3 ms·

Saudi government helped perpetrate 9/11, so that's pretty bad. https://nypost.com/2016/04/17/how-us-covered-up-saudi-role-in-911/ https://nypost.com/2016/04/17/

Saudi government helped perpetrate 9/11, so that's pretty bad. https://nypost.com/2016/04/17/how-us-covered-up-saudi-role-in-911/ https://nypost.com/2016/04/17/how-us-covered-up-saudi-role-i... https://nypost.com/2017/09/09/saudi-government-allegedly-funded-a-dry-run-for-911/ https://nypost.com/2017/09/09/saudi-government-allegedly-fun...

BeetleB 7y ago
One deed is mostly speculation, whereas the other one is confirmed. Do you not see a difference?
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  The ongoing Yemen blockade then.
- xtracto 7y ago
  >Some information has leaked from the redacted section, including a flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of some $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego. Quite some speculation if you tell me. And I am not from the USA.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    Are you not speculating what the money was for? And, you know, frankly - please consider the integrity of the source (NY Post). Tabloid journalism is not generally reliable, and they have a history of stating the wrong facts (i.e. lying), and it probably wouldn't be hard for me to find cases of "lying by omission". I don't have a stake in this battle. If the Saudi government was fully complicit in the attacks, it would not shake my world view. What I don't like is lowering the threshold of evidence against an entity simply because there are good reasons not to like that entity.
    - smolder 7y ago
      You make a good point about staying objective. I shouldn't state it as fact, and it is different from the embassy murder. I tend to give credit to the falsifiable claims surrounding their involvement when no one with an interest in debunking them has debunked them, but that's a kind of heuristic approach to determining the truth which is flawed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

BeetleB 7y ago

One deed is mostly speculation, whereas the other one is confirmed. Do you not see a difference?

boomboomsubban 7y ago
The ongoing Yemen blockade then.
xtracto 7y ago
>Some information has leaked from the redacted section, including a flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of some $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego. Quite some speculation if you tell me. And I am not from the USA.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  Are you not speculating what the money was for? And, you know, frankly - please consider the integrity of the source (NY Post). Tabloid journalism is not generally reliable, and they have a history of stating the wrong facts (i.e. lying), and it probably wouldn't be hard for me to find cases of "lying by omission". I don't have a stake in this battle. If the Saudi government was fully complicit in the attacks, it would not shake my world view. What I don't like is lowering the threshold of evidence against an entity simply because there are good reasons not to like that entity.
  - smolder 7y ago
    You make a good point about staying objective. I shouldn't state it as fact, and it is different from the embassy murder. I tend to give credit to the falsifiable claims surrounding their involvement when no one with an interest in debunking them has debunked them, but that's a kind of heuristic approach to determining the truth which is flawed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]