Comment by jollybean | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jollybean | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's conspiratorial and misrepresentation to talk about this - to the point of it being a lie.

If a very rich American went to South America for a decade and then bombed a building in Rio, he would have 'financial relationship' to the US via a number of investments. It doesn't mean that it has anything to do with US foreign policy, the government, or anything.

Osama Bin Laden was a member of a big, sprawling, super rich Oligarchic family in Saudi. Obviously, there were dealings, and obviously some Saudis probably funded some things here and there. Just like a Texan Evangelical Oil Billionaire might fund Christian Schools in Peru, which may even be good schools. But the charity run by a guy with ties to 'American Rio Bomber'.

Everything at that level is intertwined, it's not sufficient to suggest that proves anything.

The 'State' of Saudis is 'mostly a good actor to the outside world, even if they are bad in many ways internally. They allow the free flow of oil at market prices, 'per the deal' and don't align with China, Russia, or some other crazy state, and they are not trying to invade Iran or get nukes (though there are backup plans). And they play nice with Israel, not directly trying to start a war with them, or 'create' one between them and Israel. Most of their vast holdings are invested reasonably.Also, in the 'war on terror' which is actually a financial network and intelligence war, they have been playing 'on the right side' - as 'terrorists' are more dangerous to them than the US anyhow. So that's kind of what we can expect from them. In 100 years, hopefully things will be a bit better.

> It doesn't mean that it has anything to do with US foreign policy, the government, or anything.

The evidence points to the Saudi royal family funding a terrorist organization. That’s a lot more than just a rich citizen, that is their autocratic ruling family and the evidence is very convincing. Their reasoning probably was more about regional concerns rather than attacking the US, however when you fund fanatics they don’t always follow the script.

>It's conspiratorial and misrepresentation to talk about this - to the point of it being a lie.

this is false. there is a great deal of direct and circumstantial evidence that has come out in the last two years. this isn't "bin laden knew people", this is "the 9/11 hijackers received assistance from saudi diplomats in the US"

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/11/september-11-saudi-arabi...

There is no evidence in that article.

The intercepts notions of 'this was possibly a false flag' is literally the definition of conspiracy theory.

While there certainly might be more going on than we know, there isn't evidence of that much.

It's not going to be a surprise that a conduit for clandestine money might have some kind of governmental status or what have you.

It's basically insane to suggest House of Saud would want to do 9/11 or even a 'filed false flag', there is no benefit whatsoever in either. 9/11 did not help the Saudis, and even a 'failed false flag' like a pretend attack on a building in NYC would have the objective of what, trying to get more US troops in the Middle East for who's benefit?

More importantly, the likelihood of such a thing getting found out would be extremely high. The ruler of Saudi Arabia is going to blow up the Trade Centre knowing that the CIA/FBI would be able to nail him, and even all of Humpty Dumpty's men probably could not keep that secret contained? And if the US public found out, literally Saudi Arabia would cease to exist?

For what purpose?

No, this insane.

There are ultra Wahhabi nationalists in Saudi Arabia, they have money. We already know that. They are funding odd stuff around the world, just like many other billionaires. As part of the 'war on terror' a lot of that activity was shut down and now it's really scrutinized.

Even setting 9/11 aside, Saudi Arabia publicly funds numerous madrasah in other countries which have a, shall we say, Wahhabi-aligned curriculum. Which then provide a steady stream of recruits for the likes of al-Qaida (or, these, days, ISIS). This might be indirect enough to evade responsibility, but the countries where such radicalization eventually translates to violence generally don't consider Saudis "mostly a good actor".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com