Saudi Arabia really might have funded 9/11

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Allen773

Whatever they did or didn’t endorse, the result was the same.

Presumably you haven't endorsed terrorism either. But terrorism has resulted just the same. Shall we examine your undeniable contribution to this result?

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Presumably you haven't endorsed terrorism either. But terrorism has resulted just the same. Shall we examine your undeniable contribution to this result?

I don’t endorse terrorism, but then again, I also am not a government official who had directed accredited diplomats and intelligence officers to assist known al-Qaeda operatives in settling in a country.

Why do you go out of your way to give Saudi Arabia the benefit of the doubt? These weren’t random “rogue” members of the royal family or minor government officials funding jihadists in their spare time. These were accredited diplomats at the Saudi embassy in Washington, the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, and people believed by the FBI to have been Saudi intelligence officers.

The hijackers had help and the full extent of it is being hidden.

[gypsyjackson]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm pretty sure that's not how monarchies work. A duchess doesn't speak for the crown just because she happens to be the queen's sister, and has royal income of her own that she invests in her personal interests or even "in the interests of the crown".

Historically, royal family seems to be a source of conflict and rebellion as often as not. But I admit I haven't examine the Royal Charter of Saudi Arabia, or whatever doctrine of entitlement establishes the kingdom and its authorities. Maybe being born into the House of Saud actually does make one a minister of the crown. But that's not the way it is in the UK, is it?

No, the UK royal family doesn’t ever hold Ministerial posts. In Saudi Arabia, though, certain Ministries do tend to be governed by Saud family members. Their foreign Ministers, for instance, have only not been a member of the house of Saud for 8 years of the 88 that KSA has existed. The Defence and National Guard posts are similar.

In Brunei, the Sultan is also Prime Minister, Defence Minister, and Foreign Minister. His son is Senior Minister. Qatar has lots of its ministerial posts filled by al-Thani members. I’m not sure how representative that is of monarchies, though it’s probably a good indicator of whether you’re living in a constitutional monarchy or an absolute monarchy in all but name.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by gypsyjackson

No, the UK royal family doesn’t ever hold Ministerial posts. In Saudi Arabia, though, certain Ministries do tend to be governed by Saud family members. Their foreign Ministers, for instance, have only not been a member of the house of Saud for 8 years of the 88 that KSA has existed. The Defence and National Guard posts are similar.

In Brunei, the Sultan is also Prime Minister, Defence Minister, and Foreign Minister. His son is Senior Minister. Qatar has lots of its ministerial posts filled by al-Thani members. I’m not sure how representative that is of monarchies, though it’s probably a good indicator of whether you’re living in a constitutional monarchy or an absolute monarchy in all but name.

You're missing the point. Mycroft is suggesting that being a member of the royal family of Saudi Arabia automatically makes you a government minister, and makes everything you do automatically an official act of the Saudi government.

I'm pretty sure that even in monarchies that commonly assign government positions to family members, being a family member doesn't by itself automatically make you a government agent acting in an official capacity.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You're missing the point. Mycroft is suggesting that being a member of the royal family of Saudi Arabia automatically makes you a government minister, and makes everything you do automatically an official act of the Saudi government.

I'm pretty sure that even in monarchies that commonly assign government positions to family members, being a family member doesn't by itself automatically make you a government agent acting in an official capacity.

I wonder if that would apply to democracies as well. As a mid level government official, does the choices I make, even during work hours, reflect the position of the federal government? If so, I really need to make better lunch choices.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Leftus

I wonder if that would apply to democracies as well. As a mid level government official, does the choices I make, even during work hours, reflect the position of the federal government? If so, I really need to make better lunch choices.

It's actually been a point of dispute, whether President Trump's tweets are official government communications.

Last time I checked, the dispute orbited around an equivocation between "yes, it's official: the president really did tweet these things and they are rightly part of the historical record of his presidency" and "these tweets have the force of official government policy, equivalent to an executive order or a signed treaty".

ETA: And even in the case of an official like the Pope, there's the concept of ex cathedra - of speaking officially with the full authority of the office, as opposed to speaking unofficially and informally, rather than Pontiff-as-such.*

Or here on this forum we see the same distinction writ small, every time a mod appends "not as mod" to their post.

---
*This is actually a good example of "the exception proves the rule". The fact that there exists a specific term for when the Pope is speaking officially implies that the Pope can also speak unofficially.

[gypsyjackson]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You're missing the point. Mycroft is suggesting that being a member of the royal family of Saudi Arabia automatically makes you a government minister, and makes everything you do automatically an official act of the Saudi government.

I'm pretty sure that even in monarchies that commonly assign government positions to family members, being a family member doesn't by itself automatically make you a government agent acting in an official capacity.

I was just clarifying.

In answer to your second paragraph, it probably depends how much the king likes you! But, no, you’d probably end up with a pretty schizophrenic government when the royal family has 2000 members, as the house of Saud is reputed to.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's actually been a point of dispute, whether President Trump's tweets are official government communications.

Last time I checked, the dispute orbited around an equivocation between "yes, it's official: the president really did tweet these things and they are rightly part of the historical record of his presidency" and "these tweets have the force of official government policy, equivalent to an executive order or a signed treaty".

ETA: And even in the case of an official like the Pope, there's the concept of ex cathedra - of speaking officially with the full authority of the office, as opposed to speaking unofficially and informally, rather than Pontiff-as-such.*

Or here on this forum we see the same distinction writ small, every time a mod appends "not as mod" to their post.

---
*This is actually a good example of "the exception proves the rule". The fact that there exists a specific term for when the Pope is speaking officially implies that the Pope can also speak unofficially.

But those tweets are done in his official capacity under his title. I'm talking about me, going to Wendy's or Jack in the Box and not, say McDonalds, as some sort of endorsement of bacon cheeseburgers on behalf of the federal government. Or posting here on breaks, not under my real name or official position.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Leftus

But those tweets are done in his official capacity under his title. I'm talking about me, going to Wendy's or Jack in the Box and not, say McDonalds, as some sort of endorsement of bacon cheeseburgers on behalf of the federal government. Or posting here on breaks, not under my real name or official position.

So far we have seen no evidence that any member of the Saudi royal family has supported Al Qaeda as an official policy of the Saudi Arabian government. I think Mycroft's suggestion that being a member of that family automatically makes one an official in that government is very, very silly.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by theprestige

So far we have seen no evidence that any member of the Saudi royal family has supported Al Qaeda as an official policy of the Saudi Arabian government. I think Mycroft's suggestion that being a member of that family automatically makes one an official in that government is very, very silly.

Was Prince Turki Al Faisal as head of Saudi intelligence supporting Al Qaeda when Saudi intelligence was utilizing Osama bin Laden as an asset in the 1980s? That seems like it could reasonably be interpreted as official Saudi government policy. And what are we to make of Fayd al-Thuinary, the accredited Saudi diplomat through the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs in Los Angeles, the imam of a large, Saudi-funded mosque who was known to have extremist views and whose mosque was attended by members of the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles - and who appears to have personally met with two of the hijackers on several occasions, and who furthermore, was apparently directed to assist those hijackers by a higher-ranking Saudi official who was posted at their embassy in Washington?

Seems like there was at the very least, an organized effort by multiple Saudi government officials in some embassies and consulates to support jihadists. Not sure if it was officially sanctioned Saudi government policy, but forgive me for being suspicious.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Allen773

Was Prince Turki Al Faisal as head of Saudi intelligence supporting Al Qaeda when Saudi intelligence was utilizing Osama bin Laden as an asset in the 1980s? That seems like it could reasonably be interpreted as official Saudi government policy.

Al Qaeda was created by the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments, as a means of funneling wannabe fighters from the Gulf into Afghanistan, to fight the Russians.
Once that invasion was over, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda went rogue. Both the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments cut off funding and disowned them. It's a bit of a stretch, then, to claim that they continued to support Al Qaeda's terrorism as a part of their official government policies.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Al Qaeda was created by the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments, as a means of funneling wannabe fighters from the Gulf into Afghanistan, to fight the Russians.
Once that invasion was over, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda went rogue. Both the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments cut off funding and disowned them. It's a bit of a stretch, then, to claim that they continued to support Al Qaeda's terrorism as a part of their official government policies.

Fair enough. But what of the rest of my post?

To be clear, I am not taking a position on whether the mid-level and lower-level Saudi government officials named in the post-JASTA lawsuit were assisting the 9/11 hijackers because they were directed to by more senior officials or out of some official, albeit covert policy, or whether they were going rogue themselves. Nor do I take a position on the level of knowingness or foreknowledge of the attacks, etc. of said Saudi officials. But there is enough circumstantial evidence, suspicion, and controversy regarding this subject that I would welcome a more complete account, as I hope will be provided as the lawsuit goes forward.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Allen773

Fair enough. But what of the rest of my post?

To be clear, I am not taking a position on whether the mid-level and lower-level Saudi government officials named in the post-JASTA lawsuit were assisting the 9/11 hijackers because they were directed to by more senior officials or out of some official, albeit covert policy, or whether they were going rogue themselves. Nor do I take a position on the level of knowingness or foreknowledge of the attacks, etc. of said Saudi officials. But there is enough circumstantial evidence, suspicion, and controversy regarding this subject that I would welcome a more complete account, as I hope will be provided as the lawsuit goes forward.

I didn't comment on the rest of your post because I didn't have any problem with it.
That Saudi officials of varying rank were involved with the hijackers is pretty much beyond doubt. However, I find the idea that the attacks were somehow officially aided or sanctioned by the Saudi government as an act of government policy implausible: it would have been completely counterproductive. They need the US as allies, then as now, and Al Qaeda itself was a direct threat to the Saudi monarchy.
As you say, though, there would still seem to be plenty more to be uncovered yet.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by Allen773

Fair enough. But what of the rest of my post?

To be clear, I am not taking a position on whether the mid-level and lower-level Saudi government officials named in the post-JASTA lawsuit were assisting the 9/11 hijackers because they were directed to by more senior officials or out of some official, albeit covert policy, or whether they were going rogue themselves. Nor do I take a position on the level of knowingness or foreknowledge of the attacks, etc. of said Saudi officials. But there is enough circumstantial evidence, suspicion, and controversy regarding this subject that I would welcome a more complete account, as I hope will be provided as the lawsuit goes forward.

You'll never get a complete account.

There is no Black & White when it comes to any country in the Middle East, and especially in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Here are the problems:

1.You have to establish that those Saudis who gave money to Al Qaeda knew the US would be directly targeted.

2. You have to establish exactly when the donations took place.

3. You need to link these Saudis with the leadership and prove that they had their blessings.

4. You'll have to prove that Al Qaeda didn't misrepresent themselves to their Saudi donors.

Good luck with that.

The bigger problem is Wahhabism, which is also Saudi-funded. Wahhabism gave us Islamic Fundamentalism, and continued to fuel the Taliban. Al Qaeda drew and continues to draw members from Wahhabi madrassas funded by the Saudis and other wealthy Arab states.

You are engaging in whack-a-mole.

Look, Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy family quietly gave money and openly supported the IRA from the 1970s on. Does this mean Ted Kennedy killed Lord Mountbatten in 1979? Or is it a case where the PIRA used his money to conduct the operation? The answer depends on where you stand on the IRA and how much you like or dislike the Kennedys. The same thing with the Saudis.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

You'll never get a complete account.

There is no Black & White when it comes to any country in the Middle East, and especially in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Here are the problems:

1.You have to establish that those Saudis who gave money to Al Qaeda knew the US would be directly targeted.

2. You have to establish exactly when the donations took place.

3. You need to link these Saudis with the leadership and prove that they had their blessings.

4. You'll have to prove that Al Qaeda didn't misrepresent themselves to their Saudi donors.

Good luck with that.

The bigger problem is Wahhabism, which is also Saudi-funded. Wahhabism gave us Islamic Fundamentalism, and continued to fuel the Taliban. Al Qaeda drew and continues to draw members from Wahhabi madrassas funded by the Saudis and other wealthy Arab states.

You are engaging in whack-a-mole.

Look, Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy family quietly gave money and openly supported the IRA from the 1970s on. Does this mean Ted Kennedy killed Lord Mountbatten in 1979? Or is it a case where the PIRA used his money to conduct the operation? The answer depends on where you stand on the IRA and how much you like or dislike the Kennedys. The same thing with the Saudis.

Agreed in full. The Americans funding the IRA (like the Kennedys) comparison is a good one.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

As you say, though, there would still seem to be plenty more to be uncovered yet.

And that's what I look forward to with the lawsuit, hopefully.

[Axxman300]

The Washington Post is reporting that a dozen people on the FBI's terrorist watch-list were in Washington D.C. during the 1/6/21 Capitol Siege, in case you are wondering how on top of things the Bureau is these days.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Look, Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy family quietly gave money and openly supported the IRA from the 1970s on. Does this mean Ted Kennedy killed Lord Mountbatten in 1979? Or is it a case where the PIRA used his money to conduct the operation? The answer depends on where you stand on the IRA and how much you like or dislike the Kennedys. The same thing with the Saudis.

The Kennedy's and the Saudi's would be considered Terrorist, if for nothing else, the Patriot Act and subsequent Congressional beefing up of the Terrorist definition contain the inchoate offenses will make the both accomplices of Terrorism.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by No Other

The Kennedy's and the Saudi's would be considered Terrorist, if for nothing else, the Patriot Act and subsequent Congressional beefing up of the Terrorist definition contain the inchoate offenses will make the both accomplices of Terrorism.

The Patriot Act is not retroactive.

The Saudis have been brutal to those in their ranks who knowingly support Al Qaeda and ISIS.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

The Patriot Act is not retroactive.

The Saudis have been brutal to those in their ranks who knowingly support Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Agreed it is not retroactive... just framing it around today's definition.

[Axxman300]

I was disappointed and disgusted by the Kennedy Family's support for the PIRA. It went against what they claimed to stand for in this country, and was an insult to JFK.

[theprestige]

It was also not a policy of the US government, and in no way could be construed as "the US government might have funded the IRA".

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It was also not a policy of the US government, and in no way could be construed as "the US government might have funded the IRA".

That is correct.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

The Saudis have been brutal to those in their ranks who knowingly support Al Qaeda and ISIS.

...to a point. They certainly have no tolerance for jihadists who mount attacks within Saudi Arabia - hence, why AQAP is based in Yemen.

But I question the Saudis’ commitment to combating the Al Qaeda and ISIS jihadists who attack Shia Muslims in Iraq and Syria, for example. The powerful Wahhabi clerics certainly are no fans of the Shia, and that also feeds into the Saudi conflict with Iran.

Of course, when it comes to jihadists organizing and fighting in other countries, there’s only so much the Saudis (or anyone) can do. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies continue to be sources of ideological and financial support for these groups, if often indirectly. It’s complicated.

And for the record, MBS’s crackdown on “extremist clerics” has ensnared a lot of nonviolent, moderate clerics whose main crime was calling for broader political participation within the Kingdom. Seems like accusations of extremism and supporting terrorism are as often a pretext for punishing one’s enemies as much as anything, especially for ruthless authoritarian regimes who tell the US and the UN what they want to hear: “we’re fighting terrorism.”

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

I was disappointed and disgusted by the Kennedy Family's support for the PIRA. It went against what they claimed to stand for in this country, and was an insult to JFK.

Agreed

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Allen773

...to a point. They certainly have no tolerance for jihadists who mount attacks within Saudi Arabia - hence, why AQAP is based in Yemen.

A country which is being attacked by a coalition of Gulf countries led by Saudi Arabia.
Granted, their main thrust is against the Houthis, but I'm sure that it's giving AQAP a bit of a headache as well.

Originally Posted by Allen773

But I question the Saudis’ commitment to combating the Al Qaeda and ISIS jihadists who attack Shia Muslims in Iraq and Syria, for example. The powerful Wahhabi clerics certainly are no fans of the Shia, and that also feeds into the Saudi conflict with Iran.

What do you suggest that the Saudis could do to combat AQ in those countries? More invasions and bombings?

Originally Posted by Allen773

Of course, when it comes to jihadists organizing and fighting in other countries, there’s only so much the Saudis (or anyone) can do. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies continue to be sources of ideological and financial support for these groups, if often indirectly. It’s complicated.

Again, there's a distinction between the state and individuals within that state.
There are undoubtedly individuals around the Gulf funneling money to Islamist insurgents. However, to extrapolate that into state-sponsored 'ideological and financial support' is, I think, a stretch.

[theprestige]

It's always possible to allege a black money operation and connect the dots.

"Having some no-name emergency backup prince divert his <finger quotes>personal funds</finger quotes> to Al Qaeda is exactly what the Saudi government would do, if they wanted to support AQ in secret!"

[Oystein]

Connecting dots gives you stellar constellations. The result is often guided more by the images already in the connector's head than by reality.

[Cosmic Yak]

And the reality is that Al Qaeda and the Saudi royal family are at odds. They hate each other. I see no reason why it would be official Saudi government policy, even as some kind of black op, to aid AQ in any way.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

And the reality is that Al Qaeda and the Saudi royal family are at odds. They hate each other. I see no reason why it would be official Saudi government policy, even as some kind of black op, to aid AQ in any way.

You are spot on if you are defining your observation beginning in 2003. Prior to that year the Saudi government was very slow to react to Al Qaeda as the interior of Saudi Arabia was not threatened... at least by the Royal family estimation. Nayef bin Abdelaziz thought Al Qaeda was a result of USA propaganda and initially said 9/11 was a Zionist plot but when Al Qaeda started attacking Saudi ex-Pats and security forces... everything changed.

[Allen773]

NYT Editorial Board:

Fighting, While Funding, Extremists

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/o...terrorism.html

Haaretz

ISIS and Saudi Arabia: A Dangerous Double Game

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-...game-1.5382041

New Yorker:
Saudi Arabia possibly planned to use Al-Qaeda in assassination plot against Ali Soufan

Quote:

For the Saudis to attack (Soufan) directly would be an unprecedented act of aggression. His concern is that, given the regime’s history with Al Qaeda, militants could attempt to kill him in Qatar—and the attack could be traced to the death threats planted on social media. “It wouldn’t be the first time a state actor uses militants or terrorists to do its dirty work,” he said.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...s-based-critic

CNN:
The US shipped weapons and secrets to the Saudis and Emiratis. Now, some are in the hands of fighters linked to al Qaeda and Iran.


(This has eerie parallels with the anti-Assad efforts in Syria - and the anti-Soviet efforts in Afghanistan...)

Quote:

Amid the chaos of the broader war, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) made its way to the frontlines in Taiz in 2015, forging advantageous alliances with the pro-Saudi militias they fought alongside.

One of those militias linked to AQAP, the Abu Abbas brigade, now possesses US-made Oshkosh armored vehicles, paraded in a 2015 show of force through the city.

Abu Abbas, the founder, was declared a terrorist by the US in 2017, but the group still enjoys support from the Saudi coalition and was absorbed into the coalition-supported 35th Brigade of the Yemeni army.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019...-lost-us-arms/

[Axxman300]

The latest move with the lawsuit: A letter to Biden...

https://www.aol.com/news/khashoggi-r...184614780.html

Quote:

James Kreindler, a lawyer who has been representing the families in the 9/11 lawsuit, said in an interview he believes that the Khashoggi report gives his clients new leverage to demand full disclosure of the still-buried 9/11 documents, including a complete copy of a 2012 FBI report into suspected links between some Saudi government officials and the hijackers. Last year, then-Attorney General William Barr and then-acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell blocked disclosure to the public and families of that report’s most important details, declaring them a “state secret.”

“I don’t understand how our government can release the documents on the murder of one man two years ago but not the documents on the murder of 3,000 people 20 years ago,” said Brett Eagleson, a spokesman for the families, whose father was killed in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.

The point:

Quote:

The timing of the families’ letter is also potentially significant because the U.S. government’s Public Interest Declassification Board — a federal panel that is charged with making recommendations about the disclosure of classified documents — is expected to take up the issue of still-secret 9/11 material, possibly in the next few weeks.

Stay tuned...