23 ms·
Document 17 Declassified – 9/11 attackers may have had links to Saudi Arabia [pdf]
- dukoid 10y agoWhat a coincidence with the recent visit...
- emirb 10y agonot a HN content
- coldtea 10y agoHN is a social bookmarking site. Anything that gets voted to the first page IS de facto HN content, as voted by HN users, unless it specifically violates some rule.
- eterm 10y agoThat rule would be the first rule in the guidelines: 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. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- drivebyops 10y agoPretty much ever since this place got a large influx of users it hasn't been as good with the content posted
- xyience 10y agoThat fight was lost a long time ago.
- Raphmedia 10y ago> unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. I think this article fits the description.
- ilyanep 10y agoWithout commenting on this specific article, if there's one thing I learned from reddit, it's that heavy moderation >>> "the users choose and everything is free". 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.
- funkyy 10y agoOh, so now you decide whats good for HN and whats not? HN is "democracy", users choose whats right.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- funkyy 10y agoI wonder if its part of Panama Leaks counter measures. Make US and SA look bad and make them hostile towards each other to cover up the leaks.
- gadders 10y agoIs anyone seriously shocked by this?
- geofft 10y agoWell, we knew almost immediately after the attacks that 15 of the 19 attackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. 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.
- phatbyte 10y agoThe timing couldn't be better.
- opendomain 10y agoCan you clarify? Why was it important that this came out now?
- lossolo 10y agoMy guess is it's probably because of the US anti terrorist funding law.
- ttctciyf 10y agoMaybe because of the Presidential trip to Saudi Arabia? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/20/barack-obama-saudi-arabia-visit-king-salman-relationship http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/20/barack-obama-sa...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- geofft 10y agoI was curious about a source, especially since it seems like it was declassified almost a year ago. The same papers are available from .gov as: https://www.archives.gov/declassification/iscap/pdf/2012-048-doc17.pdf https://www.archives.gov/declassification/iscap/pdf/2012-048... The index page, https://www.archives.gov/declassification/iscap/pdf/2012-048.html 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?
- patates 10y agoThis is hard to parse without any commentary. What should I, as an average person, take from this? Should I start to think Saudi Arabia as a terrorist country or is there room for interpretation? 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.
- coldtea 10y ago>Should I start to think Saudi Arabia as a terrorist country or is there room for interpretation? 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#Saudi_Arabia 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.
- arethuza 10y agoI can recommend Bob Baer's book "Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_with_the_Devil 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Lake_%28film%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Lake_%28film%29
- patates 10y agoA good advice and concrete recommendations. This is why I love HN. Thank you.
- mseebach 10y agoI found "Inside the Kingdom" to be a very interesting read. http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004YE4U5Y/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 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.
- uptown 10y agoThis document is different from the 28 pages that remain classified. For more info on that, read here: https://28pages.org/faq/ https://28pages.org/faq/
- wozniacki 10y agoPrecisely. 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 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. [1] 28 Pages http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-911-classified-report-steve-kroft/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-911-classified-report... [ Warning : Auto play video ] [2] 9/11 Commission Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report
- AnkhMorporkian 10y ago> (...) weren't even allowed to take notes on a scratchpad, when perusing them. 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.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoCareful not to drink the KOOLAID. Congress people, especially Wyden, have requested SCIF's for events like that before and were rejected on technicalities. Bruce Schneier said they requested one when they met him to discuss Snowden leaks DOD were still trying to contain. DOD wouldnt allow the SCIF. CIA pulled same kind of BS with torture report allegedly for OPSEC then showed true motivation with hacking to cover up their wrongdoing.
- rmc 10y agoI thought everyone already knew this?
- shrugger 10y agoYeah, I was thinking the same thing. Has a very "Scientists report water to be wet" feel to the whole thing. 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?
- jsnk 10y agoEveryone as in your average joes and janes on the street? Not even close. People still think Iraq did 9/11. 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?
- spriggan3 10y ago> I thought everyone already knew this? 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.
- samfisher83 10y agoThe title is a little misleading. Obviously the hijackers were mostly from Saudi. The document shows how those people were directly connected with government. However in Saudi a ton of people work for the government so it isn't surprising they had connections to Saudi government.
- tremon 10y ago"May have had"? I thought it was widely known that Osama Bin Laden was heavily financed from there? Also: wahabi?
- puppetmaster3 10y agoO ba ma: https://www.rt.com/usa/340313-obama-saudi-pages-classified/#.VxebaXHmckE.facebook https://www.rt.com/usa/340313-obama-saudi-pages-classified/#...
- spriggan3 10y agoThis is not just Obama, Hillary, and obviously the Bush families who have had long ties with the Saudi dinasty. This isn't a left vs right issue, most politicians in US are in bed with the Saudis.
- happyslobro 10y agoIs it unusual for nations to use terrorists, mercenaries, privateers for missions that they don't want to be directly associated with? IIRC, the Russians and the Americans were doing this in the Middle East in the 20th century, and may still be doing it in Syria now. 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.
- dfsegoat 10y agoWe should not be surprised. The Kingdom of Saud is rooted in wahhabism - an ultraconservative branch of Islam that also happens to be the primary influence of a little group called Daesh/ISIL.
- mtgx 10y agoIt's already messed up that one of U.S. "allies" would be behind the 9/11 attacks, and that U.S. went ahead and invaded a whole other country for it anyway, but at least there could be an argument to be made that it wasn't the Saudi government behind it (which seems rather likely that it wasn't). 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.
- explorer666 10y ago> 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.
- lintiness 10y agowe invaded afghanistan because bin laden was residing there and those in charge, the taliban, were protecting him (or the other way around given real political strength). it's fun to imagine the entire us intelligence apparatus as corrupt and criminal, but reality's plenty interesting.
- cmg 10y agoThe Taliban offered to put bin Laden on trial before 9/11 even happened (for earlier acts of terror). The US refused. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663... 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.terrorism5 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.
- mangeletti 10y agoI'd be curious to see whether any of the redacted sections are available via Illustrator[1]. 1. http://hackaday.com/2008/08/01/exposing-poorly-redacted-pdfs/ http://hackaday.com/2008/08/01/exposing-poorly-redacted-pdfs...
- smpetrey 10y agoFunny story: 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.
- dsabanin 10y agoLooks like they might be getting some democracy soon!
- Synaesthesia 10y agoDoubt it, they've been a dictatorship supported by the US since day one.
- dsabanin 10y agoWell, maybe it's a sign that it's about to change.
- Synaesthesia 10y agoDon't see any signs that it's going to change, Saudi Arabia is still an official US ally.
- Uhhrrr 10y agoHe is using "democracy" as an ironic euphemism for "bombs".
- Synaesthesia 10y agoI understand that. I don't think the US is about to attack Saudi Arabia, it's longest standing ally.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- arca_vorago 10y agoI'm curious about the repercussions for the British Monarchy and th Bushes due to their unnaturally cozy relationships.
- jokoon 10y agoI'm afraid that this will put SA in a very bad position, bad enough to gain some hate from around the world. 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.
- riyadparvez 10y agoSA should get bad PR. SA has been exporting Islamic terrorism for decades with their petro-dollars. SA funds mosques, madrassas with their extreme ideologies which in turn breeds terrorists. I have seen my home country has been being Islamized which is directly funded by SA.
- jokoon 10y agoUnless they manage to stir enough hate to create more and more conflicts. The problem isn't really SA's government, it is the potential for violence to spread. 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.
- esquivalience 10y agoInformant Codename: Muppet. Poor guy.
- dmix 10y agoReading the quotes from this page give enough of an indication that there is more than just a connection between the hijackers and Saudi diplomats as was shown in this release, but specifically financing and involvement from well known figures at a seemingly significant level: https://28pages.org/quotable/ https://28pages.org/quotable/ > When asked by 60 Minutes if the 28 pages include specific names: “Yes. The average intelligent watcher of 60 Minutes would recognize them instantly.”
- freyr 10y agoI thought I was intelligent, but I probably wouldn't recognize a single Saudi diplomat.
- samstave 10y agoCan someone explain exactly why these 28 pages are being held top secret? What implications are there if the wider world knew their content? And are they classified with a certain timeframe - like "for the next 70 years" or some such?
- rrggrr 10y agoIn 2012 Citigroup forecast that Saudi Arabia would run out of oil in 2030. If true, there must have been considerable anxiety in the years preceding 9/11 as the Saudi government contemplated ways to offset its impending decline in reserves. Fortunately for the Saudis, 9/11 was the catalyst for the fall of Iraq, a country with the largest unproven oil reserves in the region, and ideally located near Saudi refineries and export infrastructure. In the book Hotel California: The Clandestine War in Iraq, the author repeatedly claims the Bush Administration was divorced from reality... its scary to think the United States was manipulated into deposing Sadaam for the benefit of Saudi Arabia.
- samstave 10y agoI have stated this was the goal for years. They knew that Saudi was peak, and what better way to prevent the next largest reserves from being pumped dry; war. Keep that going until you can go in and steal all the oil after you run out.