Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:17 am

9/11 Commission Didn’t Clear Saudis
April 27, 2016

As the Obama administration belatedly weighs releasing the 28 pages on the Saudi role in 9/11, Americans should not be fooled by claims minimizing the Saudi involvement, writes 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser.


By Kristen Breitweiser

Americans are not used to reading investigative pieces of journalism. We like to tweet and text in small bites. But here’s the thing. Sometimes, the most important things can’t be explained in 15 bites or less. Sometimes, it takes more space and time. And so I ask everyone who is reading this blog to please read it in its entirety — especially the bold parts.

And, if you care about our country, if you care about peace, and keeping American lives safe from terrorists, pay attention to what is being said here — and never forget it.

The time has come to clarify some inaccuracies and misleading statements being made in the media regarding the 28 pages, the 9/11 attacks, the investigation of the 9/11 attacks, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). In doing so, perhaps the American public will come to understand the importance of passing JASTA (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act) and releasing the 28 pages in their entirety.

The 9/11 Commission’s mandate was to not replicate, but rather to expand upon the investigation of the JICI. The JICI was the Joint Intelligence Committee’s Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks, headed by Sen. Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss. The JICI is where the 28 pages originated. Furthermore, the JICI made a finding of fact and final recommendation that further investigation into the role of KSA and the 9/11 attacks needed to be done, immediately.

Therefore, the 9/11 Commission should have carried out this further investigation of the KSA and 9/11. But, they did not. It is only the 9/11 families and intrepid journalists who have continued to investigate the Saudi role for the past 12 years.

As reported and documented in The New York Time’s national security correspondent Philip Shenon’s book, “The Commission,” Staff Director of the 9/11 Commission, Phil Zelikow, actively worked against any thorough investigation into the KSA and its role in the 9/11 attacks.

So, when two JICI staffers were brought over to the 9/11 Commission to continue their work on the links between the KSA and the 9/11 attacks, they were blocked by Zelikow. Zelikow fired one investigator when she tried to access the 28 pages as part of her further investigation and work for the commission. And, the second staffer (who was the person responsible for writing the 28 pages in the first place when he worked on the JICI) was actively thwarted from his investigation by Zelikow, as well.

In fact, once the 9/11 Commission report was in its final draft form, Zelikow “re-wrote” the entire section that dealt with the Saudis — leaving out vital, highly pertinent, and extremely damning information.


Thus, when a person says the 9/11 Commission, “found no evidence linking the Saudis,” be wary of the cute context of the words. The 9/11 Commission “found no evidence” because they were either never allowed to look for any evidence or whatever evidence they did find was conveniently written out of the final report, compliments of Phil Zelikow.

Why would Zelikow block his own investigation? No one knows for sure, but for starters, Zelikow was taking regular phone calls from White House political adviser Karl Rove whose job at the time was to ramp up the drumbeat for the war in Iraq — not a war with Saudi Arabia.

In addition, Zelikow was part of George W. Bush’s transition team and good friends with Bush’s National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. In fact, it was Zelikow’s job to brief the incoming Bush Administration about national security issues. It’s safe to say that the pre-9/11 “sleeper cells” living inside the U.S., and the other facets of the Saudi nexus of help for the 9/11 hijackers, which was occurring while Zelikow was on the transition team, was not something Zelikow was eager to delve into as Staff Director of the 9/11 Commission.

Had the information regarding the Saudis and 9/11 been properly and fully investigated by the 9/11 Commission, and had that investigation continued thereafter, the facts surrounding the FBI and CIA and their collective failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks, would have certainly come to further light. Let’s not forget the Director of the FBI’s unacceptable “handling” and “covering up” of several Saudi accomplices before and after the 9/11 attacks by permitting them to leave the country, evade arrest, and prosecution.

Suffice it to say, both the JICI and the 9/11 Commission clearly document that prior to the 9/11 attacks, the KSA was not as helpful as it could be with regard to providing access to Al Qaeda prisoners, stopping the flow of money to UBL, and/or sharing information with regard to UBL.

But most importantly, both the JICI and the 9/11 Commission provide plenty of statements, facts and findings that show KSA aided, abetted and had roots and connections to the 9/11 hijackers. In short, there’s likely a very good reason that the name “Saudi Arabia” appears more often in both reports than names like Iran, Syria and Iraq.

The JICI Finding #15 states, “Regarding Saudi Arabia, the Committee heard testimony from U.S. government personnel that Saudi officials had been uncooperative and often did not act on information implicating Saudi nationals. According to a U.S. government official, it was clear from about 1996 that the Saudi government would not cooperate with the United States on matters relating to Osama bin Laden … a number of U.S. government officials complained to the Joint Inquiry about a lack of Saudi cooperation in terrorism investigations both before and after the September 11th attacks.“

The JICI Finding #20 states, “Through its investigation, the Joint Inquiry developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the U.S. The Joint Inquiry’s review confirmed that the Intelligence Community also has information, much of which has yet to be independently verified, concerning these potential sources of support. In their testimony, neither CIA nor FBI officials were able to address definitively the extent of such support for the hijackers globally or within the U.S. or the extent to which such support, if it exists, is knowing or inadvertent in nature. … This gap in U.S. intelligence coverage is unacceptable, given the magnitude and immediacy of the potential risk to U.S. national security. The Intelligence Community needs to address this area of concern as aggressively and quickly as possible.”


The JICI’s Final Recommendation # 19, “The Intelligence Community and particularly the FBI and the CIA should aggressively address the possibility that foreign governments are providing support to or are involved in terrorist activity targeting the U.S. and U.S. interests. State sponsored terrorism substantially increases the likelihood of successful and more lethal attacks within the U.S.

“This issue must be addressed from a national standpoint and should not be limited in focus by the geographical and factual boundaries of individual cases. The FBI and CIA should aggressively and thoroughly pursue related matters developed through this Joint Inquiry that have been referred to them for further investigation by these Committees.”

Commission Staff Statement #5, “Diplomacy” states, “the Saudis were reluctant or unable to provide much help.“ The Staff Statement concludes, “before 9/11 the Saudi and U.S. governments did not achieve full sharing of important intelligence information or develop an adequate joint effort to track and disrupt the finances of the al Qaeda organization.”

Commission Staff Statement #8, “National Policy Coordination” states, “in June 1999, National Security Adviser Berger and Clarke summarized for President Clinton what had been accomplished against bin Laden. An active program to disrupt al Qaeda cells around the world was underway and recording some success. The efforts to track bin Laden’s finances with help from Saudi Arabia had not yet been successful.”?

Bush’s National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice’s testimony before the commission states, “Under [Bush’s] leadership, the U.S. and our allies are disrupting terrorist operations, cutting off their funding and hunting down terrorists one by one. Their world is getting smaller. The terrorists have lost a home base and training camps in Afghanistan. The governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia now pursue them with energy and force.”

Upon questioning by 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman, Condoleeza Rice was asked, “Were you aware of the activities of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs here in the United States during the transition? And Rice replied, “I believe that only after September 11th did the full extent of what was going on with the Ministry of Religious Affairs become evident.”

Lehman continued, “Were you aware of the extensive activities of the Saudi government in supporting over 300 radical teaching schools and mosques around the country, including right here in the United States?“ Rice replied, “I believe we’ve learned a great deal more about this and addressed it with the Saudi government since 9/11.”

Staff Statement #9, “Law Enforcement, Counterterrorism, and Intelligence Collection in the United States Prior to 9/11” in its “Terrorist Financing” section states, “Prior to September 11, these FBI offices had been able to gain a basic understanding of some of the largest and most problematic terrorist financing conspiracies that have since been identified. The agents understood that there was a network of extremist organizations operating within the U.S. supporting a global Islamic jihad movement. They did not know the degree to which these extremist groups were associated with al Qaeda. …

“The FBI operated a web of informants, conducted electronic surveillance, and had opened investigations in a number of field offices. Numerous field offices including New York, San Diego, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Detroit had significant intelligence investigations into groups that appeared to be raising money for Islamic extremist groups. Many of these groups appeared to the FBI to have some connection to either al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden.”

The 9/11 Commission’s Final Report states, “When Bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan, he relied on the Taliban until he was able to reinvigorate his fund-raising efforts drawing on ties to wealthy Saudi individuals. … Al Qaeda appears to have relied on a core group of financial facilitators who raised money from a variety of donors … particularly in Saudi Arabia. Some surely knew the ultimate destination of their donations.

“It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governments may have contained al Qaeda sympathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda’s fundraising activities. Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government individually funded the organization.

“This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda found fertile fund-raising ground in Saudi Arabia, where extreme religious views are common and charitable giving was both essential to the culture and subject to very limited oversight. To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks.“ (170-172)

Of particular note is footnote #86 from Chapter 6, “From Threat to Threat” that states, “CIA analytic reports, “Usama Bin Ladin: Some Saudi Financial Ties Probably Intact,” OTI IR 99-005CX, Jan 11, 1999, “How Bin Ladin Commands a Global Terrorist Network,” CTC 99-40003, Jan 27, 1999, “Islamic Terrorists: Using Nongovernmental Organizations Extensively,” CTC 99-40007, April 9, 1999.

Also of note, footnote #29 from Chapter 7, “The Attack Looms,” that details a description of the two San Diego hijackers Hazmi and al Mihdhar stating, “He recalled Hazmi and al Mihdar arriving at the mosque on their own and describing themselves as clerks employed by the Saudi Arabian government. The two said they needed help finding a school where they could study English which neither spoke well enough. The mosque administrator suspected that Mihdar might have been an intelligence agent of the Saudi government. … We have no evidence contradicting the administrator’s account.”

From these statements, it can be seen that there was clearly a “network of extremist organizations operating within the U.S. supporting a global Islamic Jihad movement.” In addition, it seems crystal clear that at least one foreign government was supporting these networks of extremist organizations.

As stated by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the world’s largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups is Saudi Arabia. Clinton stated, “More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups.”

It’s my opinion that the 28 pages will clarify the network of Saudis that supported the 9/11 hijackers. This network will likely have links to the Saudi Islamic Affair Ministry — “well known in intelligence circles to be the Saudi’s fifth column in support of Muslim extremists.”

In addition, clarification of the roles and connections to the 9/11 hijackers of several people will also likely happen with the release of the 28 pages. These people include: Fahad al Thumairy, Omar al Bayoumi, Osama Bassnan, Anwar Awlaki, and Eyad al Rababah. Go ahead and google them. The damning facts are plain to see.

More notably, the 28 pages will likely reveal that the FBI and CIA had open investigations with several of the aforementioned people both before and after the 9/11 attacks. This fact, alone, will prove to be uncomfortable since it will be difficult to explain why the 9/11 attacks were not prevented.

Furthermore, it will be difficult to understand why certain facts involving the aforementioned individuals were conveniently ignored and not fully investigated after the 9/11 attacks by the FBI, CIA, and the 9/11 Commission.

So, please do me a favor: when you hear someone shrieking about all the dangerous reciprocal lawsuits being created as a result of the 9/11 families wanting to hold funders of mass murder accountable, look carefully into those good people’s involvement with the Saudis or less than successful intelligence policies.

And when you hear about certain Senators who outright or secretly oppose legislation that would ensure nations like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are held accountable for their funding of mass terrorism attacks, check to see what their involvement with the KSA has been for the past 15 years.

Finally, when you notice a person speaking out against ordinary citizens’ undeniable right to hold mass murderers accountable, look ever so closely and carefully because most likely there’s a reason they’re worried – and it’s got nothing to do with this nation’s well-being.

President Obama tells us we will have to wait another 60 days for the release of the 28 pages. I certainly hope that the President recognizes that anything less than the release of the full 28 pages will be seen as further proof of this government’s cover-up of Saudi Arabia’s role in the 9/11 attacks.

The clock is ticking …and the 9/11 families, along with the rest of America, are paying close attention.

Kristen Breitweiser is a 9/11 widow and activist who – working with other 9/11 widows known collectively as the “Jersey Girls” – pressured the U.S. government to conduct a formal investigation into the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Follow Kristen Breitweiser on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kdbreitweiser. [This article originally appeared as a blog post at HuffingtonPost. 9/11 widows Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, and Lorie Van Auken also sign their names to this blog.]
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Apr 29, 2016 10:54 pm

One should be cautious. The "why now" question may be relevant but I doubt it. More of a problem may be that the 28 pages don't have anything in there we don't already know - i.e., we find it's about Alhazmi and Almidhar, Omar Bayoumi, etc., but without anything more solid than what we already know. The account may not even go as far as Kevin Fenton's short and excellent research book, which uses docs released out of the 9/11 Commission to demonstrate that the FBI liaisons within the CIA and the CIA liaisons within the FBI collaborated to keep the information about A & A from reaching their respective agencies. This material has been available since 2005 I believe, but lacks the prestige of the redacted 28 pages. But I could be wrong. If the 28 pages make the case that A&A were Saudi agents protected by the CIA incontrovertible, or if they include a direct accusation leveled at Bandar Bush or Prince Turki, it could indeed be incendiary. So we don't know everything that's in there but should not have too high expectations that much of it will seem like news to those of us who have been following all this from the start.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby thatsmystory » Sun May 01, 2016 5:04 am

The "why now" question is an indictment of the media. I keep seeing articles with comments like "after 400 years 14 years the public deserves the truth."

That is pretty moving journalism. Heartfelt.

The media conduct is something else. Could the collective US media be bigger assholes? The public deserves the truth about the 28 pages. That is your analysis?!
thatsmystory
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon May 02, 2016 8:21 pm

CIA Director Brennan calls 28 pages in 9/11 report 'inaccurate'
By Andrew V. Pestano Follow @AVPLive9 Contact the Author | Updated May 2, 2016 at 10:09 AM


CIA Director John Brennan, seen here testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington, D.C., said that the 28 classified pages of the Sept. 11 Commission Report contains information that is inaccurate, uncorroborated and unvetted that could be incorrectly used to point to alleged involvement by Saudi Arabia. File photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI | License Photo
WASHINGTON, May 2 (UPI) -- CIA Director John Brennan on Sunday said the 28 classified pages of the Sept. 11 Commission Report, which are said to describe Saudi Arabia's involvement, contain information that is inaccurate, uncorroborated and unvetted.

Brennan made the comments during NBC News' Meet the Press. Chuck Todd, the show's host, mentioned that Florida Sen. Bob Graham has been "trying to publicly get more attention to the idea of releasing these 28 pages."

When Todd asked what would prevent officials from releasing those pages, Brennan said he was "quite puzzled" as to why Graham and others would want those pages released.

"This chapter was kept out because of concerns about sensitive source of methods, investigative actions. The investigation of 9/11 was still underway in late 2002. I'm quite puzzled by Senator Graham and others because what that joint inquiry did was to tee up issues that were followed up on by the 9/11 Commission, as well as the 9/11 Review Commission. So these were thoroughly investigated and reviewed. It was a preliminary review that put information in there that was not corroborated, not vetted and not deemed to be accurate," Brennan told Todd.

Todd then asked Brennan if the controversial secret 28 pages were completely inaccurate and false.

"No, I think there's a combination of things that is accurate and inaccurate. And I think the 9/11 Commission took that joint inquiry, and those 28 pages or so, and followed through on the investigation. And they came out with a very clear judgment that there was no evidence that indicated that the Saudi government as an institution, or Saudi officials individually, had provided financial support to al-Qaida.

Brennan went on to say that some may "seize upon that uncorroborated, un-vetted information" to allege Saudi Arabian involvement, "which I think would be very, very inaccurate."

John Brennan is a career CIA employee who was station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in the 1990s. He served as chief of staff to CIA Director George Tenet, who was head of the agency on Sept. 11, 2001. Brennan was named by President Barack Obama to succeed acting director Michael Morell, who had stepped into the job after the resignation of David Petraeus. Brennan was confirmed by the Senate and officially became the director of the CIA in March of 2013.

His comments follow increased debate surrounding the classified pages, as a bill that would revoke Saudi Arabia's sovereign immunity, that protects it from lawsuits related to the Sept. 11 attacks, generated attention.

Saudi Arabia has never been formally linked to the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., but 15 of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The 28-page section of the government's official report on the Sept. 11 attacks deals with the role foreign governments played in the plot, but that section remains classified and has not been released to the public.

President Barack is expected to veto a bill that would revoke Saudi Arabia's sovereign immunity -- citing harm to the U.S. economy.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY8Ggaww9rc


Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby MinM » Thu May 12, 2016 9:35 am

Harvey » Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:24 pm wrote:My instinct? If Saudi is in the cross hairs for 9/11, then others are more vulnerable and on the defensive, much closer to home for you guys in the states.

I mean, seriously, "Look! Over there, a Saudi!" So as you say, what gives? Any thoughts peeps?

Saudi officials were 'supporting' 9/11 hijackers, commission member says

First serious public split revealed among commissioners over the release of the secret ‘28 pages’ that detail Saudi ties to 2001 terrorist attacks

A former Republican member of the 9/11 commission, breaking dramatically with the commission’s leaders, said Wednesday he believes there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers and that the Obama administration should move quickly to declassify a long-secret congressional report on Saudi ties to the 2001 terrorist attack.

The comments by John F Lehman, an investment banker in New York who was Navy secretary in the Reagan administration, signal the first serious public split among the 10 commissioners since they issued a 2004 final report that was largely read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia, which was home to 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11.

“There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government,” Lehman said in an interview, suggesting that the commission may have made a mistake by not stating that explicitly in its final report. “Our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia.”

He was critical of a statement released late last month by the former chairman and vice chairman of the commission, who urged the Obama administration to be cautious about releasing the full congressional report on the Saudis and 9/11 – “the 28 pages”, as they are widely known in Washington – because they contained “raw, unvetted” material that might smear innocent people.

The 9/11 commission chairman, former Republican governor Tom Kean of New Jersey, and vice-chairman, former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana, praised Saudi Arabia as, overall, “an ally of the United States in combatting terrorism” and said the commission’s investigation, which came after the congressional report was written, had identified only one Saudi government official – a former diplomat in the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles – as being “implicated in the 9/11 plot investigation”...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... -hijackers

MinM » Wed May 11, 2016 6:54 pm wrote:
9/11 judge and prosecutors should step down over 'destroyed evidence', defense demands

Move throws case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into chaos as defense team says ‘fatally flawed’ Guantánamo military tribunal should be ended

Image
An explosive allegation about destroyed evidence threatens to unravel the already shaky military tribunal for the alleged architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks

Attorneys for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are calling on the judge and the entire prosecution team in Mohammed’s military commission at Guantánamo Bay to step down from the long-running case over what a member of the defense team called “at least the appearance of collusion” that led to the government apparently secretly destroying information relevant to the premier post-9/11 tribunal.

The defense team further argues that the destruction of evidence ought to spell the end of Mohammed’s military trial entirely, a development that would leave the Obama administration and its successor to come up with an entirely new plan for what to do with the top terror suspect in US custody.

“Now, and indeed over other matters previously, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s military commission is fatally flawed,” said David Nevin, Mohammed’s lead attorney.

The prosecution in the 9/11 military tribunal is seeking the death penalty for the self-described architect of the attacks, who has been in US custody for more than 12 years...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... d-evidence

Image
The crime of 9/11 was (and remains) an historic intelligence success, not an intelligence “failure”. ~ Larry Chin
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3286
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu May 12, 2016 10:26 am

Published on
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
by Common Dreams
Ten Ways Israel is Just Like Saudi Arabia
byMedea Benjamin
10 Comments

Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki al-Faisal and Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s former national security adviser, share a platform at the Washington Institute, May 5, 2016 (Image: Washington Institute screenshot)
On the surface, it would seem that Saudi Arabia and Israel would be the worst of enemies and indeed, they have never had diplomatic relations. After all, the Saudis have championed the cause of the Palestinians, who are oppressed by the Israelis. Israelis say they are besieged by Muslim extremists, and many of these extremists are motivated by the intolerant, Wahhabi ideology born and bred in Saudi Arabia.

But beneath the surface, these two old adversaries actually have a lot in common and have become the strangest of bedfellows.

Rumors about the budding relationship have been circulating for the past few years, with gossip that the two countries have been holding secret meetings and exchanging intelligence. In 2015, former Saudi and Israeli officials confirmed that they had, indeed, held a series of high-level meetings to discuss shared concerns such as the growing influence of Iran in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, as well as Iran’s nuclear program. Shimon Shapira, an Israeli representative who participated in secret meetings with the Saudis, said: “We discovered we have the same problems and same challenges and some of the same answers.”

On May 5, Prince Turki bin Faisal, Saudi Arabia's former intelligence chief and one-time ambassador to Washington, and retired Israeli Major General Yaakov Amidror, former national security advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu, spoke together in Washington DC at an event hosted by the policy wing of the Israel lobby AIPAC. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The event, broadcast live online, showed that Saudi Arabia and Israel have finally come out of the closet –– together.

Here are some traits Saudi Arabia and Israel have in common.

Both oppress the non-dominant groups living in their borders. Israel oppresses Palestinians, building settlements on their land and surrounding their villages with apartheid walls and heavily-armed soldiers. Saudi Arabia has set up a political and judicial system that oppresses everyone who is not Sunni (like Shia and non-Muslims), as well as women and millions of migrant workers. Both nations respond to political dissidents in similar ways, using excessive force, arbitrary and indefinite detention, impunity, intimidation, and torture.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have invaded neighboring lands, killing thousands of civilians. Israel has been invading and bombing Gaza since 2008; in 2014 alone the Israeli military killed 2,104 people, mostly civilians, destroyed 17,200 homes and left 475,000 living in emergency conditions. The Saudis have interfered in the internal affairs of neighboring Yemen. In March 2015, they launched a vicious bombing campaign, killing over 6,000 Yemenis, mostly civilians, hitting markets, schools, hospitals, residences and wedding parties, and displacing over 2.5 million people. Both use weapons that have been internationally banned: Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza; Saudis used cluster bombs in Yemen.

Religion plays a key role in the politics of both nations. Israel is considered the homeland for the Jewish people and the Basic Laws of Israel that serve in place of a constitution define the country as a Jewish State. Jews get preferential treatment, such as the right for Jews anywhere to immigrate to Israel and automatically become citizens while Muslims face daily discrimination and are treated as second-class citizens. In Saudi Arabia, Mecca is the holiest city for Muslims and the Saudi kingdom considers itself the global center of Islam. Only Muslims can become Saudi citizens and the non-Muslims are treated like second-class citizens.

Both export “products” that promote violence. Israel is a major exporter of weapons and trains police in other countries (including the US) in repressive techniques. The Saudis export the extremist Sunni ideology called Wahhabism all over the Middle East and North Africa. Wahhabism is the ideological basis of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

If the enemy of my enemy is indeed my friend, than it is the hatred of Iran that is bringing these adversaries together. Both view Iran as an existential threat and fear Iran’s growing influence in the region. They both opposed the Iran nuclear deal that was such a great win for diplomacy over war, and they are determined to stop the United States from getting any closer to Iran.

Both nations supported the military coup in Egypt, led by General Adbul Fattah el Sisi, that overthrew a democratically elected government and led to a brutal wave of repression that put 40,000 dissidents in prison. The Saudis have stepped in with billions of dollars to fill the Sisi regime’s coffers, and Egypt has collaborated with Israel in Israel’s continued siege on Gaza.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have been supporting extremist groups in Syria like Al Nusra, which is an al-Qaeda affiliate, as they both are more concerned with overthrowing Assad (who is aligned with Iran) than defeating the Islamic State. The Saudis have sent weapons and money to Al Nusra; Israel has been treating wounded Al Nusra fighters in Israeli hospitals and then sending them back to battle the Syrian army. Israel also killed Lebanese-Iranian advisers who were assisting Assad’s government in fighting against Al Nusra.

Both nations lock up thousands of political prisoners, including minors. In February 2016, Israel had 6,204 Palestinians in prison, 438 of them minors. Many of the minors are imprisoned for throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. Saudis have beheaded minors, and presently have three prisoners facing execution who were arrested as juveniles for nonviolent protests.

They both spend many millions of dollars to influence US policy. The Israeli government is aligned with the U.S. lobby AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which is the most influential foreign policy lobby group in the United States. The Saudis have just started their own version called SAPRAC (Saudi American Public Relations Affairs Committee). For years they have been buying influence by contracting influential public relations and law firms like the Podesta Group, and donating to the Clinton Foundation, the Carter Foundation and dozens of think tanks and Ivy League universities.

They are both long-time allies of the United States. US administrations have supported Israel since its founding in 1948; they have also supported an array of Saudi kings since the founding of that nation in 1932. The US has helped guarantee the security of both nations. US taxpayers give over $3 billion a year to support the Israeli military; the US military guards the Persian Gulf for the Saudi royalty, and Saudi Arabia is the number one purchaser of US weapons.

Some say it is good for Israel and Saudi Arabia to bury the hatchet and find common ground. But peace in the Middle East will not be furthered by Israeli-Saudi collaboration. Israel has to make peace with the Palestinians; Saudi Arabia has to come to terms with Iran. Otherwise, Saudi-Israeli collusion will only be a fatal embrace that causes more heartbreak for the region.


Panama Papers Data Leak : King of Saudi Arabia sponsored Netanyahu’s campaign
By Zen Adra - 08/05/2016 15 Isaac Herzog, member of the Knesset and Chairman of the Israeli Labor party, revealed that Saudi king Salman bin Abdulaziz financed the election campaign of Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. “In March 2015, King Salman has deposited eighty million dollars to support Netanyahu’s campaign via a Syrian-Spanish person named Mohamed Eyad Kayali. The money was deposited to a company’s account in British Virgin Islands owned by Teddy Sagi, an Israeli billionaire and businessman, who has allocated the money to fund the campaign Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu”, Herzog cited a leaked Panama Paper. Related Panama Papers can be found in the following links:
[url]http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/en/


https://panamapapers.icij.org/the_power_players/

http://bit.ly/1UJkMS4

http://www.freezepage.com/1462699031QTMVBVWSWT

http://www.talniri.co.il/marketnews/article.asp?mp=4&id=76320
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby JackRiddler » Thu May 12, 2016 12:49 pm

We're really seeing the power of time to diminish the impact of this stuff. If Lehman and others now coming forward had been talking like that in 2002, it's hard to say what would have happened (anything from calls for war on Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq to the fall of the Bush regime for its own connections to them) but it would have been enormous.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri May 13, 2016 10:50 pm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxZiwgekUpc

Published on May 13, 2016
A former member of the 9/11 commission recently said the 2004 report didn’t make clear the extent of the evidence they had linking Saudi government officials to the terrorist attack. Cenk Uygur, John Iadarola (ThinkTank), Katie Halper, and Josh Zepps, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

"A former Republican member of the 9/11 commission, breaking dramatically with the commission’s leaders, said Wednesday he believes there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers and that the Obama administration should move quickly to declassify a long-secret congressional report on Saudi ties to the 2001 terrorist attack.

The comments by John F Lehman, an investment banker in New York who was Navy secretary in the Reagan administration, signal the first serious public split among the 10 commissioners since they issued a 2004 final report that was largely read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia, which was home to 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11.

“There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government,” Lehman said in an interview, suggesting that the commission may have made a mistake by not stating that explicitly in its final report. “Our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia.””*
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat May 14, 2016 8:57 pm

Declassified documents detail 9/11 commission's inquiry into Saudi Arabia
Newly released files may show connections between low-level Saudi officials and a terrorist support network in southern California led to the 9/11 attacks
9/11 September 11 Saudi Arabia

Philip Shenon is the author of The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation

Friday 13 May 2016 07.17 EDT Last modified on Friday 13 May 2016 09.19 EDT

Investigators for the 9/11 commission would later describe the scene in Saudi Arabia as chilling.

They took seats in front of a former Saudi diplomat who, many on the commission’s staff believed, had been a ringleader of a Saudi government spy network inside the US that gave support to at least two of the 9/11 hijackers in California in the year before the 2001 attacks.


Saudi officials were 'supporting' 9/11 hijackers, commission member says
Read more
At first, the witness, 32-year-old Fahad al-Thumairy, dressed in traditional white robes and headdress, answered the questions calmly, his hands folded in front of him. But when the interrogation became confrontational, he began to squirm, literally, pushing himself back and forth in the chair, folding and unfolding his arms, as he was pressed about his ties to two Saudi hijackers who had lived in southern California before 9/11.

Even as he continued to deny any link to terrorists, Thumairy became angry and began to sputter when confronted with evidence of his 21 phone calls with another Saudi in the hijackers’ support network – a man Thumairy had once claimed to be a stranger. “It was so clear Thumairy was lying,” a commission staffer said later. “It was also so clear he was dangerous.”

An interrogation report prepared after the questioning of the Saudi diplomat in February 2004 is among the most tantalizing of a sheaf of newly declassified documents from the files of the staff of the 9/11 commission. The files, which were quietly released by the National Archives over the last 18 months and have drawn little public scrutiny until now, offer a detailed chronology of how the commission’s staff investigated allegations of Saudi government involvement in 9/11, including how the panel’s investigators flew to Saudi Arabia to go face-to-face with some of the Saudis believed to have been part of the hijackers’ support network on American soil.

The newly declassified documents may also help resolve the lingering mystery about what is hidden in a long-classified congressional report about ties between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 attacks.

A former commission staff member said in an interview last week that the material in the newly released files largely duplicates information from “the 28 pages”, as they are commonly known in Washington, and then goes well beyond it.

Speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of angering his former colleagues, he said he was annoyed that so much attention has been focused on “the 28 pages” when, in fact, the commission had full access to the congressional report and used it as a roadmap to gather new evidence and witness accounts that demonstrated sinister connections between low-level Saudi government officials and a terrorist support network in southern California.

“We had lots of new material,” the former staffer said. Another, earlier memo from the commission’s files, unearthed last month by the website 28pages.org, which is pressing for release of the congressional report, lists the names of dozens of Saudis and others who had come under suspicion for possible involvement with the hijackers, including at least two Saudi naval officers. The memo, dated June 2003, noted the concern of the staff that earlier US investigations of the Saudi ties to terrorism had been hindered by “political, economic or other considerations”.

Barack Obama has said he is nearing a decision on whether to declassify the 28 pages, a move that has led to the first serious public split among the 9/11 commissioners since they issued a final report in 2004. The commission’s former chairman and vice chairman have urged caution in releasing the congressional report, suggesting it could do damage to US-Saudi relations and smear innocent people, while several of the other commissions have called for the 28 pages to be made public, saying the report could reveal leads about the Saudis that still need to be pursued.

Earlier this week, a Republican commissioner, former navy secretary John F Lehman, said there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers – an allegation, congressional officials have confirmed, that is addressed in detail in the 28 pages.

In an interview Thursday, Lehman said that while he had not meant to his comments to suggest any deep disagreements among the 10 commissioners about their investigation, he stood by his view – directly contradicting the commission’s chairman and vice-chairman – that “there was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government”.

“The 9/11 investigation was terminated before all the relevant leads were able to be investigated,” he said on Thursday. “I believe these leads should be vigorously pursued. I further believe that the relevant 28 pages from the congressional report should be released, redacting only the names of individuals and certain leads that have been proven false.”

For some of the families of 9/11 victims and others who have been harshly critical of the investigation conducted by the 9/11 commission, the newly declassified paperwork from the commission’s files and the renewed debate over the 28 pages are likely to raise the question of why the blue-ribbon, 10-member panel effectively overruled the recommendations of some its staff and produced a final report that was widely seen as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 hijackers and the source of much of al-Qaida’s funding before 9/11.

The files show that the commission’s investigators, which included veterans of the FBI, justice department, CIA and state department, confronted the Saudi witnesses in 2003 and 2004 with evidence and witness accounts that appeared to confirm their involvement with a network of other Saudi expatriates in southern California who provided shelter, food and other support to two of the 9/11 hijackers – Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar – in the year before the attacks. The two hijackers, both Saudis, were aboard American Airlines flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon.

According to the newly declassified interrogation reports, another key Saudi witness who appeared before the commission, Osama Basnan, a man described as “the informal mayor” of the Islamic community in San Diego before 9/11, was repeatedly caught in lies when asked about his relationship to Saudis in the support network. Basnan, who returned home to Saudi Arabia after coming under investigation after 9/11, had an “utter lack of credibility on virtually every material subject” in denying any role in a terrorist support network, the report said.

Basnan came under scrutiny, in part, because of tens of thousands of dollars in cashiers’ checks that his ailing wife received before 9/11 from a charitable fund controlled by the wife of the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Princess Haifa al-Faisal. Congressional investigators determined that much of that money, which totaled as much as $70,000, had been turned over to the family of another Saudi man in San Diego, Omar al-Bayoumi, who was at the center of efforts to assist the two hijackers, including moving them from Los Angeles to San Diego and helping them find an apartment and enter flight school. Telephone records would show that Bayoumi had been in close contact throughout the period with Thumairy, the Saudi diplomat in Los Angeles who was eventually detained and deported from the US on terrorism charges.

Although the 9/11 commission’s report drew no final conclusion about the roles of Basnan and Bayoumi, former US senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who led the joint House-Senate intelligence committee that wrote the 28 pages, has said repeatedly over the years that he is convinced that both men were low-level Saudi government intelligence officers and that money from the embassy charity fund may well have ended up with the two hijackers. Graham has said he believes both Basnan and Bayoumi were Saudi government “spies” who had been dispatched to southern California to keep watch on dissidents in the area’s relatively large community of Saudi expatriates.

The newly declassified files from the commission show that questions about Princess Haifa, her charity fund and the two hijackers were considered so serious that they were raised directly in an October 2003 meeting in Saudi Arabia between the commission’s investigators and the then-deputy Saudi foreign minister Nizar Madani. “Nizar expressed disbelief about the allegations regarding Princess Haifa, noting it was preposterous that she was involved in terrorism,” according to the commission’s summary of the meeting. The Saudi government has insisted that the princess, a daughter of the late King Faisal, had no reason to believe that the money would be used for anything other than to pay medical bills for Basnan’s wife, who suffered from thyroid problems, and to cover the family’s household expenses.

The report prepared after the interrogation of Bayoumi, who was paid a salary in San Diego by a Saudi aviation contractor but was unable to prove that he actually did any work for the company, documents his tense confrontation with the commission’s investigators during their visit to Saudi Arabia in October 2003, especially when he was presented with evidence of the “damning appearance of the circumstances surrounding” his ties to the two hijackers.

Bayoumi said he was innocent of any connection to terrorism and said “the description of him as a ‘Saudi spy’ hurt him very much”, the newly-released report said. He said it was coincidence that led him to an Arab-food restaurant in Los Angeles where he first met the two hijackers, who spoke almost no English, in January 2000. According to the report, “he professed his feelings for the victims of the 9/11 attacks, citing his daughter’s US citizenship and the many friends he has in the US”.

The commission’s newly declassified files suggest that the commission staff considered the questioning of Thumairy to be the most important of the interrogations conducted in Saudi Arabia, since the young Saudi was not only an accredited diplomat and an imam of a large Saudi government-built mosque in southern California. He had also been posted to the US at the request of the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs, long considered by American intelligence agencies to be supportive of Islamic extremist groups outside Saudi Arabia. In Los Angeles, he was known among fellow Saudis to hold fundamentalist views on Islam.

At the first of two sessions “Thumairy initially sat at the table with his hands folded in front of him”, the interrogation report said. “Over the course of the interview, his posture changed noticeably when the questions became more confrontational. During such instances, al-Thumairy would cross his arms, sit back in his chair and rely more heavily on the interpreter.”

The questions became especially difficult for Thumairy as he kept insisting that he did not know many of the others Saudis in southern California who had been linked to the two hijackers, including Bayoumi, despite phone logs and other records showing he had been in contact with Bayoumi dozens of times. He was presented with a statement from a witness, another Saudi cleric in Los Angeles, who recalled often seeing Thumairy and Bayoumi meeting at the southern California mosque. Presented with the evidence, Thumairy became agitated. “Thumairy initially said he may have been mistaken for somebody else,” the interrogation report said. “He then said there are some people who may say things that are false out of mere spite or jealousy.”

Pressed on whether he had led conversations about “jihad” at the mosque among Saudi worshippers, Thumairy confirmed there were discussions “but that it was only about ‘good’ jihad, not ‘bad’ jihad. He said this discussion was not only necessary, but that it was his responsibility to teach the Islamic community the difference between good and bad jihad, especially after 9/11”.

Philip Shenon is the author of The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation



Lawmakers rush to read 9/11 pages

By Julian Hattem - 05/14/16 09:35 AM EDT
Lawmakers are scrambling to review the 28 secret pages of the congressional 9/11 report that the Obama administration might soon release to the public.

There have been 72 requests by members of Congress to read the pages since the new session of Congress began in 2015, according to the House Intelligence Committee, which approves the requests. That’s nearly triple the approximately 25 requests in 2013 and 2014.

There was a notable “uptick” in the requests after a report about the documents on CBS’s “60 Minutes” last month, the panel said.
The increased number of access requests, all of which have been granted, point to a heightened interest in the secret pages amid the growing likelihood that they will be made public this summer.

The pages have been alleged to contain details of senior Saudi officials’ support for al Qaeda ahead of the 2001 terror attacks. Fifteen of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and allegations of the kingdom’s support in some form or another have lingered for years.

The Saudi government, which has strongly denied any involvement in the attacks, has urged the administration to declassify the 28 pages to end speculation about what they contain.

In order for lawmakers to view the documents, which are kept in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol, they need to obtain permission from the Intelligence Committee. The matter is usually pro forma, but Rep, Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), who is now running for Senate, was denied in 2014 due to what he claimed was his opposition to programs at the National Security Agency.

A committee spokesman declined to break down the number of requests on a month-by-month basis.

However, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) first read the pages in the last month, after returning from a trip to Saudi Arabia, a spokeswoman said.

“For many of these members of Congress, it might be a little bit like being caught not doing their homework and now rushing to get that required reading done,” said Brian McGlinchey, an activist who has pushed for the documents to be released.

In addition to the increase in access requests, an increasing number of House lawmakers are joining on to legislation urging the White House to declassify the documents.

This week, four more lawmakers joined the House bill from Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), in addition to the eight others who have hopped onboard in the last two months. The resolution now has 53 cosponsors.

“I’m much more encouraged now than I’ve ever been,” Jones told The Hill off the House floor on Friday.

“It was a horrendous day in America’s history and people need to know the truth,” he added.

Scrutiny on the documents has simmered for years, but the “60 Minutes” story last month stirred fresh interest. The report came shortly before President Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia in the midst of an apparent rift between Washington and Riyadh.

“Should we believe that the 19 hijackers — most of whom spoke little English, had limited education and had never before visited the United States — acted alone in perpetrating the sophisticated 9/11 plot?” former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), an author of the 2002 congressional report and a proponent for releasing the pages, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed this week.

“Did the hijackers have foreign support? If so, who provided it?”

Others have been more skeptical about releasing the pages.

Last weekend, CIA Director John Brennan worried that “uncorroborated, unvetted information” in the pages might lead people to a “very, very inaccurate” conclusion about Saudi involvement in 9/11

“It was a preliminary review that put information in there that was not corroborated and not vetted and not deemed to be accurate,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

The 9/11 Commission, which published its own, separate review of the terrorist attacks in 2004, “found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” al Qaeda.

Intelligence officials began reviewing whether the pages should be released in the summer of 2014, in response to an inquiry from Jones and Lynch. This Tuesday, Clapper will meet with Jones, Lynch and Graham to discuss the issue, Jones said.

A formal response could be due next month.

“When that’s done, we’d expect that there will be some degree of declassification that provides more information,” top White House adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters in Riyadh last month.

Whether it’s a full release or not remains to be seen.

“The question, I think, has moved in this great debate from will there be a declassification to how much declassification,” McGlinchey said.

Rhodes’s comments are “worrisome,” he added.

“We want a complete release of this information, and if there’s anything controversial or anything that’s has been ruled to be not accurate in these pages, the government would be free to issue an accompanying commentary or rebuttal to help explain away anything that they think might be misinterpreted.”
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon May 16, 2016 12:40 am

This is not a question I would ask, though I understand the context for Graham's asking it,

“Did the hijackers have foreign support? If so, who provided it?”

More important imo, to ask,

"Did the hijackers have domestic and foreign support? If so, who provided it?"
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby identity » Tue May 24, 2016 6:23 pm

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/9202.htm

May 19, 2016
Special Dispatch No.6438

Article In Saudi Daily: U.S. Planned, Carried Out 9/11 Attacks – But Blames Others For Them

On the eve of President Obama's April 2016 visit to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Congress began debating the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), that would, inter alia, allow the families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the Saudi government for damages. Also in April 2016, the New York Times published that a 2002 congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks had found that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot. The commission's conclusions, said the paper, were specified in a report that has not been released publicly.[1]

The JASTA bill, which was passed by the Senate on May 17, 2016, triggered fury in Saudi Arabia, expressed both in statements by the Saudi foreign minister and in scathing attacks on the U.S. in the Saudi press.[2] On April 28, 2016, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat published an exceptionally harsh article on this topic by Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari, who argued that the U.S. itself had planned and carried out 9/11, while placing the blame on a shifting series of others – first Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, then Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and now Saudi Arabia. He wrote that American threats to reveal documents that supposedly point to Saudi involvement in 9/11 are part of standard U.S. policy of exposing archival documents to use as leverage against various countries – which he calls "victory by means of archives."

Following are excerpts from Al-Shammari's article:[3]

"Those who follow American policy see that it is built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities. This is because it occasionally presents a certain topic to a country that it does not wish [to bring up] at that time but [that it is] reserving in its archives as an ace to play [at a later date] in order to pressure that country. Anyone revisiting... [statements by] George H.W. Bush regarding Operation Desert Storm might find that he acknowledged that the U.S. Army could have invaded Iraq in the 1990s, but that [the Americans] had preferred to keep Saddam Hussein around as a bargaining chip for [use against] other Gulf states. However, once the Shi'ite wave began to advance, the Americans wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, since they no longer saw him as an ace up their sleeve.

"September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings... Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation – they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions. [This policy] can be dubbed 'victory by means of archives.'

"On September 11, the U.S. attained several victories at the same time, that [even] the hawks [who were at that time] in the White House could not have imagined. Some of them can be enumerated as follows:

"1. The U.S. created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes, and also became the sole motivation for any dirty operation that American politicians and military figures desire to carry out in any country. [The] terrorism [label] was applied to Muslims, and specifically to Saudi Arabia.
"2. Utilizing this incident [9/11], the U.S. launched a new age of global armament. Everyone wanted to acquire all kinds of weapons to defend themselves and at the same time battle the obscure enemy, terrorism – [even though] up to this very moment we do not know the essence of this terrorism of which the U.S. speaks, except [to say that] that it is Islamic...
"3. The U.S. made the American people choose from two bad options: either live peacefully [but] remain exposed to the danger of death [by terrorism] at any moment, or starve in safety, because [the country's budget will be spent on sending] the Marines even as far as Mars to defend you.

"Lo and behold, today, we see these archives revealed before us: A New York court accuses the Iranian regime of responsibility for 9/11, and we [also] see a bill [in Congress] accusing Saudi Arabia of being behind it [sic]. This is after the previous Iraqi regime was accused of being behind it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were also blamed for it, and we do not know who [will be blamed] tomorrow! But [whoever it is], we will not be surprised at all, since this is the essence of how the American archives, that are civilized and respect freedoms and democracy, operate.

"The nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy... [For example,] after a period during which it did not fight anyone [i.e. following World War II], the U.S. created a new kind of war – the Cold War... Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans'] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy! The U.S. saw a need for creating a new enemy – and planned, organized, and carried this out [i.e. blamed Muslims for terrorism]. This will never end until it [the U.S.] accomplishes the goals it has set for itself.

"So why not let these achievements be credited to the American administration, while insurance companies pay for the damages, whether domestic or foreign? This, my dear Arab and Muslim, is the policy of the American archives."

Endnotes:
[1] Nytimes.com, April 15, 2016.
[2] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6397, Against Backdrop Of Obama's Visit To Riyadh: Saudi, Gulf Press Furious At Allegations Of Saudi Involvement In September 11 Attacks, April 21, 2016.
[3] Al-Hayat (London), April 28, 2016.
We should never forget Galileo being put before the Inquisition.
It would be even worse if we allowed scientific orthodoxy to become the Inquisition.

Richard Smith, Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal 1991-2004,
in a published letter to Nature
identity
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:00 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby NeonLX » Thu May 26, 2016 9:56 am

Wait...wut? I missed that...hey, something about 9/11? Oh, never mind. Ancient history.
America is a fucked society because there is no room for essential human dignity. Its all about what you have, not who you are.--Joe Hillshoist
User avatar
NeonLX
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Enemy Occupied Territory
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby Iamwhomiam » Thu May 26, 2016 10:54 am

User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:44 pm

Senate Votes To Override Obama's Veto On Sept. 11 Lawsuit Bill
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/28/495709481 ... obama-veto
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

Postby 8bitagent » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:46 am

There's a number of things I can look up to with Obama, but what a clearly slimey thing it was for Obama to defend Saudi Arabia from 9/11 victims families.
He's shown himself, like Hillary, to be totally in the pocket of the neocons. Thankfully the bi-partisan pushback nullified his veto.

Every year it's astounding how Saudi Arabia and America are able to keep up their disgusting partnership. Even now we are learning more of the scope of war crimes that the US and Saudi Arabia are doing in Yemen the last two years.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests