Saudi Arabia really might have funded 9/11

[kellyb]

This is an amazing interview with Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and cochair of the bipartisan joint congressional inquiry into intelligence failures surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

There's a transcript under the video, and I'd quote the most relevant parts, but I'd have to quote half of the interview.

https://therealnews.com/stories/bgraham0907pt2

Geopolitics is some wild stuff.

 

[LSSBB]

This is an amazing interview with Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and cochair of the bipartisan joint congressional inquiry into intelligence failures surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

There's a transcript under the video, and I'd quote the most relevant parts, but I'd have to quote half of the interview.

https://therealnews.com/stories/bgraham0907pt2

Geopolitics is some wild stuff.

I think we hashed through all this in the 9/11 subforum...

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think we hashed through all this in the 9/11 subforum...

tl;dr

 

[kellyb]

I think we hashed through all this in the 9/11 subforum...

Is the consensus that Senator Graham is right?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Is the consensus that Senator Graham is right?

It's probably true that Saudi Arabians funded the attack.

 

[Crossbow]

Considering that just about all of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and
Considering the vast amount of wealth in Saudi Arabia, and
Considering all of the funding that Saudi Arabia provided to the Taliban during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan,

Then it is quite likely that there were some people in Saudi Arabia who did provide some of the money that was needed to fund for the 9/11 attacks.

All of the above facts were clearly established many years ago.

 

[theprestige]

The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

 

[theprestige]

This is an amazing interview with Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and cochair of the bipartisan joint congressional inquiry into intelligence failures surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

There's a transcript under the video, and I'd quote the most relevant parts, but I'd have to quote half of the interview.

https://therealnews.com/stories/bgraham0907pt2

Geopolitics is some wild stuff.

Can you at least quote the passage where Graham says "Saudi Arabia really might have funded 9/11"?

In this context, "Saudi Arabia" connotes an official policy of the nation's sovereign government, to launch an attack on the United States.

Is that what Graham actually claims in the interview? Saying you'd have to quote half the interview suggests he doesn't actually claim that, and you'd have to combine a bunch of other stuff he did say, out of context, to create the impression that he claims what you put in your thread title.

 

[ServiceSoon]

The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Was it the same association of individuals that received the funding that later labeled themselves Taliban?

 

[Trebuchet]

This is from two years ago, BTW.

 

[kellyb]

It's probably true that Saudi Arabians funded the attack.

Which Saudi Arabians?

Sen Graham said in the interview:

The Saudis, thinking that they have a status of immunity from the United States, have continued to fund terrorist organizations and continued to train the next generation of terrorists in Wahhabist mosques and schools, feeling that there’s going to be no negative reaction from the United States.

 

[kellyb]

Can you at least quote the passage where Graham says "Saudi Arabia really might have funded 9/11"?

In this context, "Saudi Arabia" connotes an official policy of the nation's sovereign government, to launch an attack on the United States.

Is that what Graham actually claims in the interview? Saying you'd have to quote half the interview suggests he doesn't actually claim that, and you'd have to combine a bunch of other stuff he did say, out of context, to create the impression that he claims what you put in your thread title.

He's more explicit in part one:
https://therealnews.com/stories/bgraham0907pt1

GRAHAM: The we, is the same group that’s been pushing this so hard, and it includes the families of the victims of 9/11, the families who for over a decade have been suing Saudi Arabia and various entities of the Kingdom, alleging that they were essentially co-conspirators in 9/11 and should be held to account. They also are investigative journalists, First Amendment lawyers, who have had a longtime interest in this case.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Which Saudi Arabians?

Sen Graham said in the interview:

That's apparently the subject of part of the 9/11 Commission Report that was redacted, and Graham has read that.

 

[LSSBB]

Is the consensus that Senator Graham is right?

The consensus is nobody seems to car, IMO.

Here's a thread. 2016. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=297608

 

[kellyb]

That's apparently the subject of part of the 9/11 Commission Report that was redacted, and Graham has read that.

Yeah, from a different interview:

https://therealnews.com/stories/bgraham0314ciafeinstein

As you know, there is another, similar situation involving our report of the 9/11, where there was a chapter of 28 pages which largely deals with the question of who financed 9/11. That chapter has been censored now for more than 12 years, and there is no evidence that there is any likelihood that it’s going to be made available to the American people in the near future.

I think that’s an outrage. There’s nothing in that report that involves today’s national security. There is a lot in that report which might help explain how did 9/11—how was it allowed and capable of actually occurring. And that information should be available to the American people.

JAY: Right. And Senator Graham can’t say what’s in those 28 pages, ’cause he’s bound by his secrecy oaths. But I didn’t sign any of those oaths, and I’ve actually read the newspapers, and I do know what’s in those 28 pages, ’cause there were some reports in The L.A. Times and The New York Times interviewing people who saw those redacted 28 pages, and apparently in those 28 pages were the actual names of members of the Saudi government who were involved and facilitating and helping finance the 9/11 attacks. But as I said, Senator Graham’s not allowed to say what’s in those things, ’cause he was—those pages were redacted under his watch. So at any—.

GRAHAM: Well, I appreciate your awareness of and alerting your audience to the circumstances under which I am discussing this matter.

Also:

https://therealnews.com/stories/graham1125raipt3

JAY: And your main point is that these 19 guys can’t do this without a support network, and you have evidence the support network was at least in part linked to the Saudi government.

GRAHAM: Yeah. And I might say, I have personally talked to the other cochair of the Congressional Joint Inquiry, a man who was a very distinguished congressman and, later, director of the CIA, I have talked to the two chairs of the citizens’ 9/11 Commission, asking them, what do you think were the prospects of these 19 people being able to plan, practice, and execute the complicated plot that was 9/11 without any external support? All three of them used almost the same word, implausible, that it is implausible that that could have been the case. Yet that has now become the conventional wisdom to the aggressive exclusion of other alternatives.

 

[dudalb]

There is a difference between Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabians.
That A lot of the funding for Al Qaida came from individual Saudi Arabians has been established for a long time.
But that the funding for Al Qaida came from the Saudi government remains very much unproven.

 

[theprestige]

Was it the same association of individuals that received the funding that later labeled themselves Taliban?

Some of the mujahideen later formed/joined the Taliban, if that's what you mean.

But "the US funded the Taliban" is usually CT shorthand for "the US funded the very same organization that had destruction of the US as an explicit goal". Which is not true at all. Equivocating on the nature, origin, and evolution of insurgent groups in Afghanistan over the decades is basically a dodge to support the CT claim. Saying that Saudi Arabia funded the Taliban (because they funded the anti-Soviet mujahideen) is just a variation of that same CT claim.

So if you're not making the CT claim, it might make sense to you to be very clear about how you're categorizing and grouping Afghani insurgent factions, and why. Instead of asking ambiguous and complex questions, try making concrete statements about what you think and why you think it.

 

[Horatius]

what do you think were the prospects of these 19 people being able to plan, practice, and execute the complicated plot that was 9/11 without any external support?

This is one of those just-vague-enough questions they can use to get just-vague-enough answers to let them allude to all sorts of alleged subterfuges.

Like the funding, there's actually no doubt that the 19 guys who carried out the act had "a support network". We actually know who some of them are, and have killed quite a few, and imprisoned at least one. I'm sure there were others involved that we haven't found yet, and my never find.

But it's a leap to go from "They had a network" to "They had a network tied to the Saudi government".

Sure, it's possible that they did, but you can't actually conclude that from what has been said here, in response to this vague question.

 

[kellyb]

But that the funding for Al Qaida came from the Saudi government remains very much unproven.

I'm not so sure about that:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...ham/bob-graham-saudi-arabia-created-al-qaida/

"We know that Saudi Arabia started al-Qaida."
— Bob Graham on Sunday, April 24th, 2016 in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press"

But there was so much Saudi-based support from individual Saudis and organizations that directed money from the Saudi government that the statement should be considered true, Gartenstein-Ross said, even if Graham's statement "is a bit under-nuanced."

"He's talking about Saudi financiers. He's not claiming the state itself is a major supporter for al-Qaeda," he said. "Government-sponsored charities were doing it, and the government had to be aware it was going on."

 

[kellyb]

This is one of those just-vague-enough questions they can use to get just-vague-enough answers to let them allude to all sorts of alleged subterfuges.

Like the funding, there's actually no doubt that the 19 guys who carried out the act had "a support network". We actually know who some of them are, and have killed quite a few, and imprisoned at least one. I'm sure there were others involved that we haven't found yet, and my never find.

But it's a leap to go from "They had a network" to "They had a network tied to the Saudi government".

Sure, it's possible that they did, but you can't actually conclude that from what has been said here, in response to this vague question.

In the Meet the Press interview he said:

"To me, the most important unanswered question of 9/11 is, did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported?" Graham said. "I think it's implausible to think that people who couldn't speak English, had never been in the United States before, (and) as a group were not well-educated could have done that. So who was the most likely entity to have provided them that support? And I think all the evidence points to Saudi Arabia. We know that Saudi Arabia started al-Qaida. It was a creation of Saudi Arabia."