
Saudi Ties to 9/11 Detailed in Documents Suppressed Since 2002 - azazqadir
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/15/saudi-ties-to-911-detailed-in-documents-suppressed-since-2002/
======
dforrestwilson
For anyone looking for a primer on jihad, and the influence of Saudi Wahhabism
here is a great read: [https://www.amazon.com/Future-Jihad-Terrorist-
Strategies-aga...](https://www.amazon.com/Future-Jihad-Terrorist-Strategies-
against/dp/1403975116/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468842201&sr=1-1&keywords=future+jihad)

Walid Phares wrote 10 years ago that Europe was going to experience a wave of
attacks, and also foresaw the Arab Spring.

~~~
retox
To be fair a prediction of unrest in the middle east/Africa doesn't require
much insight. I predict there will be unrest for the next 50 years at least.

~~~
imglorp
It doesn't help there are 1st world influences mucking up the natural
ecosystem there. For example, US attempting to overthrow Assad is not a
natural process.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-
relies...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-
heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html)

~~~
jbooth
Dude. We talking about animals here? Their natural ecosystem? People deserve
more respect than that.

~~~
trelltron
Ecosystem: a complex network or interconnected system.

~~~
hx87
There's hardly anything "natural" about human ecosystems, or human
relationships for that matter.

~~~
0xfeba
Depends on your definition of natural. The religious claim of 'special
creation', esp. w.r.t. humans has it easy here:

> existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature

This definition really stems from man's early assumption that we are
distinctly "different" from all other natural things.

But reality tells us otherwise: People are a part of nature; they are natural.
It's easier to discuss in terms of what isn't the same instead of what is the
same. And that is, we are the smartest known species (being the sole species
with self-consciousness is still up for debate). Therefore everything people
do is natural.

~~~
hx87
So either everything humans do is natural or nothing humans do is natural.
Either way, it's incorrect to say that 1st world actions in the Middle East
are any more "unnatural" than what the indigenous people do.

------
aburan28
If Saudi Arabia is linked to 9/11 we need to have a serious look at the past
15 years and reevaluate our entire foreign policy justification

~~~
woodpanel
I hate to sound confronting, but anyone living in a western counrty which
leadership sees these documents as the reason to reevaluate its relationship
with Saudi Arabia should be scared by his leadership's incompetence:

Those documents aren't needed to see that the whole Saudi Establishment is the
no. 1 reason for jihadist terrorism. Just look at the massive investments the
Saudis made since the 1950s to recruite, edjucate and influence muslim clerics
basically everywhere in the world. And boy, need I say that civil rights
wasn't on their curriculum?!

The Saud Family wants the radicalization of Islam for power reasons that are
comparable to the situation of the Papal States and catholic influence over
christian countries hundreds of years ago. It's not Islam that is cancerous,
it is the Saud Family.

~~~
estefan
This doco (Bitter Lake) suggests they _don 't_ want radicalisation at all:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-
bi...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-bitter-lake)

It claims the Saud family needed to appease conservative clerics to maintain
power, so that's why they sponsored all these fanatical clerics. They kicked
the can down the road and now their chickens are coming home to roost.

~~~
woodpanel
As have stated other film critics [1] this documentation takes a rather one-
sided approach in that it's basically the fault of the west (and of the USSR).

It seem to lack fact checking and leaves out one of the main issues
surrounding modern arabic history: the delayed formation of nation-states and
the threat modernism posed to existing, usually aristocratic power structures.

Specifically Saudi-Arabia felt threatened by movements like Pan-Arabism and
Ba'athism and used religeous radicalism as an ideology to counter them.

Yes, the cold-war factions quickly found their adversaries on either side but
it doesn't take a grain away from the pile of guilt the Saudi Establishment
has amassed.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Lake_(film)#Reception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Lake_\(film\)#Reception)

~~~
DominikR
> As have stated other film critics [1] this documentation takes a rather one-
> sided approach in that it's basically the fault of the west (and of the
> USSR).

This is also a major cultural problem to overcome for Muslims before they can
be able to build enduring and prospering societies.

The thing is that every major power constantly meddles in the affairs of
everyone else and it will never end, that's for sure. The Russians do it to
the West, the West to the Russians, same as the Chinese, the Japanese and
Indians do.

Yet these societies are not constantly on the verge of collapse and total
chaos.

It is because these societies are more resilient to outside influence, because
members of these societies feel more strongly connected to their government
and to other members of their societies.

On the other hand in many Muslim societies I see tribal attitudes, one clan
against all other clans. One Muslim group might even declare another Muslim
group as an enemy on the basis of the smallest imaginable disagreement and
start total war. No wonder their governments can be toppled and controlled
from the outside if many don't feel a strong connection to their own nation
and people.

Here this belief that all bad that has happened to you in your life is
primarily caused by the US, the Soviets or more generally the infidels gives
them an easy way to redirect their energy towards useless fighting (often
among each other) instead of working together to improve their own societies.

This is a bad motivator for progress and nothing good or useful will ever come
out of it.

If you face outside meddling then work hard on strengthening your own society
so you can handle that stress, because it will never, ever stop.

~~~
woodpanel
_> this belief that all bad that has happened to you in your life is primarily
caused by the US, the Soviets or more generally the infidels gives them an
easy way to redirect their energy_

Exactly! In general, everything is the fault of the west/infidels. You see
this in nowadays Turkey. And that alone says a lot about the state of muslim
countries, since Turkey used to be a beacon of progress (Genocide aside).

I think Atatürk is rolling over in his grave for quite some years now.

------
DominikR
If the West would have bombed Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan and would
have taken their oil we might be better off today.

Saudia Arabia is notorious for sponsoring mosques here in the EU that only
ever seem to produce Salafi radicals and Jihadists which is in contrast to
other Muslim communities that seem to have less of that problem.

Some countries in the EU already banned this influence from Saudi Arabia as it
is widely considered as harmful to our societies.

But there are also some Muslim countries that did the same as they also
consider their ideology as aggressive and inherently dangerous. (some of the
Central Asian Muslim countries)

~~~
Eutow
>If the West would have bombed Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan and would
have taken their oil we might be better off today.

We never learn, do we?

~~~
DominikR
What would you propose? Leaving a country alone that backstabs us and incites
fanatics to attack us while pretending to be our friend?

Just look at what resources they have and what they potentially could do with
it if they openly declared that the West is their enemy.

I'm quite sure that no one will allow Saudi Arabia to use its resources
against the West. If they do we'll take all they have away from them.

By the way: It is absolutely legitimate to retaliate with force when you are
under attack by another nation.

~~~
y04nn
The problem is if you attack Saudi Arabia, most if not all Arab countries will
be on the side of SA, which would start a major conflict.

------
jacquesm
"Much of the information in the 28 pages is not new and has been mentioned in
previously released documents on the 9/11 investigation. As such, the public
release of these suppressed pages is unlikely to precipitate major changes in
the relationship between the United States and the Saudi government. In a
statement issued on Friday, the Saudi Embassy in the United States said that
it “welcomes the release” of the suppressed pages, saying that they exonerate
Riyadh of any direct role in the attacks."

If so then I really don't get why they would suppress these at all.

~~~
saturn_vk
I'm guessing they've suppressed them to prevent the public from wanting to
start a war with the saudis

~~~
jacquesm
Now why would anybody want to start a war with a country not directly involved
in an attack. Oh, wait.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Ah, yes, the "BOOOOSH WANTED TO STEAL THEIR OIL" theory.

So, exactly how much of their oil did the U.S. actually "steal"? You have a
barrel figure for that? A rough estimate will do.

~~~
acqq
"Why we did it"

[https://vimeo.com/88670339](https://vimeo.com/88670339)

Oil. As in for "free market."

~~~
Turing_Machine
I'm not going to go watch a propaganda video.

How much oil did the U.S. steal from Iraq?

Do you have an answer to that question or not?

~~~
acqq
It's your turn now to give the reference for your claim, I've given mine.
Alternatively, you'd have to specify what actually from that documentary isn't
true, and given the high possibility of the authors to be sued, I'm quite sure
they double checked their sources.

~~~
Turing_Machine
What "claim"? That the U.S. didn't "steal Iraq's oil"?

No, I don't have to watch your video to determine that this didn't happen. Nor
does anyone else.

Edit: can you point out to me on this chart where all the "stolen oil" shows
up?

[https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMIZ1&f=M)

~~~
acqq
See the video, the most of Iraq oil was taken over by western petrol companies
and physically sold to Europe. And that's why you won't see much in the chart
you quote.

The video is much more nuanced than you imagine, as the goal was never to
"steal the oil to bring it directly to the US" but merely to "control" the
oil.

------
wfunction
So there was [1] in 2004 and [2] in 2009. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to
take away from the recent news now... it seems like it's just confirming what
people already pretty much knew? Or is there surprising new information
released?

[1]
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3815179.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3815179.stm)

[2]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html)

~~~
rhizome
Emptywheel went over the already-knews and new-news pretty concisely the other
day:

[https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/07/15/fbi-established-
saudi-...](https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/07/15/fbi-established-saudi-task-
force-just-before-joint-inquiry-release/)

------
nxzero
Given the topic, curious if anyone knows anything about "Able Danger"
operations:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger)

Or the rapid decline of terrorism (80%) following the end of the Cold War:
[https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/](https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/)

------
jtlien1
Have you seen anyone interview Norm Mineta about what really happened in the
Situation Room on 9/11? He was fired and exiled practically when people
started to point out his damning statements about what happened in the
Situation Room when the Pentagon was seeing a plane approach. Or how about the
66 video tapes confiscated by the FBI that could show what really did hit the
Pentagon?

~~~
dopamean
Are you seriously implying that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon?

------
arca_vorago
I'll just say this: never forget who created the house of Saud in the first
place. They were puppets from the start and still are.

~~~
mk89
Could you please articulate? I am totally ignorant about it, and after the
release of this document, I am getting more curious.

~~~
douche
Ibn Saud essentially came to power as a local strongman, supported by the
British, set up in opposition to the Ottoman-supported faction during the
First World War. Saud originally controlled the Red Sea bordering portion of
Arabia, which was astride the sea route through the Suez to India.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#Rise_to_power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#Rise_to_power)

~~~
mk89
Thanks a lot! I finally had time to read the article.

I always wonder if that was short term thinking, or if nowadays there is still
something going on. We all know that empires fall, therefore, it might be that
maybe at that time the UK didn't expect Saudi Arabia to become so powerful as
it is nowadays. It's like playing monopoly: you help X to destroy Y, which you
don't like, but then X becomes so powerful that it starts to be a pain in the
ass.

