9 ms·

Saudi Ties to 9/11 Detailed in Documents Suppressed Since 2002

201 points by azazqadir 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago
"Much of the information in the 28 pages is not new and has been mentioned in previously released documents on the 9/11 investigation. As such, the public release of these suppressed pages is unlikely to precipitate major changes in the relationship between the United States and the Saudi government. In a statement issued on Friday, the Saudi Embassy in the United States said that it “welcomes the release” of the suppressed pages, saying that they exonerate Riyadh of any direct role in the attacks." If so then I really don't get why they would suppress these at all.
- ralfd 10y ago
  > "exonerate Riyadh of any direct role in the attacks" And indirectly?
  - venomsnake 10y ago
    You are expected to read the PR pieces, not think about their content. Critical thinking is dangerous and sign of subversion of the system. My opinion is that a branch of their government has gone rogue. But that puts SA elite in very uncomfortable position - their later kings are reformers and progressives (baby steps, baby steps) with somewhat strained relationship with the clergy. But they either cannot control their government - implying they are weak or admit they are involved - which is casus belli for the US.
- saturn_vk 10y ago
  I'm guessing they've suppressed them to prevent the public from wanting to start a war with the saudis
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Now why would anybody want to start a war with a country not directly involved in an attack. Oh, wait.
    - Turing_Machine 10y ago
      Ah, yes, the "BOOOOSH WANTED TO STEAL THEIR OIL" theory. So, exactly how much of their oil did the U.S. actually "steal"? You have a barrel figure for that? A rough estimate will do.
      - acqq 10y ago
        "Why we did it" https://vimeo.com/88670339 https://vimeo.com/88670339 Oil. As in for "free market."
        Turing_Machine 10y ago
        I'm not going to go watch a propaganda video. How much oil did the U.S. steal from Iraq? Do you have an answer to that question or not?
        acqq 10y ago
        It's your turn now to give the reference for your claim, I've given mine. Alternatively, you'd have to specify what actually from that documentary isn't true, and given the high possibility of the authors to be sued, I'm quite sure they double checked their sources.
        Turing_Machine 10y ago
        What "claim"? That the U.S. didn't "steal Iraq's oil"? No, I don't have to watch your video to determine that this didn't happen. Nor does anyone else. Edit: can you point out to me on this chart where all the "stolen oil" shows up? https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMIZ1&f=M https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
  - im4w1l 10y ago
    Reddit asked a very important question regarding that: So why is it being released then? And why now?
  - jbmorgado 10y ago
    ... and instead start a war with Iraq.
- retrogradeorbit 10y ago
  "Much" is not "all" and the released documents are heavily redacted. So a large amount of the information has been scrubbed. This seems to me more about controlling public opinion about the documents than releasing any information.
- divbyzer0 10y ago
  It was likely suppressed as it would have drawn attention away from Iraq, and the insinuated link between Iraq and 9-11. The fallback argument was WMD, bring democracy and prosperity. Instead we got ISIS. I was very surprised that this was released as it adds to the evidence that the decision to attack Iraq and to dismantle its security services was based on lies and deception. The timing of the release, when the repercussions of creating political and military instability in the region are becoming more frequent in Europe and the US is what surprises me the most. Perhaps the US has reduced its energy dependence on the middle east sufficiently to begin focusing on Saudi Arabia? With this release and the Chilcot report, the leaders of US/UK have created a serious deficit in credibility and trust.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > With this release and the Chilcot report, the leaders of US/UK have created a serious deficit in credibility and trust. I don't feel any different before / after. As far as I'm concerned the whole thing was a set-up from day #1 (the Iraq war, not 9/11, obviously), after Dr. Kelly's death and the Plame affair there was very little doubt we were being railroaded.
    - lmmlzxx 10y ago
      I personally think there is enough evidence to at least begin inquiry into the possibility of foreknowledge within the Bush administration and/or some US intelligence agencies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-k...
      - arethuza 10y ago
        There is an interesting book by a former US prosecutor arguing that there is a case for charging G.W. Bush with murder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._Bush_for_Murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._B... It wouldn't surprise me if there are private prosecutions of Tony Blair in the UK along similar lines [NB I don't think there is any chance of an actual prosecution of GWB in the US].
- nerthus 10y ago
  Isn't the right question to ask, why the information was released now? Who can win by publishing a report, showing the wrongdoing of a former leadership?
  - DominikR 10y ago
    I'm sure Trump will profit the most from that in the upcoming election. Makes you think about how much in control of its own government the current leadership really is.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- herghost 10y ago
  We're in the age where everyone brings their own facts to the table - even when the facts are the same, they take the facts and state that they support their position even as the other guy is claiming the opposite. It doesn't even matter what they say anymore, as the realisation has set in that people won't actually read them - they'll wait for the headline and the related quotes from affected people and stop there. So as long as you get there with a quote that states you're exonerated, it makes no difference what's actually been found.
aburan28 10y ago
If Saudi Arabia is linked to 9/11 we need to have a serious look at the past 15 years and reevaluate our entire foreign policy justification
- drjesusphd 10y ago
  You've been listening to the wrong people for the past 15 years if you think 9/11 had anything to do with US foreign policy.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    You have the logic of the parent's comment reversed. However, a case can be made that US support for the Taliban against the USSR contributed in some way.
    - jonnybgood 10y ago
      The US didn't support the Taliban against the USSR. The Taliban came in to existence after the Afghan-Soviet war. Matter of fact, many of the Mujahideen supported by the US during the war later fought against Taliban.
  - armenarmen 10y ago
    eh?
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      If I've understood correctly, the point the GP was making was that 9/11 attacks were used as a cover for the foreign policy decisions rather than attempting to hold the perpetrators to account. For example, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing. What did Libya have to do with 9/11? Nothing. What did Yemen have to do with 9/11? Nothing. Did Guantanamo help keep the US safer? By many accounts, it mainly acted as fuel for the fire. By declaring a 'war on terror' rather than targeting the specific groups involved in the 9/11 attacks, the US can now be engaged in perpetual war. How is that going to help make the US safer? The actions only really make sense when you take into account the military-industrial complex and the desire for imperialism. 9/11 was just a convenient excuse used to push forward on those fronts.
wfunction 10y ago
So there was [1] in 2004 and [2] in 2009. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from the recent news now... it seems like it's just confirming what people already pretty much knew? Or is there surprising new information released? [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3815179.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3815179.stm [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.h...
- rhizome 10y ago
  Emptywheel went over the already-knews and new-news pretty concisely the other day: https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/07/15/fbi-established-saudi-task-force-just-before-joint-inquiry-release/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/07/15/fbi-established-saudi-...
DominikR 10y ago
If the West would have bombed Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan and would have taken their oil we might be better off today. Saudia Arabia is notorious for sponsoring mosques here in the EU that only ever seem to produce Salafi radicals and Jihadists which is in contrast to other Muslim communities that seem to have less of that problem. Some countries in the EU already banned this influence from Saudi Arabia as it is widely considered as harmful to our societies. But there are also some Muslim countries that did the same as they also consider their ideology as aggressive and inherently dangerous. (some of the Central Asian Muslim countries)
- Eutow 10y ago
  >If the West would have bombed Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan and would have taken their oil we might be better off today. We never learn, do we?
  - DominikR 10y ago
    What would you propose? Leaving a country alone that backstabs us and incites fanatics to attack us while pretending to be our friend? Just look at what resources they have and what they potentially could do with it if they openly declared that the West is their enemy. I'm quite sure that no one will allow Saudi Arabia to use its resources against the West. If they do we'll take all they have away from them. By the way: It is absolutely legitimate to retaliate with force when you are under attack by another nation.
    - y04nn 10y ago
      The problem is if you attack Saudi Arabia, most if not all Arab countries will be on the side of SA, which would start a major conflict.
dforrestwilson 10y ago
For anyone looking for a primer on jihad, and the influence of Saudi Wahhabism here is a great read: https://www.amazon.com/Future-Jihad-Terrorist-Strategies-against/dp/1403975116/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468842201&sr=1-1&keywords=future+jihad https://www.amazon.com/Future-Jihad-Terrorist-Strategies-aga... Walid Phares wrote 10 years ago that Europe was going to experience a wave of attacks, and also foresaw the Arab Spring.
- retox 10y ago
  To be fair a prediction of unrest in the middle east/Africa doesn't require much insight. I predict there will be unrest for the next 50 years at least.
  - imglorp 10y ago
    It doesn't help there are 1st world influences mucking up the natural ecosystem there. For example, US attempting to overthrow Assad is not a natural process. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies...
    - varjag 10y ago
      Leaving aside how much of your statement is true, there is no such thing as natural process in international relations. The only concept approaching that would be social darwinism, but from that perspective it would be quite "natural".
    - jbooth 10y ago
      Dude. We talking about animals here? Their natural ecosystem? People deserve more respect than that.
      - trelltron 10y ago
        Ecosystem: a complex network or interconnected system.
arca_vorago 10y ago
I'll just say this: never forget who created the house of Saud in the first place. They were puppets from the start and still are.
- AlexCoventry 10y ago
  Who do you have in mind? From a glance at the wikipedia page, the history looks intricate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud
- mk89 10y ago
  Could you please articulate? I am totally ignorant about it, and after the release of this document, I am getting more curious.
  - douche 10y ago
    Ibn Saud essentially came to power as a local strongman, supported by the British, set up in opposition to the Ottoman-supported faction during the First World War. Saud originally controlled the Red Sea bordering portion of Arabia, which was astride the sea route through the Suez to India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#Rise_to_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#Rise_to_power
    - hx87 10y ago
      Ibn Saud initially controlled the Najd, the central portion of the peninsula. The Hashemites held the Red Sea coast.
    - mk89 10y ago
      Thanks a lot! I finally had time to read the article. I always wonder if that was short term thinking, or if nowadays there is still something going on. We all know that empires fall, therefore, it might be that maybe at that time the UK didn't expect Saudi Arabia to become so powerful as it is nowadays. It's like playing monopoly: you help X to destroy Y, which you don't like, but then X becomes so powerful that it starts to be a pain in the ass.
nxzero 10y ago
Given the topic, curious if anyone knows anything about "Able Danger" operations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger Or the rapid decline of terrorism (80%) following the end of the Cold War: https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/ https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/
jtlien1 10y ago
Have you seen anyone interview Norm Mineta about what really happened in the Situation Room on 9/11? He was fired and exiled practically when people started to point out his damning statements about what happened in the Situation Room when the Pentagon was seeing a plane approach. Or how about the 66 video tapes confiscated by the FBI that could show what really did hit the Pentagon?
- dopamean 10y ago
  Are you seriously implying that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon?

201 points by azazqadir 10y ago

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

ralfd 10y ago
> "exonerate Riyadh of any direct role in the attacks" And indirectly?
- venomsnake 10y ago
  You are expected to read the PR pieces, not think about their content. Critical thinking is dangerous and sign of subversion of the system. My opinion is that a branch of their government has gone rogue. But that puts SA elite in very uncomfortable position - their later kings are reformers and progressives (baby steps, baby steps) with somewhat strained relationship with the clergy. But they either cannot control their government - implying they are weak or admit they are involved - which is casus belli for the US.
saturn_vk 10y ago
I'm guessing they've suppressed them to prevent the public from wanting to start a war with the saudis
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Now why would anybody want to start a war with a country not directly involved in an attack. Oh, wait.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    Ah, yes, the "BOOOOSH WANTED TO STEAL THEIR OIL" theory. So, exactly how much of their oil did the U.S. actually "steal"? You have a barrel figure for that? A rough estimate will do.
    - acqq 10y ago
      "Why we did it" https://vimeo.com/88670339 https://vimeo.com/88670339 Oil. As in for "free market."
      - Turing_Machine 10y ago
        I'm not going to go watch a propaganda video. How much oil did the U.S. steal from Iraq? Do you have an answer to that question or not?
        acqq 10y ago
        It's your turn now to give the reference for your claim, I've given mine. Alternatively, you'd have to specify what actually from that documentary isn't true, and given the high possibility of the authors to be sued, I'm quite sure they double checked their sources.
        Turing_Machine 10y ago
        What "claim"? That the U.S. didn't "steal Iraq's oil"? No, I don't have to watch your video to determine that this didn't happen. Nor does anyone else. Edit: can you point out to me on this chart where all the "stolen oil" shows up? https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMIZ1&f=M https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
- im4w1l 10y ago
  Reddit asked a very important question regarding that: So why is it being released then? And why now?
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  ... and instead start a war with Iraq.
retrogradeorbit 10y ago
"Much" is not "all" and the released documents are heavily redacted. So a large amount of the information has been scrubbed. This seems to me more about controlling public opinion about the documents than releasing any information.
divbyzer0 10y ago
It was likely suppressed as it would have drawn attention away from Iraq, and the insinuated link between Iraq and 9-11. The fallback argument was WMD, bring democracy and prosperity. Instead we got ISIS. I was very surprised that this was released as it adds to the evidence that the decision to attack Iraq and to dismantle its security services was based on lies and deception. The timing of the release, when the repercussions of creating political and military instability in the region are becoming more frequent in Europe and the US is what surprises me the most. Perhaps the US has reduced its energy dependence on the middle east sufficiently to begin focusing on Saudi Arabia? With this release and the Chilcot report, the leaders of US/UK have created a serious deficit in credibility and trust.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > With this release and the Chilcot report, the leaders of US/UK have created a serious deficit in credibility and trust. I don't feel any different before / after. As far as I'm concerned the whole thing was a set-up from day #1 (the Iraq war, not 9/11, obviously), after Dr. Kelly's death and the Plame affair there was very little doubt we were being railroaded.
  - lmmlzxx 10y ago
    I personally think there is enough evidence to at least begin inquiry into the possibility of foreknowledge within the Bush administration and/or some US intelligence agencies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-k...
    - arethuza 10y ago
      There is an interesting book by a former US prosecutor arguing that there is a case for charging G.W. Bush with murder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._Bush_for_Murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._B... It wouldn't surprise me if there are private prosecutions of Tony Blair in the UK along similar lines [NB I don't think there is any chance of an actual prosecution of GWB in the US].
nerthus 10y ago
Isn't the right question to ask, why the information was released now? Who can win by publishing a report, showing the wrongdoing of a former leadership?
- DominikR 10y ago
  I'm sure Trump will profit the most from that in the upcoming election. Makes you think about how much in control of its own government the current leadership really is.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
herghost 10y ago
We're in the age where everyone brings their own facts to the table - even when the facts are the same, they take the facts and state that they support their position even as the other guy is claiming the opposite. It doesn't even matter what they say anymore, as the realisation has set in that people won't actually read them - they'll wait for the headline and the related quotes from affected people and stop there. So as long as you get there with a quote that states you're exonerated, it makes no difference what's actually been found.

aburan28 10y ago

If Saudi Arabia is linked to 9/11 we need to have a serious look at the past 15 years and reevaluate our entire foreign policy justification

drjesusphd 10y ago
You've been listening to the wrong people for the past 15 years if you think 9/11 had anything to do with US foreign policy.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  You have the logic of the parent's comment reversed. However, a case can be made that US support for the Taliban against the USSR contributed in some way.
  - jonnybgood 10y ago
    The US didn't support the Taliban against the USSR. The Taliban came in to existence after the Afghan-Soviet war. Matter of fact, many of the Mujahideen supported by the US during the war later fought against Taliban.
- armenarmen 10y ago
  eh?
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    If I've understood correctly, the point the GP was making was that 9/11 attacks were used as a cover for the foreign policy decisions rather than attempting to hold the perpetrators to account. For example, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing. What did Libya have to do with 9/11? Nothing. What did Yemen have to do with 9/11? Nothing. Did Guantanamo help keep the US safer? By many accounts, it mainly acted as fuel for the fire. By declaring a 'war on terror' rather than targeting the specific groups involved in the 9/11 attacks, the US can now be engaged in perpetual war. How is that going to help make the US safer? The actions only really make sense when you take into account the military-industrial complex and the desire for imperialism. 9/11 was just a convenient excuse used to push forward on those fronts.

wfunction 10y ago

So there was [1] in 2004 and [2] in 2009. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from the recent news now... it seems like it's just confirming what people already pretty much knew? Or is there surprising new information released? [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3815179.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3815179.stm [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.h...

rhizome 10y ago
Emptywheel went over the already-knews and new-news pretty concisely the other day: https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/07/15/fbi-established-saudi-task-force-just-before-joint-inquiry-release/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/07/15/fbi-established-saudi-...

DominikR 10y ago

If the West would have bombed Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan and would have taken their oil we might be better off today. Saudia Arabia is notorious for sponsoring mosques here in the EU that only ever seem to produce Salafi radicals and Jihadists which is in contrast to other Muslim communities that seem to have less of that problem. Some countries in the EU already banned this influence from Saudi Arabia as it is widely considered as harmful to our societies. But there are also some Muslim countries that did the same as they also consider their ideology as aggressive and inherently dangerous. (some of the Central Asian Muslim countries)

Eutow 10y ago
>If the West would have bombed Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan and would have taken their oil we might be better off today. We never learn, do we?
- DominikR 10y ago
  What would you propose? Leaving a country alone that backstabs us and incites fanatics to attack us while pretending to be our friend? Just look at what resources they have and what they potentially could do with it if they openly declared that the West is their enemy. I'm quite sure that no one will allow Saudi Arabia to use its resources against the West. If they do we'll take all they have away from them. By the way: It is absolutely legitimate to retaliate with force when you are under attack by another nation.
  - y04nn 10y ago
    The problem is if you attack Saudi Arabia, most if not all Arab countries will be on the side of SA, which would start a major conflict.

dforrestwilson 10y ago

For anyone looking for a primer on jihad, and the influence of Saudi Wahhabism here is a great read: https://www.amazon.com/Future-Jihad-Terrorist-Strategies-against/dp/1403975116/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468842201&sr=1-1&keywords=future+jihad https://www.amazon.com/Future-Jihad-Terrorist-Strategies-aga... Walid Phares wrote 10 years ago that Europe was going to experience a wave of attacks, and also foresaw the Arab Spring.

retox 10y ago
To be fair a prediction of unrest in the middle east/Africa doesn't require much insight. I predict there will be unrest for the next 50 years at least.
- imglorp 10y ago
  It doesn't help there are 1st world influences mucking up the natural ecosystem there. For example, US attempting to overthrow Assad is not a natural process. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies...
  - varjag 10y ago
    Leaving aside how much of your statement is true, there is no such thing as natural process in international relations. The only concept approaching that would be social darwinism, but from that perspective it would be quite "natural".
  - jbooth 10y ago
    Dude. We talking about animals here? Their natural ecosystem? People deserve more respect than that.
    - trelltron 10y ago
      Ecosystem: a complex network or interconnected system.

arca_vorago 10y ago

I'll just say this: never forget who created the house of Saud in the first place. They were puppets from the start and still are.

AlexCoventry 10y ago
Who do you have in mind? From a glance at the wikipedia page, the history looks intricate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud
mk89 10y ago
Could you please articulate? I am totally ignorant about it, and after the release of this document, I am getting more curious.
- douche 10y ago
  Ibn Saud essentially came to power as a local strongman, supported by the British, set up in opposition to the Ottoman-supported faction during the First World War. Saud originally controlled the Red Sea bordering portion of Arabia, which was astride the sea route through the Suez to India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#Rise_to_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#Rise_to_power
  - hx87 10y ago
    Ibn Saud initially controlled the Najd, the central portion of the peninsula. The Hashemites held the Red Sea coast.
  - mk89 10y ago
    Thanks a lot! I finally had time to read the article. I always wonder if that was short term thinking, or if nowadays there is still something going on. We all know that empires fall, therefore, it might be that maybe at that time the UK didn't expect Saudi Arabia to become so powerful as it is nowadays. It's like playing monopoly: you help X to destroy Y, which you don't like, but then X becomes so powerful that it starts to be a pain in the ass.

nxzero 10y ago

Given the topic, curious if anyone knows anything about "Able Danger" operations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger Or the rapid decline of terrorism (80%) following the end of the Cold War: https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/ https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

jtlien1 10y ago

Have you seen anyone interview Norm Mineta about what really happened in the Situation Room on 9/11? He was fired and exiled practically when people started to point out his damning statements about what happened in the Situation Room when the Pentagon was seeing a plane approach. Or how about the 66 video tapes confiscated by the FBI that could show what really did hit the Pentagon?

dopamean 10y ago
Are you seriously implying that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon?