
FBI accidentally reveals Saudi official suspected of supporting 9/11 hijackers - AndrewBissell
https://news.yahoo.com/in-court-filing-fbi-accidentally-reveals-name-of-saudi-official-suspected-of-directing-support-for-911-hijackers-224555851.html
======
tyingq
The name:
[https://twitter.com/Ali_H_Soufan/status/1260360013299830785?...](https://twitter.com/Ali_H_Soufan/status/1260360013299830785?s=20)

------
1-6
Why is the FBI holding onto this information without revealing it sooner to
the public?

~~~
1-6
I hope I can find a good explanation for why Saudi Arabia was involved in 9/11
while the US went ahead and attacked Iraq. Wasn't Iran blamed initially?
Recall: Iran Iraq War Bumper Sticker. This looks like a major cover-up and
both Republican and Democrat leaders are involved.

~~~
redis_mlc
I study this area, so I'll try to do a brief overview of what was reported.

The US is in ideological wars with China (CCP) and Islam. Those may not be
wars the US chose, but it is what it is, because there is no common ground in
disparate ideologies.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) relies on the US to buy oil and act as
military mercenaries when threatened by local countries.

In the short term, KSA is an ally of the US, but in the long term, there are
too many ideological and religious differences.

So at some level, KSA did cause 9/11, although likely in a circuitous way
(some funding here, some operational support there, etc.) It's unlikely there
was formal military support in any way, because that's counter-productive to
the ruling family's goals, but KSA has strong internal security and they know
what's happening.

Iraq is a different story, or rather, their leader, Hussein. He invaded
Kuwait, threatened to invade KSA, etc.

The US govt. was paid to defend KSA. Bush 2 felt he owed Bush 1 the removal of
Hussein. And German and French ambassadors massaging arms sales told Hussein
he was untouchable by the US. The US sent an envoy to negotiate a peaceful
standdown, but was perceived as belligerent. So war it was.

The "fig leaves" for invading Iraq were that a man who wanted to become the
Iraqi President said bad things about Hussein, and that "aluminum tubes" were
found in Iraq, supposedly useful in building a nuclear bomb. So the Whitehouse
pretended those were adequate justifications, and that Hussein was tied to
9/11, despite knowing immediately that most of the participants were on Saudi
passports.

Ironically, Hussein was the only leader capable of uniting Iraq, despite being
from a minority ethnic group. Even better, he was a US ally long before the
Iraq war.

Hussein's desire to become "the modern-day Suleiman" and rule all of the
Middle East led to a large part of its destruction.

But the US could have been more on top of the situation there - maintaining
better relations with Hussein, having better intelligence, training and
equipping the Kuwaiti armed forces better, etc.

So there's a long backstory to the invasion of Iraq, and the US had reasons,
but it wasn't what was told to the American people (I remember the absurd
sound bites on TV at the time. I was like, "I can buy aluminum tubes down the
street.")

~~~
nelaboras
With all respect, this is an absurd summary and you're obviously not in any
way an expert on this topic else you wouldn't write such nonsense. There is no
'ideological war with Islam'. There are many Islamic countries closely
following the western model of economy and society. The conflict with China
also has long stepped beyond just ideology and is much more about realpolitik,
power projection, economic clout, etc than ideological conflict between a
formally-communist-but-is-actually-just-a-typical-capitalist-autocracy and the
hardcore capitalist that is the US (and which some would describe as at least
an oligarchy).

there is not much points going into your other arguments which are equally
absurd, except of course for the obvious oil-vs-guns deals between US and KSA
and the spurious arguments for the war which we all know were lies and it's
just astonishing how little the US population holds its leaders to account for
starting a war over faked evidence.

~~~
me_me_me
> a war over faked evidence

With a proof that Bush Jr. was officially informed that the justifications for
the war are false some few days before invasion. (Probably someone from
intelligence covering their ass, so the war wouldn't be blamed on them once
bogus weapons of mass destruction were nowhere to be found).

------
protomyth
I have an amazingly hard time believing that revelation was an "accident". I
cannot believe with the number of people involved that they didn't catch the
error.

~~~
wahern
But nothing in this disclosure was unknown. As the article states, "Jarrah has
been on the radar screen of the lawyers for the 9/11 families for some time
and is among nine current or former Saudi officials who they suspect have
important information about the case and have sought to either question them
or get access to FBI documents that mention them."

There are no secrets in Washington, D.C., at least none that can last for
years. All of this info leaked many years ago. The goal in formally censoring
the details is simply to prevent legal action, and apparently officials across
three administrations are convinced it would create too many diplomatic
headaches. Without the official reports, these details are largely
inadmissible hearsay in court, even if the whole world "knows".

At this point I'd be surprised if the FBI had any information not already
publicly available. Though, the lawyers leading the civil lawsuit are probably
some of the few people with an intimate knowledge of all the details,
notwithstanding that the details are contingent on some unknowns.

