Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

"Much of the information in the 28 pages is not new and has been mentioned in previously released documents on the 9/11 investigation. As such, the public release of these suppressed pages is unlikely to precipitate major changes in the relationship between the United States and the Saudi government. In a statement issued on Friday, the Saudi Embassy in the United States said that it “welcomes the release” of the suppressed pages, saying that they exonerate Riyadh of any direct role in the attacks."

If so then I really don't get why they would suppress these at all.

View on HN

It was likely suppressed as it would have drawn attention away from Iraq, and the insinuated link between Iraq and 9-11.

The fallback argument was WMD, bring democracy and prosperity.

Instead we got ISIS.

I was very surprised that this was released as it adds to the evidence that the decision to attack Iraq and to dismantle its security services was based on lies and deception.

The timing of the release, when the repercussions of creating political and military instability in the region are becoming more frequent in Europe and the US is what surprises me the most. Perhaps the US has reduced its energy dependence on the middle east sufficiently to begin focusing on Saudi Arabia?

With this release and the Chilcot report, the leaders of US/UK have created a serious deficit in credibility and trust.

> With this release and the Chilcot report, the leaders of US/UK have created a serious deficit in credibility and trust.

I don't feel any different before / after. As far as I'm concerned the whole thing was a set-up from day #1 (the Iraq war, not 9/11, obviously), after Dr. Kelly's death and the Plame affair there was very little doubt we were being railroaded.

I personally think there is enough evidence to at least begin inquiry into the possibility of foreknowledge within the Bush administration and/or some US intelligence agencies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-k...

There is an interesting book by a former US prosecutor arguing that there is a case for charging G.W. Bush with murder:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._B...

It wouldn't surprise me if there are private prosecutions of Tony Blair in the UK along similar lines [NB I don't think there is any chance of an actual prosecution of GWB in the US].

ISIS' rise to prominence happened under Obama, a long time after the invasion of Iraq.

ISIS could only rise to prominence because of the power-vacuum the Iraq war left behind.

The power vaccuum happened when the troops were withdrawn.

The troops would have been withdrawn sooner or later anyway, this was something that was known before the Iraq war was even started. Unless you want to argue that the US had plans for a permanent occupation of Iraq after getting rid of Saddam.

Please do not try to re-write history in a way that suits your narrative, it is pointless and counterproductive.

Define "permanent" and "occupation". You mean like the way the U.S. still has troops in Europe after 75 years, and Korea after 60? Do those count as "occupations"?

There's a lot of room between keeping support troops on hand and a full-scale military occupation.

US troops do absolutely nothing on Korea and Europe other than as stand-by and a geopolitical deterrent. The troops in Iraq were acting as the fighting force for the official regime. These are very VERY different things. US toops were occupying Iraq, they are not occupying South Korea.

That's more or less my point, isn't it? It would have been possible to (attempt to) hand over responsibility to the Iraqi military while still keeping troops there in case things went south (as they did).

Given the state of the Iraqi military, things would have gone south immediately, and the troops would never leave.

Would they, though? I think it is a plausible argument that things would have been less likely to go south if the opposing force knew the U.S. forces were there to step in if necessary. While things might still have ended badly, I think there's no question that pulling the U.S. troops out so soon made the collapse a certainty.

At the very least, ISIS would not have been armed to the same extent by fleeing Iraqi security forces.

This NYT article has some very interesting background:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/united-st...

After reading the article and learning some of the intricacies I really don't feel ready to blame anyone in particular. It seems to be a "system outcome" of the interactions and the (local) conditions.

Let's not forget a lot of Irakis wanted the US to leave, fully and completely:

> Possibilities being discussed are for some troops to return in 2012, an option preferred by some Iraqi politicians who want to claim credit for ending what many here still call an occupation,...

That "some" is about the politicians, the mood in the streets wasn't just "some" people who wanted all foreign soldiers to leave, if I remember anything from the news we heard at that time.

You only get to shift blame to your predecessor if you predict and warn about the unavoidable problems and state your plan for how to handle it.

ISIS' rise to prominence happened under Obama, a long time after the invasion of Iraq.

Absolutely true, technically. Also a completely useless and misleading statement.

The ISIS group splintered and grew out of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq after its defeat during the Anbar Awakening[1]. Ironically, the Iraqi goverment's behaviour towards the awakening groups[2] directly contributed to this.

Many of the same people involved in Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Anbar Awakening groups as well as the Ba'ath party ended up fighting for ISIS.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but the range of possible actions and outcomes Obama had was much smaller compared to that Bush had.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anbar_Awakening

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Iraq

"Much" is not "all" and the released documents are heavily redacted. So a large amount of the information has been scrubbed. This seems to me more about controlling public opinion about the documents than releasing any information.

We're in the age where everyone brings their own facts to the table - even when the facts are the same, they take the facts and state that they support their position even as the other guy is claiming the opposite.

It doesn't even matter what they say anymore, as the realisation has set in that people won't actually read them - they'll wait for the headline and the related quotes from affected people and stop there.

So as long as you get there with a quote that states you're exonerated, it makes no difference what's actually been found.

I'm guessing they've suppressed them to prevent the public from wanting to start a war with the saudis

Now why would anybody want to start a war with a country not directly involved in an attack. Oh, wait.

Ah, yes, the "BOOOOSH WANTED TO STEAL THEIR OIL" theory.

So, exactly how much of their oil did the U.S. actually "steal"? You have a barrel figure for that? A rough estimate will do.

"Why we did it"

https://vimeo.com/88670339

Oil. As in for "free market."

I'm not going to go watch a propaganda video.

How much oil did the U.S. steal from Iraq?

Do you have an answer to that question or not?

It's your turn now to give the reference for your claim, I've given mine. Alternatively, you'd have to specify what actually from that documentary isn't true, and given the high possibility of the authors to be sued, I'm quite sure they double checked their sources.

What "claim"? That the U.S. didn't "steal Iraq's oil"?

No, I don't have to watch your video to determine that this didn't happen. Nor does anyone else.

Edit: can you point out to me on this chart where all the "stolen oil" shows up?

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...

See the video, the most of Iraq oil was taken over by western petrol companies and physically sold to Europe. And that's why you won't see much in the chart you quote.

The video is much more nuanced than you imagine, as the goal was never to "steal the oil to bring it directly to the US" but merely to "control" the oil.

I'm assuming from the down mods that no one actually has an answer for this. :-)

Here are the facts: if the goal was to "steal their oil", that could easily have been accomplished.

1) Secure oil fields and terminals. 2) Fly in Texans and Okies to run everything. 3) Shoot anyone who approaches. Leave the rest of the country to fend for itself.

That didn't happen. Why not?

Reddit asked a very important question regarding that: So why is it being released then? And why now?

... and instead start a war with Iraq.

> "exonerate Riyadh of any direct role in the attacks"

And indirectly?

You are expected to read the PR pieces, not think about their content. Critical thinking is dangerous and sign of subversion of the system.

My opinion is that a branch of their government has gone rogue. But that puts SA elite in very uncomfortable position - their later kings are reformers and progressives (baby steps, baby steps) with somewhat strained relationship with the clergy. But they either cannot control their government - implying they are weak or admit they are involved - which is casus belli for the US.

Isn't the right question to ask, why the information was released now? Who can win by publishing a report, showing the wrongdoing of a former leadership?

I'm sure Trump will profit the most from that in the upcoming election.

Makes you think about how much in control of its own government the current leadership really is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com