Posted on 04/19/2015 5:23:00 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
Thanks for that input.
“It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority,” read a cable from Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, dated Dec 30, 2009.
“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide,” added the document.
WASHINGTON — Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html?_r=1
After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.
But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.
It was kept secret and remains so today.
President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).
A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.
http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
Was the Saudi Government Involved in the 9/11 Terror Attacks?
Former lawmakers again stir suspicions that the hijackers had help. The evidence is murky, but critics believe that American investigators have not dug hard enough.
Since 2002, when former senator Bob Graham led the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry (JICI) into the 9/11 attacks, he has insisted that members of the Saudi government played a role. But he’s had a hard time getting others to listen.
“There’s no question in my mind that the Saudi government was involved in 9/11,” the Florida Democrat tells The Daily Beast. “But there’s still so much we don’t know. Unfortunately, many Americans seem to have lost interest.”
The issue was revived last month when The New York Times reported that Graham and former senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat from Nebraska, had given affidavits in an ongoing lawsuit against Saudi Arabia over compensation for families of the 9/11 victims. “I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” Graham said in the affidavit. In a separate affidavit, Kerrey said, “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued.”
I believe it is U. S. money as well as arms. I’m not denying Saudi involvement from certain players, but I do think we made a huge mistake when we sent in arms and finances to the people fighting Assad.
ISIS seemed to literally explode on the scene directly after that. Obama and McCain, masters of the universe, screwed up again just like they did in Libya.
IIRC, the Saudi government instituted a lawsuit over several of the names listed as hijackers, because these invidiuals (10 IIRC) were still alive and one was even still working for the Saudi Airlines.
I would find it very hard to believe that top government officials were involved. I remember Saudi Royal family members being evacuated from the U. S. a day or two after the event based on U. S. popular opinion that was obviously very negative toward Islamic adherents at that time.
If the government was involved, it would seem those family members would not have been in the U. S.
At the end of the day, if there was Saudi government involvement, I want to know about it just like everyone else.
I am not here to shield any entity from the penalties for wrongdoing. There is a lot of negative talk on the forum concerning Saudi Arabia, and I try to balance that out a bit. It’s my personal opinion that folks dislike anything Islam (which I identify with myself), and they go a bit overboard concerning Saudi Arabia.
At any rate, thanks for your post.
Be very careful about signing on to anything Democrats are involved in. I trust them far less than just about any other entity.
Our enemies hate us for reasons. They may be idiotic reasons. The Democrats hate our nation, knowing damn well what the comparisons are between us and Islam.
Look at their top dog, and yet they don’t beat an eye-lash.
I meant zoroastrians (sarcastically, tongue-in-cheek). Thought you got it.
As far as i’m concerned both druze and alawites are branches of islam.
I doubt anybody in the Saudi government ordered the 9/11 attacks or even supported them. But they bear the ultimate responsibility, because the oil money they funnel to the clerics to keep up the charade of their bona fides under Sharia law was what ultimately funded and armed Al Quaeda.
If you're a businessman who pays protection money to a drug cartel, you're at least indirectly culpable when that cartel shoots up the neighborhood.
“If you’re a businessman who pays protection money to a drug cartel, you’re at least indirectly culpable when that cartel shoots up the neighborhood.”
Well said, very good analogy. That’s exactly what the Saudi Royals do. It’s been known they’ve a double policy. Fund & support islamists & islam outside Saudi Arabia, but same time don’t let islamists gain grounds inside Saudi Arabia to overthrow the gov’t. Sooner or later their double policy will bite them hard.
Of course they did.
The Saudis have oodles of princes.
The one thing Obama dreamed of when he would be president, is absolute rule. We’ve talked (mostly me) about him being a child with a nine year old’s grasp of reality, and this is what a nine year old think. Wow, the president can do anything he wants. Well, in the real world he can’t. He does have a lot of power, but there are laws he must remain within.
This same rule applies to Saudi Arabia, not identically because they have a different form of government, but there are limits none the less.
If you’re king and you go against 40% of your populace that is your most ardent supporter, you don’t last long. There would be revolt, and the power religion holds over the populace over there, it’s more than mere politics.
Yes, I suppose you could ultimately cast blame on the leadership. I’m not convinced that’s as rewarding as you might think. I don’t think the leadership was involved.
Some folks think they were.
Yes. I saw the Harvard prof Bin Laden interview, in which he specifically made reference to Osama Bin Laden taking it to the most powerful nation on earth, saying also, with a big __________ eating grin, “and you (Osama) are winning.”
Within hours, the lot of them were out of the US.
What would happen is that some dynasty (most likely the Jordanian Hashemites, as descendents of Muhammad) would control the Hijaz (Mecca and Medina), while various Saudi princelings would control the central area and there would be a Shia Imam in charge of the oil fields and an Ismaili state in the south.
Old man Bin Laden built the Saudi palaces and became a millionaire in the process. Osama was a civil engineer and so studied buildings. The Bin Laden home territory is Yemen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.