enough to be able to question your narrative here.
 
Yak... I am not going to spend the time to do research.
It's established that the hijackers had Saudi handlers and support.
Who sent the handlers? Why did they want to attack the USA on 9/11?

Sure... radical Islam is not monolithic... But I believe there are radical Islamists with SA. How much power do they have? Maybe it doesn't take much to support the hijackings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom