10 ms·
Flurry of Calls Among Saudi Staff and Spy Coincided with 9/11 Hijackers’ Arrival
- Geonode 4y agoIt's clear that the US government has no intention of stirring up trouble inside Saudi Arabia because they're the middle east country that likes money more than religion, and that makes them an important partner if not ally in taming the bat-shit crazy governments of other local countries, some of which we actually put in place. So you can see how dedicated we are to 9-11 justice when it's not a goat path wasteland or an oil dictatorship that had nothing to do with the attack.
- gleenn 4y agoIt seems so wild that part of the US government was so happy to start wars in irrelevant countries despite the fact that it appears pretty obvious the real perpetrators hit the Pentagon with a plane. I wonder how conversations go between people in both those departments/branches.
- Geonode 4y agoYeah I think Afghanistan was just a place they could safely drop a lot of expensive bombs. Iraq, and later see Libya, Syria, and others, ongoing, are places where they don't want strong dictators who are against the international monetary monopoly. Just look at the shenanigans African dictators get up to and we just send trainers, because it's the only effective solution over time.
- dhzhzjsbevs 4y agoEveryone always forgets Yemen. Why does everyone forget Yemen? Is it because it's the Saudis again? Or is it because Obama did it? Or because Trump continued it? Or is it because Biden said he would end it but didn't? https://youtube.com/watch?v=hFkngrRDdaA https://youtube.com/watch?v=hFkngrRDdaA Inflammatory comment I know. Tell that to the 100s of thousands being genocided.
- ars 4y agoEveryone ignores Yemen for the same reason they ignore Syria: It's bad guys attacking bad guys. Edit: I appear to be wrong about this: America would not support either side in those wars, so they just leave them alone to fight.
- mardifoufs 4y agoThis is false and a false equivalence. It's like saying that we shouldn't care about ukraine since they have azov actively fighting on the frontline, so both sides are just bad. There's mostly one side that's doing the "bombing civilians" and "invade your weaker neighbor " part. And it's not like America is neutral here. They are actively supporting the saudi/anti houthi coalition, with intel and weaponry. It's fine to say that you just don't really care because we can't care about everything, which is true, but there's no need to rationalize that choice.
- vaidhy 4y agoReally?? I thought US is supplying most of the weapons and logistics for Saudi Arabia to fight in Yemen while Russia is supporting Iran which supports the Houthis. In the end, both sides are bombing the hell out of that country which has no recourse.
- ars 4y agoI looked into it, just in case I was wrong, and it's certainly not "most of the", but there is some American support for Saudi Arabia fighting Yemen, so I was partially wrong.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoThere seems to be some disconnect with Yemen as we aren't doing the bombing, we're merely supplying the bombs and planning the bombing. It's not our fault that the Saudi's are dropping US bombs on US targets. This justification falls apart with the blockade though.
- 4y ago
- q1w2 4y ago> Afghanistan was just a place they could safely drop a lot of expensive bombs Afghanistan is literally where Al-Quaeda was based. It wasn't even the US alone - NATO allies also joined the war in Afghanistan because of the obvious connection with 9-11.
- tomohawk 4y agoAl Qaida is a mix of Saudi money and Egytian Muslim Brotherhood know how. It all mixed together in Afghanistan. The attacks were planned and prepped in Afghanistan, and the Taliban gave them sanctuary/protection there. This makes Afghanistan a relevant country. The initial strategy there was pretty good, and yielded good results. But the neocons couldn't resist doing a nation building exercise, and that didn't go so well. You didn't need any hindsight to see that coming.
- Geonode 4y agoYeah I agree. I was exaggerating too much. You are correct they deserved our attention but not a doomed attempt at civilizing a place that doesn't want it.
- ch4s3 4y agoIt was mostly planned in Germany, with leadership from the base in Afghanistan and was funded in KSA.
- DSingularity 4y agoWhere is your evidence of Muslim brotherhood involvement?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cyanydeez 4y agoReally? I mean! Aren't we pretty far along the desire to attack things,, America is attacking itself
- hackernewds 4y agoAnd everything to do with being a scapegoat for massive pursing of public funds into private entities such as Lockheed and Halliburton
- themodelplumber 4y agoStill, this is looking like a hell of a lot of leverage that a dem presidency has over a country with leadership that historically loves republicans in office. To think that no one, anywhere in government, (to say nothing of multiple parties in various positions) will make use of this leverage seems a bit strange and goes against the very implications of holding any power at all.
- jhugo 4y agoWhat leverage exactly? Consider a major split between SA and US. Who do you think would come out worse off?
- themodelplumber 4y agoI don't understand the questions. You can't see how knowing of a SA conspiracy against the US is leverage? Edit: Things you could do: - Increase cultural pressure within US SA community - Increase cultural pressure within US arab community - Tell SA you are wondering what Israel thinks about this - Incentivize new cultural narratives (film, books, etc) and redirect special funding to think tanks - Create a long-term partnership coalition - Behind the scenes: Find new weak spots in SA - Behind the scenes: Exploit new weak spots in SA, foment a renewed arab spring, etc. These are just the tip of the iceberg, there must be thousands more. The bad things that would happen as a result: - Reduced SA govt access to power - Reduced SA govt access to needed resources - Reduced SA govt image - Increasing trouble literally anywhere in or with SA.
- jhugo 4y agoIt's only leverage if you can describe the bad thing that would happen to SA if the conspiracy came out. From where I'm standing, the US has more to lose in this situation.
- jhugo 4y agoWhat incentive does the US have to decrease SA power and stability, considering that they one of US's strongest partners in the region? All of the things you list seem like a negative outcome for the US.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cyanydeez 4y agoIt's clear they aren't going to do the same in America because Americans like money?
- itwasbush 4y ago> It's clear that the US government has no intention of stirring up trouble inside Saudi Arabia because they're the middle east country that likes money more than religion, and that makes them an important partner if not ally in taming the bat-shit crazy governments of other local countries, some of which we actually put in place. The reason why the US doesn't go after them is because if they do, then it will bring to light USA's own role in these attacks.
- streamlining 4y ago
- twoxproblematic 4y ago
- moralestapia 4y ago>taming the bat-shit crazy governments of other local countries Not taking any sides but you should really think about how much of this view is based on factual experience vs. how much could be due to propaganda or a shifted image that arrives after traveling halfway around the world.
- mattmaroon 4y agoI don’t know what to make of this. While this is news to me it is not to the FBI right? Would they really cover up Saudi involvement in 9/11? Could whatever aims we have there (and I do realize the importance of our relationship with them) really be that important? Looking the other way on terrible things like Khashoghi’s murder is bad but you can at least understand the calculus, but 9/11? It’s hard to imagine this is something. But not impossible.
- timnetworks 4y agoEveryone was desperately trying to let the feds know there was a pending attack since at least July/August 2001, they were just strategically deaf to it.
- hackernewds 4y agoBest case scenario, these alerts happen so often that 99% are false positives. They regarded the 9/11 as a false positive as well. Not that that's an excuse for such a grave "error" but at least a thesis against the conspiracy theory
- lovehashbrowns 4y agoIt was a lot worse than that. This would’ve been a credible threat that various intelligence agencies in the US were aware of. Al-Queda was already involved in other terrorist attacks and was known to US intelligence. All the different agencies had info on a lot of the hijackers but they all kept it to themselves or the info wasn’t passed up the ladder. The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright is one of the best books on this topic and goes further into it. But I’m sure you can find other references, including the 9/11 Report. This was a massive failure by the US intelligence community. ---- Edit: I'll add some references so my comment is a little more contributory besides just "read this book." https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/0506/chapter5.htm https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/... This special report goes into it. Here is a quote from the report: "The intelligence led to a surveillance operation in Malaysia in which it was discovered that Mihdhar had a valid multiple-entry U.S. visa and photographs of Mihdhar meeting with other al Qaeda operatives were taken." The CIA had this information and should've passed it on to the FBI. (CIA operates outside the US, FBI operates inside the US.) The report continues: "We reviewed whether this information was in fact passed to the FBI by the CIA, and based on the evidence, concluded that while the CIA passed some of the information about Mihdhar to the FBI, it did not contemporaneously pass the information about Mihdhar’s U.S. visa to the FBI. We concluded it was not disclosed by the CIA until late August 2001, shortly before the September 11 terrorist attacks. We also reviewed whether FBI detailees to the CIA contemporaneously acquired this information and what action, if any, they took with respect to this information." Then there's the FAA-related stuff, which is what brought on the TSA. This is from the 9/11 Report: "The next aviation security layer was passenger prescreening. The FAA directed air carriers not to fly individuals known to pose a “direct” threat to civil aviation. But as of 9/11, the FAA’s “no-fly” list contained the names of just 12 terrorist suspects (including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), even though government watchlists contained the names of many thousands of known and suspected terrorists." A few paragraphs down, the report explains why the known hijackers were still allowed to fly: "Although the algorithm included hijacker profile data, at that time only pas- sengers checking bags were eligible to be selected by CAPPS for additional scrutiny. Selection entailed only having one’s checked baggage screened for explosives or held off the airplane until one had boarded. Primarily because of concern regarding potential discrimination and the impact on passenger throughput, “selectees” were no longer required to undergo extraordinary screening of their carry-on baggage as had been the case before the system was computerized in 1997. This policy change also reflected the perception that nonsuicide sabotage was the primary threat to civil aviation." This is just two examples I wanted to quickly dig up. There's an entire list of failures you can find if you read the reports or the book I mentioned earlier. It's quite good reading, I promise! Understanding the failures also gets you to understand the changes that came after 9/11. This includes things like the PATRIOT act, TSA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), etc. DHS is meant to force the intelligence communities to share intel with each other rather than "compete" for it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- notlukesky 4y agoThe source of these “intelligence” always seems to be flawed or straight up lies in retrospect. Coming out after two decades seems like an invention to use as an excuse for a battering ram of new wars or regime changes if they stray out of Biden’s orbit and wishes. Seems the snub of the phone calls and other slights are the answer to such stories and their occurrence and surfacement. My favorite Awlaki story: https://realalexrubi.substack.com/p/leaked-cia-pressured-yemen-to-release https://realalexrubi.substack.com/p/leaked-cia-pressured-yem...
- nobody9999 4y agoNot trying to be a negative Nancy here, but I did read (most) of TFA and was underwhelmed. That Saudi nationals were involved in the 9/11 attacks isn't news. That they had money and support (including from folks inside the US) isn't news. That multiple Federal and state law "enforcement" and intelligence agencies had information about the potential for these attacks isn't news. That those agencies didn't put all that information together and stop those attacks isn't news. That declassified documents confirm what we already knew and/or suspected is mildly interesting, but hardly news. I didn't get to the end of the article (after six or seven iterations of "so what?" I gave up), so I don't know if there was some sort of attempt to create a conspiracy theory or to bash the US government, both and/or other stuff. But almost 21 years on, I couldn't manage much more than a "meh" based on the information provided. I'm sure that all this documentation will be a wonderful trove for future historians, but I'm not sure what it adds at the moment. Edit: I initially erased ten years of history. Fixed now.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 0des 4y ago
- michaelmrose 4y agoExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is yours?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bandyaboot 4y agoYou should take your own advice and look inward.
- tomohawk 4y agoFor anyone interested, The Looming Tower provides excellent insight into the events leading up to 9/11. https://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/037541486X https://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/037...
- Victerius 4y agoI'll drop references which might interest some of you if you are interested in learning more about the subject: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward Decision Points, by George W. Bush No Higher Honour, by Condoleezza Rice Known and Unknown, by Donald Rumsfeld At the Center of the Storm, by George Tenet In My Time, by Dick Cheney Yes, I know what you're thinking, but it's a good thing to be able to view a situation from another person's point of view, no matter your personal opinion of them.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago>but it's a good thing to be able to view a situation from another person's point of view Why? I already lived through the Bush presidency, why do I need to read his BS justification for his crimes again?
- bglazer 4y agoYou might also be interested in “If I Did It” by OJ Simpson. But seriously, these are not good faith, honest accounts of what transpired. These are political actors doing politics; trying to burnish legacies that were tarnished by the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- davidw 4y agoWhat with them not doing much about pumping more oil in moment of crisis, I'm starting to think they are not very good allies.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoThey aren't Putin.
- mardifoufs 4y agoWhat's going on in Yemen is pretty similar to what's going on in ukraine right now. And the KSA also has a putin-like tendency of sending death squads to murder international opposition. The only reason why they seem to not be as bad for westerners is because middle eastern lives are given almost 0 value here in the west. So you'll always get some hand wavy rationalisation to justify not doing anything about the KSA, because eh it's a complex situation! While at the same time claiming that the human cost of war is so atrocious and unexcusable that nothing is off the table, no punishment is severe enough, and everyone needs to do something... when it's russian aggression. When in reality both situations are just as bad and just as unexcusable. And man I know my comment has gone on a tangent, but the cognitive dissonance and the overt downplaying that comes with it just irks me. It's so blatant too: our side always deserves nuance, justification and contextualization ( whether it's us fully supporting the KSA regime or US/EU imperalism). It's just so convenient, especially when you compare the passivity/downplaying in threads like this one to other discussions on the same website where people are unironically arguing that your average Joe should risk jail and torture to stop their government from killing people in their wars of aggression. But us? No; I mean we aren't as bad as putin, and death yemenis will just understand that
- bayesian_horse 4y agoMy terse one-liner was obviously not implying Saudi Arabia is a nation of saints or even better than Russia in any regard. One argument one can make is that the situation in Ukraine is worse from a European perspective because it is so much closer and the economic and political ties are much tighter. The Trump administration "fully supported" KSA, Biden does not btw.
- BMc2020 4y agoMy memory of the post 9-11 investigation: Weeks 0-3: The investigation can lead anywhere as long as it does not lead to Saudia Arabia. Weeks 3+: The investigation can lead anywhere as long as it leads to Iraq.
- toolz 4y agoRumsfeld had openly started planning for attacks on Iraq within 5-6 hours of the pentagon being struck by flight 77.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoAs well he should. Iraq was one of the major suspects, especially that early. Having those plans, and preferably to never use them, is the very job of the defense department.
- toolz 4y agoWhat are you talking about? There never was, nor has there ever been evidence that Hussein orchestrated 9/11 attacks and Rumsfeld mentions targeting him specifically even in light of only having evidence that bin Laden was involved. Plane hits pentagon 9:37am by 2:40pm Rumsfeld is quoted in notes > "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoI didn't say there was. But when the culprits weren't clear, Iraq was a legitimate suspect for a time.
- toolz 4y agoLet me get this straight. There was very little evidence and the evidence we did have didn't point to Iraq, but they were a legitimate suspect? You have to realize how this sounds, but I'll keep an open mind to interpreting what you're saying hospitably if you'd like to explain your reasoning.
- DSingularity 4y agoWhen 9/11 happened half the bush administration probably celebrated. If you don’t think Dick Cheney was salivating at the prospects of profiteering from war then you are crazy. Oh and of course the lockheeds and the Boeings and all those companies probably viewed the attack as an opportunity to extract billions from the American public.
- Eigen7 4y agoThis is nothing more than US government pressuring the Saudi government ahead of the planned Biden visit. Obviously if the Saudi had been there involved in 9/11 directly or indirectly they would have been a invaded the next day. It’s no secret that Al Qeada and the Saudis are sword enemies that been fighting each other for decades. The US-Saudi relations during at the time was stellar and the Saudis would have to have been completely insane to do something like 9/11. The only wise this the Saudis can do now is withdraw all their accounts for investments from the US unless they want to get blackmailed and their assets frozen. Also they’d do well to stop buying US weapons and instead ally with China. Also, they should consider ditch the US dollar To watch America turn to a third world country overnight.
- VictorPath 4y ago> Obviously if the Saudi had been there involved in 9/11 directly or indirectly they would have been a invaded the next day 9/11 happened because al-Qaeda said the US had already had invaded "Saudi" Arabia eleven years earlier. 9/11 was successful in that it was the catalyst for removing US military bases from Saudi Arabia within two years of 9/11.
- sn0w_crash 4y agoThe one thing about 9/11 that nobody has been able to explain to me, even my most skeptical friends, is where is any footage or photographs of the plane that hit the pentagon? I’m not talking about scattered debris. Or burnt desks and papers. I’m talking about the plane. Or what’s left of it. Anyone seen any actual footage or photos?
- q1w2 4y agoThere was only one security camera on at the time with only a few frames of the plane before impact - but it's not good footage. I saw it a long time ago. Remember that this is in the time before cell phone cameras.