Hacker News Reader

Comment by alva | Hacker News Reader

"The judges said "closed material", which had not been made public for national security reasons, "provides valuable additional support for the conclusion..."

I cannot wait to find out, although I expect to be an old man by that time, the true nature of our relationship with Saudi. Considering our extremely close involvement in all things Saudi since it's inception [0], I suspect our countries are more intertwined than most realise.

All of the human rights abuses, funding of terrorism abroad, 9/11 etc it truly is a puzzle why they get away with so much with the West. It is quite easy to get conspiratorial about the whole thing.

Could it be that the West has made a deal with Al Saud (oil, strategic geopolitical area), but the Ulama (separate from the Royals) are those who do not comply? Any recommended reading from someone who knows about this topic?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_Ki...

View on HN

It all comes down to the petrodollar. When you look at it through that frame everything makes sense. Saddam started selling oil in Euros so they had to take him out, despite all 9/11 guys being Saudis.

Gaddafi was going to make a gold backed currency so he had to be taken out. Still nobody will tell us where the 200 billion in gold he had has gone.

The Syria situation is over a pipeline to Europe, Russia doesn't want that to go through Qatar/Saudis/US do, so we fund rebels to overthrow the "dictator". Putin has said that the petrodollar must die, which is why he is public enemy #1, petrodollar is what keeps the US on top. This is what keeps the dollar demand strong despite nothing backing it.

People only become dictators when they threaten our interests. We protect and overlook Saudis human rights abuses because they help push our agenda in the Middle East. The trillions made by the MIC is just icing on the cake.

Why is there no mention of that on the wikipedia articles ?

with regards to what specifically?

Question is why would Saddam and Gaddafi do such a foolish thing.

It's not that foolish to want to break up a monopoly. In the case of Iraq, you'd almost think it was a good idea, considering they were going to base oil sales on the Euro, which would have been favourable to the countries in the Eurozone, who would naturally become allies, helping to break trade sanctions that had held Iraq back. If it wasn't for Saddam's history with the US they might've gotten away with it.

This is an accurate assessment yet you have to read a lot online to get to this understanding. Nobody in the mainstream media and no politician in the Western media will help you get to understand things as they are, so it is an interesting time we live in where more and more people are independently informed yet the 'great leaders' still think everyone is stupid.

I disagree with having to research it on your own. It’s a common enough theory thrown around on reddit, Twitter, fb groups etc on the daily without any further thought required on one’s part. Search petrodollar on any of those sites and see.

To make it fun, drink every time you see mention of the Jews, Masons, and NWO while looking through the results.

> "I disagree with having to research it on your own."

Yes, but you need to have enough of your own curiosity to look into it. Not everyone is curious about it, nor should they need to be, the world would be less interesting if everyone had the same interests. However, it is useful for non-curious people to have some grounding in current events, which is supposed to be the function of the news media, but much of today's news media is utter shite. Take any topic covered by the mainstream media that you know something about and you'll easily find disinformation and lies by omission.

No, it doesn't make any sense.

For example, if the prospect of the euro as an alternative reserve currency is so threatening, such that the USA would engage in a hugely expensive war to stop Iraq selling oil in euros, then why didn't the US take other, far less controversial actions to block the euro's development in the first place?

The single currency was a well-known plan for decades in western Europe, where the US enjoyed massive political and economic leverage during the cold war. If the entirety of the US' foreign policy is designed to defend the petrodollar, then why tolerate the development of an alternative global currency at all?

And yet, they didn't just tolerate it, they encouraged it. For example, here is a quote from an interview with Romano Prodi, former president of the European Commission, in 2002, about the US attitude to the euro[1]:

"But I tell you, in that moment, U.S., they could have destroyed the euro if they wanted, and they never did. They always helped it. And I'm very grateful for that because I think that the American Treasury understood that the euro is useful for all the world to have a strong currency. I think that in this moment, in these two years of crisis, without the euro, you know, Asian crisis, Argentina, September 11th, we could have a lot of-- of turbulence that we avoided because of the euro."

[1] https://charlierose.com/episodes/27900

Far from explaining US foreign policy, looking at everything through the lens of the petrodollar makes it totally inexplicable.

We should find out in 20 years it seems (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/our-role/plans-poli...)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com