5 ms·

Saudi Arabia funded 9/11, Israel shot an American citizen, the U.S. continues to operate as usual with those countries. My point is that, politics is never abo

Saudi Arabia funded 9/11, Israel shot an American citizen, the U.S. continues to operate as usual with those countries. My point is that, politics is never about the people/victims.

rat9988 4y ago
> Saudi Arabia funded 9/11 Well, some conspiracy theories are considered facts now.
- nyokodo 4y ago
  > some conspiracy theories are considered facts now. There are mainstream sources detailing evidence of Saudi funding for Al Quaeda. [1] Whether they approved of/sanctioned 9/11 is another matter. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/documents/evidence-of-financial-links-between-saudi-royal-family-and-al-qaeda https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/documents/evide...
  - imglorp 4y ago
    A civil court agrees too. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-sept11/saudi-arabia-must-face-u-s-lawsuits-over-sept-11-attacks-idUSKBN1H43A1 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-sept11/saudi-ar...
    - zaphirplane 4y ago
      No dog in this race First of all this is a civil case of liability which ranges from indirect responsibility to facilitated thru incompetence/ambivalence Second this article is about dismissal of the case over jurisdiction for parts of the claim Third “The judge also dismissed claims … lack … jurisdiction” Maybe the case is over with a ruling, maybe there is an article proving a link, maybe maybe but this article doesn’t make that Proof
  - jollybean 4y ago
    It's conspiratorial and misrepresentation to talk about this - to the point of it being a lie. If a very rich American went to South America for a decade and then bombed a building in Rio, he would have 'financial relationship' to the US via a number of investments. It doesn't mean that it has anything to do with US foreign policy, the government, or anything. Osama Bin Laden was a member of a big, sprawling, super rich Oligarchic family in Saudi. Obviously, there were dealings, and obviously some Saudis probably funded some things here and there. Just like a Texan Evangelical Oil Billionaire might fund Christian Schools in Peru, which may even be good schools. But the charity run by a guy with ties to 'American Rio Bomber'. Everything at that level is intertwined, it's not sufficient to suggest that proves anything. The 'State' of Saudis is 'mostly a good actor to the outside world, even if they are bad in many ways internally. They allow the free flow of oil at market prices, 'per the deal' and don't align with China, Russia, or some other crazy state, and they are not trying to invade Iran or get nukes (though there are backup plans). And they play nice with Israel, not directly trying to start a war with them, or 'create' one between them and Israel. Most of their vast holdings are invested reasonably.Also, in the 'war on terror' which is actually a financial network and intelligence war, they have been playing 'on the right side' - as 'terrorists' are more dangerous to them than the US anyhow. So that's kind of what we can expect from them. In 100 years, hopefully things will be a bit better.
    - nyokodo 4y ago
      > It doesn't mean that it has anything to do with US foreign policy, the government, or anything. The evidence points to the Saudi royal family funding a terrorist organization. That’s a lot more than just a rich citizen, that is their autocratic ruling family and the evidence is very convincing. Their reasoning probably was more about regional concerns rather than attacking the US, however when you fund fanatics they don’t always follow the script.
    - nyolfen 4y ago
      >It's conspiratorial and misrepresentation to talk about this - to the point of it being a lie. this is false. there is a great deal of direct and circumstantial evidence that has come out in the last two years. this isn't "bin laden knew people", this is "the 9/11 hijackers received assistance from saudi diplomats in the US" https://theintercept.com/2021/09/11/september-11-saudi-arabia/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/11/september-11-saudi-arabi...
  - vbezhenar 4y ago
    This is quote from wikipedia: Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, has written that al-Qaeda and bin Laden were "a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies", and that "Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." So basically US sponsored 9/11. Is there any moral grounds to blame Saudi Arabia?
    - nyokodo 4y ago
      > So basically US sponsored 9/11. The US did supply the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s and Al Qaeda did eventually arise from the Mujahideen so 9/11 is certainly blowback but the CIA would need to be funding and aiding Al-Qaeda operatives during the late 90s to 2001 for there to be equivalency with Saudi but I’m not aware of any evidence to support that. Besides, the point wasn’t that the CIA was innocent it was that Saudi was guilty.
    - Bud 4y ago
      Well, there's the fact that 95% of the hijackers were Saudis.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      "Alqaida" literally means "the base". As in "the foundation [of struggle]", not as in "the database".
  - m00x 4y ago
    The US also funded Al Qaeda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
    - nyokodo 4y ago
      So this was 2012 in Syria and any support for Al-Qaeda was accidental and unintentional, from the article: “US-backed rebels often fought alongside al-Qaeda's al-Nusra Front, and some of the US-supplied weapons ended up in the hands of the al-Nusra Front, which had been a major concern of the Obama administration when the program was first proposed”
- dontlaugh 4y ago
  Just because some theories are ridiculous doesn’t mean that there aren’t many real conspiracies. There’s a reason the CIA pushed the idea of conspiracy theory as something ridiculous, it’s great cover.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    The CIA didn't need to do anything: Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Yeti, all sorts of mysterious / conspiracy theories just propagate on their own and at times because they're fun to imagine as real.
    - peteradio 4y ago
      What is the "conspiracy" behind Bigfoot. The word "conspiracy" used to have a specific meaning different from "farfetched".
      - ROTMetro 4y ago
        The Democrats are keeping bigfoot secret until they get the bigfoot population high enough to replace the MAGA crowd.
        peteradio 4y ago
        Those damn democrats!!!
    - dontlaugh 4y ago
      They coined the term and publicised it. The things you described used to be called just myths.
      - superturkey650 4y ago
        No they didn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_and_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_an...
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
  Lately it seems the difference between a conspiracy theory and fact is 3-6 months.
BurningFrog 4y ago
Even if we assume they're 100% true, two cherry picked incidents is very far from proving that "politics is never about the people/victims".

Saudi Arabia funded 9/11, Israel shot an American citizen, the U.S. continues to operate as usual with those countries. My point is that, politics is never about the people/victims.

rat9988 4y ago

> Saudi Arabia funded 9/11 Well, some conspiracy theories are considered facts now.

nyokodo 4y ago
> some conspiracy theories are considered facts now. There are mainstream sources detailing evidence of Saudi funding for Al Quaeda. [1] Whether they approved of/sanctioned 9/11 is another matter. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/documents/evidence-of-financial-links-between-saudi-royal-family-and-al-qaeda https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/documents/evide...
- imglorp 4y ago
  A civil court agrees too. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-sept11/saudi-arabia-must-face-u-s-lawsuits-over-sept-11-attacks-idUSKBN1H43A1 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-sept11/saudi-ar...
  - zaphirplane 4y ago
    No dog in this race First of all this is a civil case of liability which ranges from indirect responsibility to facilitated thru incompetence/ambivalence Second this article is about dismissal of the case over jurisdiction for parts of the claim Third “The judge also dismissed claims … lack … jurisdiction” Maybe the case is over with a ruling, maybe there is an article proving a link, maybe maybe but this article doesn’t make that Proof
- jollybean 4y ago
  It's conspiratorial and misrepresentation to talk about this - to the point of it being a lie. If a very rich American went to South America for a decade and then bombed a building in Rio, he would have 'financial relationship' to the US via a number of investments. It doesn't mean that it has anything to do with US foreign policy, the government, or anything. Osama Bin Laden was a member of a big, sprawling, super rich Oligarchic family in Saudi. Obviously, there were dealings, and obviously some Saudis probably funded some things here and there. Just like a Texan Evangelical Oil Billionaire might fund Christian Schools in Peru, which may even be good schools. But the charity run by a guy with ties to 'American Rio Bomber'. Everything at that level is intertwined, it's not sufficient to suggest that proves anything. The 'State' of Saudis is 'mostly a good actor to the outside world, even if they are bad in many ways internally. They allow the free flow of oil at market prices, 'per the deal' and don't align with China, Russia, or some other crazy state, and they are not trying to invade Iran or get nukes (though there are backup plans). And they play nice with Israel, not directly trying to start a war with them, or 'create' one between them and Israel. Most of their vast holdings are invested reasonably.Also, in the 'war on terror' which is actually a financial network and intelligence war, they have been playing 'on the right side' - as 'terrorists' are more dangerous to them than the US anyhow. So that's kind of what we can expect from them. In 100 years, hopefully things will be a bit better.
  - nyokodo 4y ago
    > It doesn't mean that it has anything to do with US foreign policy, the government, or anything. The evidence points to the Saudi royal family funding a terrorist organization. That’s a lot more than just a rich citizen, that is their autocratic ruling family and the evidence is very convincing. Their reasoning probably was more about regional concerns rather than attacking the US, however when you fund fanatics they don’t always follow the script.
  - nyolfen 4y ago
    >It's conspiratorial and misrepresentation to talk about this - to the point of it being a lie. this is false. there is a great deal of direct and circumstantial evidence that has come out in the last two years. this isn't "bin laden knew people", this is "the 9/11 hijackers received assistance from saudi diplomats in the US" https://theintercept.com/2021/09/11/september-11-saudi-arabia/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/11/september-11-saudi-arabi...
- vbezhenar 4y ago
  This is quote from wikipedia: Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, has written that al-Qaeda and bin Laden were "a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies", and that "Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." So basically US sponsored 9/11. Is there any moral grounds to blame Saudi Arabia?
  - nyokodo 4y ago
    > So basically US sponsored 9/11. The US did supply the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s and Al Qaeda did eventually arise from the Mujahideen so 9/11 is certainly blowback but the CIA would need to be funding and aiding Al-Qaeda operatives during the late 90s to 2001 for there to be equivalency with Saudi but I’m not aware of any evidence to support that. Besides, the point wasn’t that the CIA was innocent it was that Saudi was guilty.
  - Bud 4y ago
    Well, there's the fact that 95% of the hijackers were Saudis.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    "Alqaida" literally means "the base". As in "the foundation [of struggle]", not as in "the database".
- m00x 4y ago
  The US also funded Al Qaeda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
  - nyokodo 4y ago
    So this was 2012 in Syria and any support for Al-Qaeda was accidental and unintentional, from the article: “US-backed rebels often fought alongside al-Qaeda's al-Nusra Front, and some of the US-supplied weapons ended up in the hands of the al-Nusra Front, which had been a major concern of the Obama administration when the program was first proposed”
dontlaugh 4y ago
Just because some theories are ridiculous doesn’t mean that there aren’t many real conspiracies. There’s a reason the CIA pushed the idea of conspiracy theory as something ridiculous, it’s great cover.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  The CIA didn't need to do anything: Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Yeti, all sorts of mysterious / conspiracy theories just propagate on their own and at times because they're fun to imagine as real.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    What is the "conspiracy" behind Bigfoot. The word "conspiracy" used to have a specific meaning different from "farfetched".
    - ROTMetro 4y ago
      The Democrats are keeping bigfoot secret until they get the bigfoot population high enough to replace the MAGA crowd.
      - peteradio 4y ago
        Those damn democrats!!!
  - dontlaugh 4y ago
    They coined the term and publicised it. The things you described used to be called just myths.
    - superturkey650 4y ago
      No they didn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_and_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_an...
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
Lately it seems the difference between a conspiracy theory and fact is 3-6 months.

BurningFrog 4y ago

Even if we assume they're 100% true, two cherry picked incidents is very far from proving that "politics is never about the people/victims".