
U.S. considers declassifying report on Saudi funding of al Qaeda - antr
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/02/05/uk-usa-security-saudi-idUKKBN0L92O820150205
======
Someone1234
It is interesting that this is finally seeing light of day.

When the 9/11 report came out several people (not conspiracy theorists) had
legitimate questions regarding why we're bombing Afghanistan when Saudi Arabia
had significantly stronger links to the events than Afghanistan did.

For example most of the money, most of the people, and many of the
organisations were Saudi based, and while Afghanistan's now famed "training
camps" did exist, a vast majority were in Pakistan.

Even Osama bin Laden (who's a Saudi national, by the way) initially denied the
attack until after the US "credited" him by name (and then he just went with
it). You can find videos of him denying responsibility on YT (and later
accepting responsibility).

I'm not seriously suggesting we should have bombed Saudi Arabia, that's
bonkers, I am just saying that it seems like Saudi Arabian national's punched
the US in the face while Pakistan distracted, and the US then turned around
and beat up Afghanistan in "revenge."

The 9/11 is pretty lacking in on crete information. I'd love to hear what
historians think of it in retrospect in twenty or more years, when all the
dust has settled. It raises more questions than it answers (not in the "false
flag!!!" sense, but in the "so who was actually behind this???" sense).

Honestly a much more believable conspiracy theory is that reputed Saudis
funded it and the US and Saudi Arabia covered it up to save face while Saudi
cleaned house quietly. That's totally believable and in-line with the 9/11
report, leaks, and other information.

~~~
dredmorbius
Saudi Arabia did not have _direct government supporting links_ to Al Qaeda as
Afghanistan did.

The relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is quite strong and close,
for all the obvious reasons: the US needs SA's oil, and SA benefit greatly
from US military support. The fact that Saudi Arabia is paid in US dollars
also gives the country a substantive interest in how well the US and its
financial system do. It's a relationship which dates to FDR and King Saud at
Great Bitter Lake:

[http://articles.latimes.com/1990-08-09/news/mn-388_1_king-
sa...](http://articles.latimes.com/1990-08-09/news/mn-388_1_king-saud)

This doesn't mean that there aren't _elements_ either within Saudi Arabia or
originating _from_ it which don't look kindly on the US. I suspect you could
find similar qualities within the US itself.

It's also helpful to keep in mind that in his 1998 fatwa against the U.S., one
of bin Laden's points was "support of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East
such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan". That is, bin Laden was aligned
_against_ the Saudi government.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver)

And yes, what the Saudi government and the Saudi street felt was somewhat at
odds. Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan cover this in their Vanity Fair article
"The Kingdom and the Towers"

[http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/08/9-11-201...](http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/08/9-11-2011-201108)

What _did_ happen in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and I
remember this, was that the US contacted the Afghan government, then the
Taliban, and effectively requested bin Laden's head. The Taliban refused. The
US attacked.

[http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/](http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/)

[http://web.archive.org/web/20010922035810/http://www.pbs.org...](http://web.archive.org/web/20010922035810/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/september01/taliban_9-21.html)

Pakistan, while yes, supporting the Taliban in many ways (and still), did lend
government support to the US aim of rooting out bin Laden. How sincere that
was (particularly given where bin Laden turned up) is open to question. But
Muscharraf _didn 't_ pull the same move the government of Afghanistan had in
refusing the US's requests.

So, no, actually, most of what you've claimed here is extremely mushy-headed
bogosity.

Is it possible that there was significant Saudi financial support for bin
Laden? It wouldn't surprise me. Could it have included members of the Saudi
royal family? Again, quite possibly. _The Saudi royal family is comprised of
thousands of members._ Around 15,000 according to the BBC. This isn't some
small nuclear household.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud)

Are the contents of such a report likely to be both contentious and yet more
conspiracy fodder? Yeah, probably.

~~~
Someone1234
> So, no, actually, most of what you've claimed here is extremely mushy-headed
> bogosity.

You didn't de-link the Saudi money, the people, or the organisations to the
events (and you'd struggle as it is in the 9/11 report!). In fact you failed
to make a single correction to my post.

But yet it is still "bogus." Ok, how nice.

As an aside, I didn't bring up the Saudi royals or the Saudi government. I
said well reputed individuals, of which there are many, I was more talking
about the Saudi elite, who have known links to terrorism and have funded it
before (some of which are literally in jail now for doing such).

~~~
dredmorbius
Let's just touch that point. You wrote:

"[W]hy we're bombing Afghanistan when Saudi Arabia had significantly stronger
links to the events than Afghanistan did."

Again, this confuses _individual citizens_ and _the official stance of the
government_.

I'm _not_ up on all the particulars of what support Saudi Arabia (and since
this thread seems to be swarming with pedants, yes, I'm referring to the
_government_ ) provided in terms of turning over suspects to the U.S., but my
understanding is that it generally cooperated.

As I noted, bin Laden was opposed to the Saudi government, hence his
supporters within Saudi Arabia would also have been enemies of the regime.

"Bombing Saudi Arabia" wasn't done because it made no sense whatsoever to do
so.

(Though sadly I can't say the same for Iraq.)

I'll note that the US did and is conducting targeted specific attacks within
countries it's otherwise allied, notably Pakistan and Yemen. Those are _not_
aimed at the regime or its infrastructure, but at specific insurgents
identified by U.S. intelligence (modulo collateral damage). Those strikes are
happening with the overt or tacit support of the regimes in question.

------
KaiserPro
Its well worth looking at US <-> middle east foreign policy through the eyes
of saudi arabia.

Basically the Saudis have been waging a proxy war again Iran through the US
and various "terror" groups. There is a school of thought that IS were
initially funded via the Saudis.

The blood bath in Syria is also partly funded by the Saudis.
([http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/18/john-
mccain-s...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/18/john-mccain-
senators-saudi-arabia-tour-syria-rebels) partial source.)

I wish to steer clear of the whole conspiracy theory bollocks. Its much better
to view the situation in the same way the previous Afghan war was waged
against Russia.

~~~
pyre
> The blood bath in Syria is also partly funded by the Saudis.

It's entirely possible that Saudis supported it before it became a case of
full-blown ISIS.

~~~
dmschulman
With ISIS it's important to look at Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his group, Al
Qaeda in Iraq (ISI). He formally broke his affiliation with Al Qaeda when
Ayman al-Zawahiri condemned ISI wanting to merge with groups in Syria (Jabhat
al-Nusra in particular). A coalition of different groups from these regions
make up ISIS.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-
Baghdadi#Expansion_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-
Baghdadi#Expansion_into_Syria_and_break_with_al-Qaeda)

The affiliations sound like they were achieved organically, though who knows
what's really going on behind closed doors.

~~~
pyre
It seems like Saudi-support for "groups destabilizing Syria" seems the most
likely reason for "Saudi support of ISIS." It's not like supporting these
groups has ever come back to bite the hand that supports it. Look at Pakistan.
They are finally realizing the turning a blind eye to the Taliban (because
they destabilize Afghanistan which acts as a buffer against India) might
actually harm _them_ too.

------
dmschulman
Adam Curtis just came out with an incredible documentary titled 'Bitter Lake'
which details the origins of the United State's relationship with Saudi Arabia
and how the terms of that relationship have impacted the development of
terrorism in the Middle East, especially Afghanistan.

It's an intrinsically relevant part of this conversation (especially
considering Saudi Arabia's adherence to and history of practicing wahhabism)
and I'd encourage others to check it out:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXcpDO8_3qU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXcpDO8_3qU)

~~~
dredmorbius
Covered as well, briefly, in Daniel Yergin's _The Prize_.

Oh holy hell you've got the whole thing online? Thanks!

~~~
dmschulman
Get it while it's hot! It's available in the UK on BBC's iPlayer. I think
they've released it for a short time on YouTube officially.

~~~
dredmorbius
Also submitted:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9008421](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9008421)

------
jakeogh
Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Call For The Release Of The
28 Redacted Pages: [http://youtu.be/H00l9AlYnEs](http://youtu.be/H00l9AlYnEs)

H. RES. 428: Urging the President to Release Information Regarding the
September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks upon the United States:
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-
resolutio...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-
resolution/428/text)

Co-sponsor Thomas Massie speaks at a press conference in support of the bill:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEOF7wCIudA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEOF7wCIudA)

I've invested siginificant time researching this subject. From my perspective
the most important thing that folks need to know is how disinformation works.
It's designed to offend. You can prevent people from looking at reliable,
sourced, fact based information by attaching bad information to it.

------
dba7dba
Saudis, too much money and too much time. And that money wasn't earned with
hard work. Not a good combo there.

------
vvpan
You know who probably won't be in that report - Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

