Document 17 Declassified – 9/11 attackers may have had links to Saudi Arabia [pdf]
28pagesdotorg.files.wordpress.com
28pagesdotorg.files.wordpress.com
But protecting who the culpable parties were in the biggest attack on the U.S. since Pearl Harbor, because it "might endanger relationships" with that country (and after already invading Iraq for supposedly the same reason), is beyond messed up. Everyone involved in covering it up should be tried as traitors, as I don't just say that as a hyperbole.
Don't expect them to speak out then.
After 9/11, the Taliban also offered to hand bin Laden over to the US. The Bush administration rejected the offer, as it would require 1) proof of a connection and 2) an end to the bombing of Afghanistan. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.ter...
The Taliban and al Qaeda were not close allies. Mullah Omar, founder of the Taliban, actually despised bin Laden's tactic of attacks on the West and anywhere outside the area the Taliban ruled.
In any case, bin Laden said he had nothing to do with 9/11 then a FBI spokesman in (2006?) said they had no evidence tying him to 9/11. I don't need any wild speculation to think they might be scapegoating him for something. Maybe simply tying up loose ends from CIA's prior work on things like training terrorists to beat superpowers. You bet they didn't interrogate him on purpose and not out of anger. ;)
In any case, the other thing the report said was that Arab-Americans working for CIA posed as Saudi's to trick AQ operatives into cooperating. Turned out, they thought they were saved by their Saudi friends and gave all kinds of unlisted numbers to royalty, etc. The revelation that funding and connected personnel came from the Saudi's means we should've torn up Saudi Arabia looking for them if our goal was stopping/punishing terrorists. Instead, Afghanistan and... Iraq...? While giving arms and military training to the Saudis through private military companies? And sharing terrorist intelligence with them when they just funded 9/11? What... the... hell...?
Now, fast forward to today, the Obama Administration is still protecting the pages showing level of Saudi involvement. The Saudi's still don't want their info or people in a courtroom. You indicate OBL and Afghanistan are all we gotta worry about whereas the 9/11 report on Saudi involvement, that classified doc, and U.S. government working their ass off to protect Saudi's that funded 9/11 seems to suggest very opposite of your or official claims.
That is, if OBL did it at all, he was just a tool for a large, Saudi organization connected to their financial and political elites that murdered 3,000 Americans. That connection is in official report, but downplayed. And U.S. government, for whatever reason, is doing everything they can to cover that up and keep justice from happening. If that's not evidence of supporting terrorism or negligence re 9/11 then I don't know what is.
Note: We've been able to show complicity or U.S. support of terrorism without resorting to anything beyond their own official report and actions. No conspiracy sites, no thermite, nothing. Just their own claims and hard work to protect Saudi crooks.
It's totally false that Talbian and al Qaeda were not allies. Al Qaeda trained members of the Taliban army. If the Taliban despised al Qaeda tactics, why didn't they agree to the US demands after 9-11. Or why didn't they boot al Qaeda out of the country before 9-11.
Taliban were complicit before and after the attacks.
However, I don't know how accurate such a statement is. I've also heard SA compared to a bunch of tribes that are continually bribed to behave cohesively.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabis...
It's a mix of Sururiyya, which is influenced by Wahhabism and Ba'athism where a state is ruled by a vanguard party. They removed the disloyal parts of Sururiyya which called for questioning inept leaders and replaced it with the unwavering loyalty obligations of a typical Ba'athist dictatorship.
The fact that Saddam era henchmen who clashed with KSA over the pillaging of Kuwait are running Daesh, plus the propaganda coming out from them calling for the removal of the house of Saud as custodian of the two holy mosques, and considering Saudi military defectors and political dissenters make up the majority of Daesh recruits it seems suicidal they would support them in anyway. Maybe there are political opposition in KSA doing so but even that would risk their own status since Daesh proved they don't care about agreements when they invaded Mosul and promptly executed the local elite who helped them get in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-is...
There will never be a war with KSA. This place is way too sensitive even the US wouldn't dare touch it. It would be an instant war with the Muslim world. The US has other ways to pressure KSA if needed. I don't think anybody in the US would be that foolish and attack the Mecca .
*: BTW this is an actual demand of Iran and many other predominantly Muslim countries to have the Islamic holy sites under int'l custodianship and not be treated as part of House of Saud's possessions as it seems the case with time passing while these people in power.
Why would the Saudis accept that ? They wouldn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Lake_(film)
Due to various issues, you'll just have to find a way to watch it... (BBC iplayer blocked in us, copyright issues when posted on youtube, etc, etc, etc)
If people haven't read Adam Curtis's THEN NOW, it's well worth the time - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/78691781-c9b7-...
"HAPPIDROME - Part One" is great too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/5a7b18b5-0ec3-...
His conspiracy theories remind me more of Alan Moore's definition. "Yes, there is a conspiracy, indeed there are a great number of conspiracies, all tripping each other up ... the main thing that I learned about conspiracy theories is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in the conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy, or the grey aliens, or the twelve-foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control, the truth is far more frightening; no-one is in control, the world is rudderless."
Can anyone recommend related or similar work of the same quality?
It's easy for me to immediately dismiss most modern neo-con sources, since their (amazingly effective) strategy is mostly based on emotional scaremongering with internally inconsistent arguments. I'm not their target demographic and they know it.
They're not idiots (in fact, re: education - Fox News has a surprisingly large percentage of hosts with degrees from well-revered instituions; which makes it all the more ironic when one points out that nice blonde lady denigrating the "liberal East coast elites" trying to emotionally connect with the midwestern housewife, herself is Harvard educated) but there definitely is another side to the story and it's important to at least hear their argument before you dismiss it.
As for getting the balance of hearing all arguments, I have a habit of doing the same. I regularly read The Economist for its free-market bias (and excellent writing, btw), for example.
--
Watched it a couple of weeks ago and as always was deeply impressed by Curtis' work.
His style is so unique in that he approaches the subject matter from a totally unexpected angle, connecting seemingly unrelated events and concepts to create a unique and original painting of history.
Highly recommended.
Afghanistan is hell on earth. I felt so bad for any children I saw in that.
And that guy who was torturing people and lied about being in the military and he was basically doing it for fun! What the fuck!?
After the Iraqi city of Mosul fell to a lightning Isis offensive in 2014, even
the late Prince Saud al-Faisal, the respected Saudi foreign minister,
remonstrated with John Kerry, US secretary of state, that “Daesh [Isis] is our
[Sunni] response to your support for the Da’wa” — the Tehran-aligned Shia
Islamist ruling party of Iraq.
With religion, it's 10x more intense because they can't put down the beaker or drill and go have a beer with their buddies - it's their entire identity. FT/Der Spiegel/The Guardian(usually)/the Newshours(BBC/PBS) all do a good job for the limited amount of time/column-lines they have to cover such a complicated topic such as religious factionism that goes back thousands of years. Then there's the Bismarckian Realpolitik which is certainly a large aspect of it.
There was certainly Saudi money behind it. But when you hear "state-sponsored terrorism" it could mean a lot of things. A governor or 8th son might have funded a non-profit NGO which later turned out to be mostly legitimate but 10% of those funds were diverted to purchase New-old-stock over-stock arms from the former USSR (then the question arises - was it with or without his knowledge?). because the House of Saud itself has politics that are so intricate internally that you'd have to spend years studying that exclusively. Start reading about the First Saudi state of 1744 (under Abdel Wahhab's rule in alliance with ibn Saud) and a few thousand pages later one might have half of a grasp on the internal politics. And that's just historical internal Saudi politics. Bring in religious subsets and hatred spawned from that, ethnic hatred (Persians are about as Arab, as Japanese are Chinese), international interests propping up different regimes and it's all a very complicated game.
Think of how complicated our government operates with just two parties - the capitalists who retain the lobbyists that influence the congressmen who have multiple interests that have to be simultaneously balanced in order to keep their constituents, donors, and party all happy enough so that you retain power. It's all a subtle game of spinning plates and we're working with just with two parties (effectively).
The manicheism of it all made me believe that either every news anchor really has no clue about how it works, or that they're exceptionally good actors.
I also found that many times, events tend to be seen as discrete things that live in a vacuum rather than rooted to some previous event (isn't it interesting that these documents are resurfacing during a transition period where the U.S. is turning its back to Saudi Arabia and warming it up with Iran? Small pieces of content and info injected here and there).
An interesting piece if you have a few minutes to spare:
https://20committee.com/2014/09/25/what-if-everything-you-kn...
Those pages have been kept so securely & hidden away from everyone that even Congressmen & Senators with clearances weren't even allowed to take notes on a scratchpad, when perusing them.
They had to mentally memorize any of the contents therein !
Here's the recent 60 Minutes piece on the White House's potential declassification of the "28 pages" [1] of the 9/11 Commission Report [2].
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/28-pages
[ Warning : Auto play video ]
It also comes at a time when the White House and intelligence officials
are reviewing whether to declassify one of the country's most sensitive
documents -- known as the "28 pages." They have to do with 9/11 and the
possible existence of a Saudi support network for the hijackers while
they were in the U.S.
For 13 years, the 28 pages have been locked away in a secret vault. Only
a small group of people have ever seen them. Tonight, you will hear from
some of the people who have read them and believe, along with the families
of 9/11 victims that they should be declassified.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-911-classified-report...
[ Warning : Auto play video ]
[2] 9/11 Commission Report
That's really not that surprising. Notes would need to be derivatively classified, and would require special transportation out of the SCIF that they were taken in. Additionally, I doubt any congresspeople's offices are SCIFs that would be allowed to store such sensitive information.
CIA pulled same kind of BS with torture report allegedly for OPSEC then showed true motivation with hacking to cover up their wrongdoing.
I'm very sure, by intuition, that this is important but probably would have been more valuable with some opinions from people who are knowledgeable on the subject.
Sorry, but SA has been supporting terrorism for decades, all around the middle east and the world. In fact much more so than other openly blamed countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saud...
Not to mention their horrendous fundamentalist human rights, religious laws record. It's just that they have oil and friends (probably because of the first).
If you're just hearing this for the first time, I'm not sure what you can "take away" from this news. I'm certain though that you need to read deeper in the history and related news.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_with_the_Devil
Also the excellent Adam Curtis BBC documentary Bitter Lake - which is probably the best thing I've watched in the last year:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004YE4U5Y/ref=dp-kindle-redirect...
It's not an "agenda book", it might even be described in some stretches as somewhat sympathetic/pragmatic to the regime, but it's a very thorough and very well written history of Saudi Arabia and analysis of its current (as of 2009) situation - politics, economics etc. Wikipedia states (unsourced) that it has "been cited as standard study texts for the diplomatic community working inside the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia", but I can believe it.
Those items I linked to do very much have an agenda so it's good to see something that is giving a different perspective.
Power of nightmares especially in relation to "terrorism". But also the others.
I think the answer to this is probably no: it massively boosted the prestige of al-Qaeda - a group which is anti House of Saud first and anti US/Israel second - over Sunni terrorist organisations more closely aligned with Saudi interests and the only part of US foreign policy response that was entirely predictable was the invasion of Afghanistan, well outside Saudi Arabia's area of interest.
To be honest, if you're not already aware of it, the most interesting connection to a national government agency mentioned in the paper is probably two of the hijackers living with an FBI informant...
60 Minutes had a great show Sunday which actually drew more connections than just the two hijackers living with the FBI informant. I felt after watching there are too many "coincidences" for them to not be involved.
On the one hand Saudi-funded madrassas find themselves under a lot more scrutiny and a lot more difficulty in even opening in the West. On the other, those people most subject to the appeal of hardline Sunni Islamism the Saudis favour are also likely to be impressed by the success achieved by a charismatic radical whose principal religious objective is driving the House of Saud and their infidel allies out of their holy land, someone whose fatwas explicitly mention "appropriation of Saudi Arabia" as the worst of America's crimes. Especially when the ensuing "War on Terror" results in the House of Saud being drawn into an ever-closer alliance with the infidel American and firmly stuck on the wrong side of the clash of civilizations from the point of view of jihadis regardless of how much austerity their morality police impose and how many beheadings they carry out ostensibly in the name of strict religious observance.
Obviously al Qaeda appeals to the religious interests of some Wahhabist extremist Saudis like fifteen of the actual hijackers, and I'm sure there are plenty of individual Saudis who like to play both sides by becoming fat and rich as business magnates with government connections whilst funnelling some of those profits to extremist organizations just in case that happens to be their ticket to paradise. But I'm really not seeing the motivation for the actual Saudi government or intelligence services funding an organisation which actually represents a bigger existential threat to them than it does to the US, precisely because it appeals to segments of their public.
Of course, there's no secret they directly funded Osama Bin Laden before he fell out with them over their backing of American intervention in Gulf War, back in the 1980s when he was fighting the Soviet Union with the Afghan muhadjeen. But so did the other enemy he devoted the latter parts of his life to rallying the Islamic world against...
For example, when I visited Bangladesh in the early 1990's, seeing veiled women in the capital city of Dhaka was unusual. It's very common today.
Why do you think SA has something to do with this?
BTW, this is true in some western countries as well (I'm thinking of France where veiled women are everywhere, it wasn't the case in the 80s). I wonder what explains this trend.
There were some leaked Saudi cables (from Wikileaks?), that showed how radical outfits in other countries count on Saudi largesse to further their agenda.
On a related note, I never understand why some people are always so eager to give SA the benefit of doubt.
And that's the subject of another Adam Curtis documentary, The Power of Nightmares.
For context around this particular document, there appears to be the following article:
https://28pages.org/2016/04/19/exclusive-a-buried-envelope-b...
Said every side involved in any conflict sense the dawn of humanity.
ISIS: morally just. The west = terrorists. And they are probably right. Our bombs do terrorise. As do the torture weopans we export to their ruling parties.
and vice versa
Your comment highlights my real point though... they are not "our" bombs. Maybe they are Bush's, Cheney's, Raytheon's, Boeing's, Obama's, or Clinton's bombs... but to refer to them as "ours" groups in ordinary people, many of whom do not approve. This is why I took issue with the possibility of categorizing Saudi Arabia as a "terrorist country", and why I prefer a term such as "state sponsored terrorism".
I think you may be right (I haven't enough information about Saudi Arabians or their views to tell) but I really want to believe that the real-life politics is much more rational than in a game of Civilization.
However, it is completely rational: "spreading democracy" is valid not only from idealism, but from the notion that it's much easier to deal with governments and societies that share your values. Of course, US have not always followed this motivation throughout history, but in case of islamic arab countries in the last years, US has pretty solod record in that regard.
So on the one hand it's true that Saudi Arabia and a government funds terrorists and extremists, but that's not at all their intention and as has been pointed out many of these organizations would quite happily slaughter the Saudi royal family.
The again, there are some individuals within the regime and probably at some levels within the royal family itself, that actually do support terrorists and extremists.
It's a real mess.
That's a very charitable view, especially for a monarchy that exerts tight control over many aspects of life in their country. That is not insisting on simplicity. Pakistan's government, and their security services, for example, are manifestly capable of working multiple conflicting agendas. But that doesn't mean they can be excused.
As others on this discussion have pointed out, Saudi has exported both terrorism and the fundamentalism that gives the terrorist fishes a much larger sea to swim in. The US, in part because if its own problems with religious fundamentalism, is unable to forthrightly work against religious fundamentalism and other excesses in religiosity, such as suppression of women's rights, in the Moslem world when that might be the most effective way to reduce terrorist incidents. Imagine trying to end the Soviet Empire without detente.
So, yes, that is a real mess.
Add to that mix tribal allegiances, the cross pollination of all groups seeking their own agendas and you have the situation where some very wealthy religious extremists can fund their agendas worldwide including "terrorism".
Too many posts are seeing everything as black and white. The Saudis from the top down planned 9-11 etc.
Just like in the US, there are hidden agendas, secretive groups akin to the CIA all pushing their own agendas whether financial / religious. And just like some in US politics, there are some pushing for the end of days where their chosen deity / son of / prophet of returns and leads them to paradise / the next world.
They just doomed by .. well, you know, I can't say.
Take me as an example. I'm a regular guy from there. All my concerns in life right now is to get high grade in my (scikit-learn/keras)-based CS graduation project.
Looking towards silicon valley and scientific institutes in the world to get inspired. Hoping to get more time to learn React and become pro in rails/DotNET and contribute something that worth to the OSS.
Good luck!
It's not a "media stereotype." I'm speaking from first-hand experience. I've seen most of the above in my own extended family (which is all educated and upper middle class). It's the dirty laundry and it's deeply ingrained in culture. Obviously, a lot of people do embrace western values. But I've met plenty of educated people from those countries with a western education whose are still trapped by their culture. They might be hackers who code, but they also think women shouldn't work.
However in Saudi a ton of people work for the government so it isn't surprising they had connections to Saudi government.
It's almost like they think that 9/11 is just a part of life now, and the only thing that matters is the paper trail. Realistically, it signals a new societal problem of religious toxicity and an insidious new type of invader that we as Americans (assumption) have not faced before. If we can't trust our neighbors not to blow us up, who CAN we trust?
This document merely suggests the possible link, while there are some document still classified that actually links Saudi Arabia's role as a state sponsoring the attack on 9/11.
US and its coalition went to war with Iraq and Libya over what could be said to be nothing compared to the 9/11 attack. US wanted to start a war with Iran, another giant monolithic power in Middle East over the regime's rhetoric.
Compared to those rationales for going to war, if there are actual proofs of SA's state involvement of 9/11 attack, we will actually have "just war" cause for going to war against SA. Imagine the impact of that. Convincing the masses would be so easy, that won't even be a problem. Convincing senate and congress probably needs more work, but given that there's huge support for war from the public, it would have to be a risk congressmen/women and senate would have to take losing the election next time.
When that happens, you don't need any convincing to make people wonder about WTF was Bush admin., Obama admin. and perhaps entire Republican and Democratic party doing for last 15 years knowing that SA was the real enemy?
There is a difference between knowing something and a fact that can be proven. With proven facts you families of the deceased can sue KSA. "Common knowledge" doesn't work in a court of law.
https://www.archives.gov/declassification/iscap/pdf/2012-048...
The index page,
https://www.archives.gov/declassification/iscap/pdf/2012-048...
calls it "Saudi Notes". There's one other set of "Saudi Notes" and some "Saudi News Clips" on that page.
Does anyone know what the declassification process was for these / why they were declassified?
Seems to me that the real news is that Saudi and America are able to be allies and enemies at the same time, not that they may have employed people who have the big T label.
1. http://hackaday.com/2008/08/01/exposing-poorly-redacted-pdfs...
My economics professor back in college would give us these take-home quizzes each month with hundreds and hundreds of "short-answer" questions on them to use to study for tests and such.
I noticed there was a inconsistent amount spacing between questions and opened one of the pdf's in illustrator. The fool actually drew white boxes over all of the answers. Needless to say, I walked away from that class with high marks.
That was a lovely class.
I thought it was widely known that Osama Bin Laden was heavily financed from there? Also: wahabi?
> When asked by 60 Minutes if the 28 pages include specific names: “Yes. The average intelligent watcher of 60 Minutes would recognize them instantly.”
And are they classified with a certain timeframe - like "for the next 70 years" or some such?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/20/barack-obama-sa...
The day this alliance between the US and SA starts to diminish or ends, it's not going to be worrying. Muslims already get so much hate everywhere, if the home of Islam gets bad PR, the middle east will turn up worse than it already is. I hope I'm just being pessimistic here.
Once SA gets bad rep, muslims around the world might also get bad PR. So it might be wiser to play along with them than to pave the way for more middle east instability.
I also hate islamism, but I prefer that than WW3.
From skimming the document quickly, I don't see anything that implies definite ties to the Saudi government, which would be interesting. They knew people who worked for the Saudi government, but I don't think this document says anything more than that.
Anything that gets voted to the first page IS de facto HN content, as voted by HN users, unless it specifically violates some rule.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
I think this article fits the description.
An example of the latter is pretty much any big subreddit you think of as awful and full of nonsense. Some examples of the former include the most well-respected science and history-related subreddits. I would honestly prefer there to be heavy moderation on HN with someone who has a vision for what "HN content" should be (even allowing for the fact that those people may disagree with me) than a free-for-all.
Random sites on the Internet are not the entire Internet, nor are they the government. I believe in Free Speech when it comes to people with power over me, not so much when it comes to websites that I can choose to leave at any time.