RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Gibson writes: "The U.S.'s tenuous relationship with Saudi royalty may be upended after recent allegations made by Zacarias Moussaoui the so-called 20th 9/11 hijacker, that Saudi Arabia bankrolled Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the months leading up to 9/11."

The 15 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia. (photo: Limits to Growth)
The 15 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia. (photo: Limits to Growth)


Saudis Probably Funded 9/11 Hijackers, and the U.S. Won't Do Anything About it. Here's Why.

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

06 February 15

 

uring one scene in the Quentin Tarantino film “Inglorious Basterds,” a Mexican standoff – the director’s cinematic signature – ends with Nazis and American soldiers disguised as Nazis all pulling their triggers simultaneously in the basement of a French pub. By the end of the bloody, seconds-long shootout, only one person in the room is left standing. A similar Mexican standoff between the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United States is currently under way, and may reach its final conclusion if new developments surrounding unanswered questions about the 9/11 attacks continue to build momentum.

The American/Saudi Arabian Mexican Standoff

The Mexican standoff between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia began in the 1970s, when the Saudis used their position as head of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to institute an oil embargo against the U.S. The embargo, which was done in protest of American support of the Israeli military, drove up gas prices, created record-long lines at the pump, and took a considerable amount of steam out of the booming U.S. economy. Because American politicians would never agree to stop funding Israel, a plan was hatched to become best friends with the Saudi Royal family. One of the men who put that plan into action was John Perkins, who documented his role extensively in his bestselling fast-paced autobiography, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” (the last line of Perkins’s resume simply says “U.S. Treasury Dept., Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”).

During the process of what Perkins called the “Saudi Arabian Money-Laundering Affair (SAMA),” the U.S. Treasury sent Perkins and his team of economists at the consulting firm Chas T. Main to Saudi Arabia. Perkins described his role in a 2004 interview with Democracy Now:

“We worked out this deal whereby the Royal House of Saud agreed to send most of their petro-dollars back to the United States and invest them in U.S. government securities. The Treasury Department would use the interest from these securities to hire U.S. companies to build Saudi Arabia — new cities, new infrastructure — which we've done. And the House of Saud would agree to maintain the price of oil within acceptable limits to us, which they’ve done all of these years, and we would agree to keep the House of Saud in power as long as they did this, which we’ve done …”

By 1975, all OPEC nations agreed to sell their oil exclusively in U.S. dollars, effectively replacing the gold standard backing up American currency with a new oil standard. This arrangement ensures a constant supply of cheap oil from Saudi Arabia to the U.S. as long as the U.S. government continues to back the Saudi royal family. The current Mexican standoff would only end in a bloody shootout if the U.S. stopped supporting the Saudi regime, or if the Saudis started trading oil in a currency other than the U.S. dollar. This is why President Obama and many other top-level American dignitaries went to Saudi Arabia to pay their respects to the late King Abdullah, despite the deceased dictator’s well-documented reign of brutality that included public beheadings, public floggings, and other medieval punishments similar to those used by the ISIS terrorists we condemn.

Potential Smoking Gun Evidence from the 20th 9/11 Hijacker

The U.S.’s tenuous relationship with Saudi royalty may be upended after recent allegations made by Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th 9/11 hijacker, that Saudi Arabia bankrolled Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the months leading up to 9/11. Lawyers for 9/11 victims are claiming that along with Moussaoui’s revelations about a Saudi embassy official discussing a plot to assassinate President Clinton while he was aboard Air Force One, new evidence will soon emerge in two forms: Declassification of the secret 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report that details Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the attacks, and 80,000 pages of an FBI probe into Saudi funding of 9/11 hijackers in Florida. A 2003 article in Vanity Fair speculated about the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report’s classified contents:

“According to news reports, the classified section charges that there were ties between the hijackers and two Saudis, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan, who had financial relationships with members of the Saudi government. Saudi officials deny that their government was in any way linked to the attacks. The Saudis have asked that the pages be declassified so they can refute them, but President Bush has refused.”

Moussaoui’s testimony is problematic for both the U.S. and Saudi governments. Ever since Richard Nixon was president, the Saudis have maintained a close relationship with every president who’s occupied the White House. They even used that access to fly out members of the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family when the FAA grounded all commercial and private flights (including flights for both former president Bill Clinton and former vice president Al Gore). These flights were granted permission to leave, and despite the potential for the two dozen members of the bin Laden family aboard those flights to provide invaluable information about where Osama bin Laden was hiding or the depth of his network, those family members were never interviewed by the FBI.

Even though the Saudi embassy maintains that they had nothing to do with 9/11, and that Moussaoui is a “deranged criminal” whose statements lack any credibility, U.S. courts found him mentally competent to stand trial. It’s likely that as long as Moussaoui keeps talking, public pressure for justice for 9/11 victims will only build.

Saudi Royalty: the Koch Brothers of Islamic Fundamentalism

Since the cheap-oil-for-unconditional-support deal with Saudi Arabia was struck in the mid-1970s, the U.S. government has willingly looked the other way at the Saudi royal family’s funneling their wealth to radical Islamists around the world. A 2003 U.S. News and World Report cover story by David Kaplan, Monica Ekman, and Aamir Latif explores how the Saudi royal family poured over $70 billion between 1975 and 2002 into spreading fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam around the world in an effort to counter Iran’s efforts. To put that in perspective, $70 billion is roughly 87 percent of the combined net worth of David and Charles Koch. Of that $70 billion, Kaplan writes:

“More than two thirds of that amount went to “Islamic activities” – building mosques, religious schools, and Wahhabi religious centers, says the CSP’s Alex Alexiev, a former CIA consultant on ethnic and religious conflict. The Saudi funding program, Alexiev says, is “the largest worldwide propaganda campaign ever mounted” – dwarfing the Soviets’ propaganda efforts at the height of the Cold War. The Saudi weekly Ain al-Yaqeen last year reported the cost as “astronomical” and boasted of the results: some 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centers, 202 colleges, and nearly 2,000 schools in non-Islamic countries.”

To understand how the Saudi royal family has funded the growth of the global jihad movement over the last few decades, the Koch Brothers are a great example. The Kochs have long used their vast network of charities and nonprofits with innocuous-sounding names like the American Legislative Exchange Council, Americans for Prosperity, and the State Policy Network to push through their agenda of cutting social safety net programs in exchange for lower taxes and fewer regulations for big business. Just like the Kochs, the Saudis make funding available for Islamic extremists through various quasi-official nonprofits and charities. Kaplan writes:

“Key to this evangelical tour de force were charities closely tied to Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite and top clerics. With names like the Muslim World League and its affiliate, the International Islamic Relief Organization, the funds spent billions more to spread Wahhabism. The IIRO, for example, took credit for funding 575 mosques in Indonesia alone … U.S. officials now say that key charities became the pipelines of cash that helped transform ragtag bands of insurgents and jihadists into a sophisticated, interlocking movement with global ambitions.”

The High Cost of Keeping Saudi Arabia Happy

Saudi Arabia’s long history as the sugar daddy of Islamic militants around the world didn’t complicate their relationship with the U.S. in the past. In the 1980s, Vice President George H.W. Bush, who had just left his position at the head of the CIA to move into the White House, collaborated with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S., to sell arms to Saudi Arabia at the same time Saudi charities were spending billions on spreading radical Islam. Bandar’s past history of selling arms to militants with the help of the U.S. may have continued in Syria, when a chemical weapons attack on a civilian population brought the cries for American military involvement to a fever pitch.

An August 2013 report from Mint Press News assembles several witness accounts that suggest Prince Bandar and other Saudi sources may have been the source of chemical weapons in Syria – not Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, as the U.S. government suggested. Reporter Yahya Ababneh, who was on the ground in Syria for the report, interviewed Syrian rebels and witnesses shortly after the attack took place:

“[Abu] Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”… “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

While Democracy Now called the attack an “Iran-Contra Redux,” and raised the question of Prince Bandar’s involvement, Saudi Arabia was largely kept out of the U.S. media conversation over the chemical weapons attack. But now that the biggest bombshells from Zacarias Moussaui’s testimony are getting published in major news outlets like Reuters and the New York Times, the U.S. may no longer be able to turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s sponsorship of terrorism.

The contents of the 28 classified pages of the 9/11 Commission Report are still unknown, and probes are ongoing. But the Mexican standoff between the American and Saudi Arabian governments will likely come to a head before 2016. At that point, Americans will likely have to ask themselves if they would rather continue to have cheap oil or if they would rather have justice for 9/11 victims. Any official action from the U.S. government would likely result in an oil embargo similar to 1973, and politicians running for re-election probably don’t want record-high gas prices on their watch.



Carl Gibson, 27, is a regular featured columnist and editor for Reader Supported News, @RSN_Godot. In addition Carl co-founded US Uncut, a direct action group that mobilized thousands against corporate tax dodging and budget cuts in the months leading up to Occupy Wall Street. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the award-winning, Sundance-selected documentary We're Not Broke, which is available on Netflix. He is also author of the book, How to Oust a Congressman, about his experience organizing the ouster of a member of Congress from New Hampshire in the 2012 elections. Carl has been profiled in Fox Business, Marketwatch, and Crikey.com. Carl has been a guest on MSNBC and many other political discussion forums. Follow him on Twitter at @uncutCG.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+188 # Ausmar 2015-02-06 16:23
Another good reason for weaning ourselves from our dependence on Saudi oil. Indeed, another good reason for promoting alternative sources of energy. Good for national security, good for the environment.
 
 
+3 # Peace Anonymous 2015-02-07 01:21
I agree, however, if you think that living without the need of Saudi oil is the solution then I am missing something. Why would the Saudis invest billions to train jihadists if their only goal was to force the US to become self-sufficient in oil? How is it that the 2 biggest allies for the US in the Middle East - Israel and Saudi - are so (at least publicly) diametrically opposed to each other? You may think this is good for national security but the oil industry may have been the only thing that kept the peace. Time will tell.
 
 
+22 # Granny Weatherwax 2015-02-08 13:43
You get it the other way around.
They use US dependence to finance the spreading of their ideology.

As for the opposition between the Saudis and Israel, it is less and less obvious - Israel and the Saudis make common cause on their common enemy, namely the coalition of Shiite they refer to as "the crescent" which goes from Hezballah in Lebanon to Iran through northern Syria and Iraq. the recent killing of a Hezballah chief together with an Iranian general in northern Golan by Israeli drones when they were observing ISIS position (radical Sunni supported by the Saudis) should tell you something.
 
 
-22 # jdd 2015-02-08 19:18
We should have gone nuclear long ago. But that's beside the point. We can bankrupt the Saudis anytime. Hey, McCain, where's the big sanctions lobby. Sanctions are being used against the wrong country. The royals would cave in quickly as they have nothing to offer except oil. We can offer Nuremburg trials, and maybe we'll seize a few bank accounts.
 
 
+6 # reiverpacific 2015-02-08 20:13
Quoting jdd:
We should have gone nuclear long ago. But that's beside the point. We can bankrupt the Saudis anytime. Hey, McCain, where's the big sanctions lobby. Sanctions are being used against the wrong country. The royals would cave in quickly as they have nothing to offer except oil. We can offer Nuremburg trials, and maybe we'll seize a few bank accounts.

Eh????
 
 
+4 # ritawalpoleague 2015-02-09 03:15
Soooo well stated, Ausmar. The fossil 'foolers' must be recognized as the 'greed and need for power over all' evil 'kill at will' devils that they actually are, and gotten out of their control via clean renewable energy, if Mother Earth and all life on it have a chance at surviving.
 
 
+62 # ericlipps 2015-02-06 18:32
Quote:
Moussaoui’s testimony is problematic for both the U.S. and Saudi governments. Ever since Richard Nixon was president, the Saudis have maintained a close relationship with every president who’s occupied the White House. They even used that access to fly out members of the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family when the FAA grounded all commercial and private flights (including flights for both former president Bill Clinton and former vice president Al Gore). These flights were granted permission to leave, and despite the potential for the two dozen members of the bin Laden family aboard those flights to provide invaluable information about where Osama bin Laden was hiding or the depth of his network, those family members were never interviewed by the FBI.
Despite, or because?
 
 
+2 # RICHARDKANEpa 2015-02-08 18:18
His testimony is problematic because his goal in what he chooses to say is to replace the Saudi government with one that won't compromise with the West.

US troops then on Saudi soil was the straw that led al Qaeda to attack in Saudi Arabia. Moussaoui changed his statements back and forth seeking death. An excerpt from the time-line follows:
March 27, 2006:
In a major blow to his defense, Moussaoui tells the court that he was training to attack the White House in a fifth hijacked plane on Sept. 11, and was to be accompanied on the mission by British shoe bomber Richard Reid. Under cross-examinati on, Moussaoui says that he did not know exactly when the attacks on New York and Washington were to take place, but that he lied to investigators after his arrest to ensure that they would be carried out.
 
 
+57 # jdd 2015-02-06 18:39
Oil is not the issue. Terrorism is. The US cannot be blackmailed by the Saudis. As Sen. Graham said, we know they did it and they know we know. Yet nothing is done. So, the Saudis continue to be the sponsors of wahabist terrorism worldwide, dragging the US into its wars and threatening destablizing governments.
 
 
+80 # motamanx 2015-02-06 19:52
Did the Saudis send the USAF flying away in all directions except where the hijacked planes were? Did the Saudis plant all that thermite in WTC? Did the Saudis "pull" Building 7? We are not even close to finding out who did it. The 757 that hit the Pentagon was never found. Yet nothing is done, as you said.
 
 
+47 # itchyvet 2015-02-06 22:17
Spot on motamanx, funny that no ever asked questions of who ordered the USAF on that day. Nor the ones who were involved in the security of the towers, (Israeli company)And building SEVEN, ?
WOW, American do not even know it ever existed. LOL.
 
 
+7 # REDPILLED 2015-02-08 18:21
You may be aware that a few months ago, Architects and Engineers fot 9/11 Truth had a large billboard set up near Times Square & the NY Times building in NY City. It asked, "Did you know a THIRD building collapsed on 9/11?" and it gave the web site for AE9/11 Truth. It was there for many days, in the busiest area of Manhattan, so who knows how many people, especially tourists, saw it.
 
 
0 # Reyn 2015-02-09 12:23
Some of us do - I used to walk by it sometimes when I lived and worked in NYC
 
 
-5 # aaheart 2015-02-08 22:38
It wasn't thermite or nanothermite because neither one EXPLODES buildings...doe s a good job of cutting steel, though. It was done by W54 pits from remanufactured nuclear weapons stolen by Israel from Pantex. We are very close to knowing who did it and just need subpoena power to begin the interrogation begin the arrests.
 
 
+22 # dquandle 2015-02-07 12:11
Obviously the US can indeed be, and in fact, is, blackmailed by the Saudis, and has been for decades, with full collusion by whatever filthy US regime is in power.
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2015-02-09 21:40
No, dquandle, what is obvious is that you are hot to believe the most dubious kind of rubbish from a known liar and treat it as holy gospel as long as it allows you to defame the United States of America.
 
 
-5 # lfeuille 2015-02-08 21:08
Quoting jdd:
Oil is not the issue. Terrorism is. The US cannot be blackmailed by the Saudis. As Sen. Graham said, we know they did it and they know we know. Yet nothing is done. So, the Saudis continue to be the sponsors of wahabist terrorism worldwide, dragging the US into its wars and threatening destablizing governments.


Nothing is done because of oil.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2015-02-10 18:15
Nothing is accomplished, thanks to oil. Nothing is ever improved, thanks to oil.
 
 
+1 # motamanx 2015-02-11 12:06
If oil were to be used exclusively as a LUBRICANT as it was intended to be, there would be enough of it to last forever. Burning it for energy is like eating the seed corn.
 
 
+24 # Peace Anonymous 2015-02-08 22:08
The 3 primary goals of the US military is to sell weapons, control oil, and control drugs. Nobody "drags" the US into wars - they go willingly because there is no profit in peace. With no enemy there is no war. Why do we keep trying to convince ourselves we have the higher ground? That we are somehow not quite as depraved as those we have labeled our enemy. And through all of this millions have died while the wealthy around the world play their games in an effort to accumulate more. They are addicted to greed, war, and the desire for power. All of it is immoral and unacceptable.
 
 
+55 # Jayceecool 2015-02-06 18:40
Yet another example of American exceptionalism: Americans are exceptionally venal...
 
 
+73 # wwway 2015-02-06 18:47
Should we be surprised? This was suspected at the time.
We've left Syria alone for years because oil interests pipelines run through the country. We have turned a blind eye to terrorist training camps along the route.
And then there's Israel who gets to claim nuclear ambiguity when we know full well that it has nuclear weapons. When is US Foreign policy going to fess up and own up? Never. The world works with strange bedfellows.
 
 
+44 # Johnny 2015-02-06 18:49
The Saudis had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Neither did Mossad. Neither did the neocons in the Bush regime. It was the tooth fairy done it.
 
 
+52 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2015-02-06 19:25
Why do you think Bush and Cheney are tooth fairies?
 
 
+9 # dquandle 2015-02-07 12:14
cuz they and the subsequent equally obscene Obama regime have continually, and murderously, lied through their teeth...
 
 
+6 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2015-02-08 19:26
Wonder why, shortly after 9/11 certain if not all wealthy Saudi families in America were given flight plans to get out of the U.S. while out going aircraft were grounded for everyone else.
 
 
+2 # bmiluski 2015-02-09 10:53
You're right to ask Eldon. And it was something that I've been asking myself. Above it all.....I keep seeing Bush crossing the White House lawn holding hands with a Saudi prince.
 
 
+104 # ligonlaw 2015-02-06 19:14
We knew that nearly all of the 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi, and we knew that on September 12, 2001, charter flights carried Saudi royalty and bin Laden family members out of the US airspace when no American was allowed to fly and all civilian flights were grounded. The flights were approved at the highest level of the Bush government. We also knew that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Bin Laden was a Saudi who inherited millions from his father, a Saudi connected to the Royal family. This was no intelligence failure.
 
 
+30 # Adoregon 2015-02-06 22:48
The stink that won't go away...

http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/

http://digwithin.net/2014/03/16/28-missing-pages/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/12/the-missing-pages-of-the-9-11-report.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/01/former-senator-says-huge-breakthrough-is-coming-with-classified-911-information/

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages


uh, how can you "connect the dots" when 28 pages of "dots" are missing?
This issue has been fermenting for a while. Let's see how long it takes congress to release the missing 28 pages.
 
 
+3 # aaheart 2015-02-08 22:46
We were promised evidence to substantiate that allegation about the 19 Arab hijackers, remember? Never happened. Because there weren't any. Several of the alleged hijackers complained after 9-11 that their photos and names had made them falsely associated with a horrible crime. Two of them had had their passports stolen and reported lost. One of them had died years before. FBI Director Mueller admitted that ID theft might be involved.
 
 
+57 # fredboy 2015-02-06 19:19
Yes, it was obvious the day of the attack that the Bush Administration was either afraid of or beholden to the Saudis. Thus justice in the form of a complete criminal investigation was thwarted and prevented by the victim nation--and all of us let it happen. We are their oil servants...
 
 
+51 # Archie1954 2015-02-06 19:24
All this article is saying is that the US government is complicit in the 9/11 horror and all for money!
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2015-02-08 21:16
Quoting Archie1954:
All this article is saying is that the US government is complicit in the 9/11 horror and all for money!


That is over-simplifyin g a bit. We should have been transitioning to renewals starting before 911 but we weren't. Because we weren't our economy was totally dependent on oil. It's easy to say that is just money, but a tanked economy destroys the livelihoods of millions of people. Money for millionaires and billionaires is one thing but money that ordinary people depend on for survival is another. It's always the people on the bottom that suffer the most.
 
 
+1 # bmiluski 2015-02-09 10:57
Ifeulle.....The transition from oil to renewable energy is going to be a gradual thing. However, with gwbush in the WH, the transition was set back by decades while China, India, and other countries leaped ahead.
 
 
+13 # Misterioso 2015-02-06 19:50
I detest the Saudi royal family. However, given the fact that Saudi Arabia is dependent on good relations with the US for its survival, I do not believe that its upper echelon was involved in 9/11. It makes no sense. But I have no difficulty in believing that wealthy Saudis may have contributed financially to the attack.
 
 
+9 # dquandle 2015-02-07 12:15
yeah, wealthy Saudis up to and including the king, ministers, and members of the royal family...
 
 
+2 # Misterioso 2015-02-08 19:58
And to what end?

We know from his statements prior to 9/11 that among Bin Laden's main grievances was Saudi Arabia's dependence on the US. American aircraft carriers are constantly patrolling the Straits of Hormuz and have spent about $8 trillion doing so over the years. Indeed, because Saudi Arabia sits on the world's largest reserve of easily and inexpensively accessible oil, the US has pledged to be its royal family's ultimate protector. In effect, they were/are joined at the hip.

To repeat, it makes no sense for the king, the royal family or ministers to have been involved in 9/11.
 
 
+8 # aaheart 2015-02-08 23:34
If neocons in government positions can get multiple wars going for the military-indust rial complex, there is big money to be made by war and destruction, because construction to replace damaged infrastructure is also profitable. War is the money machine and neocons know who can pay their fees. You keep resisting the obvious...9-11 was an inside job that included home-grown psychopaths as well as Israelis, Saudis, and other. Remember Dick Cheney in the Situation Room snapping at the corpsman asking if orders had changed...WHAT ORDERS? Know any more murderous psychopaths in government...yo u often see them as the talking heads on news shows.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2015-02-09 03:01
Misterioso--Nic e logical approach.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2015-02-09 10:58
I agree because let's not forget,
Bin Laden was a rich/upper echelon Saudi.
 
 
-22 # MidwesTom 2015-02-06 20:22
Why not change horses and go to the Iraqi's; or was that the original plan why we invaded Iraq? Between Iraq and our own 'oil from fracking, we can live with out Saudi oil. Iraqi's are more like us than the Saudi's anyway.
 
 
+39 # Billy Bob 2015-02-07 13:58
Why not REALLY "change horses" and stop using the filthy sludge altogether? Oops, I just spilled a little sunshine and wind all over my yard. Doesn't have the same impact, does it?
 
 
+12 # reiverpacific 2015-02-08 18:55
Quoting MidwesTom:
Why not change horses and go to the Iraqi's; or was that the original plan why we invaded Iraq? Between Iraq and our own 'oil from fracking, we can live with out Saudi oil. Iraqi's are more like us than the Saudi's anyway.

What a lot of bloody cobblers!
"Frackin'?? You're frickin' kiddin', right (But you're not are ya)???
Iraq is a failed nation divided and run by warlords with portions under ISL's cheerful dominion, thanks to that lying pack of cowards and neocons figureheaded by Dimwits of the Shrubbery die-nasty that got the US and UK into the wreckage of a former cradle of civilization in the first place.
Tell you what: explain to us here on RSN how you'd go about bleeding Iraq any more than has been done already, and which of the many ruling factions are so "Like us" that they'd even discuss the subject with the fading Empire and how it would benefit them or us (Another "Shock and Awe"???).
Then allow one of the extractive behemoths to undertake the Friggin' Fracking under YOUR home and place of work (as Cameron is trying to do in England but has been banned from Scotland), let us know how it goes blow-by-blow and we'll maybe take notice of y'r specious (and that's putting it politely) theorem of self-sufficienc y.
Y'r horses all seem to be nags with the botts and glanders!
Again -unless you're just kiddin' around, you naughty little Tom-boy you.
 
 
+41 # Yakpsyche 2015-02-06 20:38
The entire article is based on the premise that the airplanes downed the twin towers. This is patently false, as even the government's official report says ("highly unlikely"). Check out the physics. The THREE towers were brought down with planted explosives (thermite), in a very orderly, computer controlled manner. (For details see what architects and engineers have to say, at this URL, http://www.ae911truth.org). Saudi pilots and the role of the Saudis in helping whoever was finally responsible by providing some clowns to pilot sacrifice airplanes to provide a cover for the official story is of little relevancy. The real story is not there, but in details like, who planted the thermite? Who wired it? Who tripped the explosive building collapse sequence?
 
 
+33 # futhark 2015-02-07 10:40
All these details could be determined with relative ease if there was a public will to learn the truth about 9/11 and deal with it objectively, including holding those who actually planned and executed the attacks accountable in a criminal court. As a nation we would also have to come to terms with the slaughter of innocents, the naked aggression against nations that posed no tangible threat to us, and the erosion of our liberty consequent to the attacks.

There are many people and organizations out there who are doing the work needed to heal America. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is certainly providing important critiques of the official accepted scenario for 9/11, which is revealed to be a total hoax when investigated objectively. Kevin Ryan's book "Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects" (2014) presents not only the known facts of 9/11 not consistent with the official version, but also the connections among the real perpetrators going back to the Reagan years.

The progressive community as a whole needs to become more aware of the fact that 9/11 was more a manifestation of a home-grown political cancer than a result of ethically questionable international relations.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2015-02-09 03:06
And who has proved thermite brought any of the buildings down?
 
 
+53 # DurangoKid 2015-02-06 21:09
Can we just get down to business and find out how Building 7 came down? Who had the means, motive, and opportunity to bring Building 7 down in an apparent controlled demolition? This droning on about the Saudis is nonsense. Are we to believe box cutters defeated NORAD? Did Newtonian mechanics take a holiday on 9/11? Did a series of one in a million accidents add up to the collapse of a steel framed skyscraper? The PNAC mob would have us believe they got lottery ticket lucky that day. A perfect storm of carnage and fear to unleash their lust for a perpetual war against a concept? How many layers of doublethink are at work here? The mind boggles.
 
 
+50 # Old Uncle Dave 2015-02-06 21:11
Which one of the magic muslim hijackers ordered the stand-down of the pentagon's defense systems?
 
 
+10 # dquandle 2015-02-07 12:17
the one sitting in the joint chiefs of staff...
 
 
+11 # JSRaleigh 2015-02-07 19:17
Quoting Old Uncle Dave:
Which one of the magic muslim hijackers ordered the stand-down of the pentagon's defense systems?


None of them had to order it.

The NORAD exercise was scheduled in advance. They only had to know WHEN it was going to take place to take advantage of it.
 
 
+6 # jdd 2015-02-08 19:30
Bingo.
 
 
+5 # aaheart 2015-02-09 00:15
Who told them WHEN Norad was going to do the exercises? Who was going to guarantee no problems from flying over reserved military air space? Who told them that air traffic control would be seeing fake blips on their screens? Who told them that most of the fighter-interce ptors in the NE would be busy in Alaska? Who told them that Cheney and Rumsfeld had changed rules of engagement for interception? INSIDE JOB.
 
 
+3 # jdd 2015-02-08 19:29
These are legitimate questions but as Sen. Graham suggested, they won't even be asked as long as Obama is able to suppress the 28pages and stick to the official story. It is clear that the 911 organizers had knowledge of US security codes, but the suppressed chapter deals with the cozy relationship top Saudi officials had with the Bush administration and are still regarded in the White House as top allies. Remember, bin Laden and co. were creatures of the CIA, MI6, etc. and given all kinds of security clearances. And still are.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2015-02-11 22:29
Of course bin Laden will have a hard time using his clearances now, won't he?
 
 
+14 # brenda 2015-02-06 22:01
It's all about oil, Israel, and the US Multimillionair e Oil Oligarchs. In truth, the blood of three thousand innocent people is to be laid at the feet of the murderous Saudi Arabian Royalty.
 
 
+7 # aaheart 2015-02-09 00:27
AND laid at the feet of Israelis and their buddies in the Bush Administration ... Saudis are an attempt at deflection.
 
 
+6 # bmiluski 2015-02-09 11:03
Not exactly Brenda......the blood of three thousand innocent people is to be laid at the feet of the murderous GWBUSH, CHENEY AND THE AMERICAN OIL CARTELS with the help of the Saudis.
 
 
+32 # Floe 2015-02-06 22:02
Great article! Thank you. I hope we catch the perpetrators of 9/11 with their pants down. That will be a spectacle worth waiting for. I'm sure the families of the victims of 9/11 are waiting for it too.
 
 
+34 # itchyvet 2015-02-06 22:23
Consider the following ;
"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief." - Frantz Fanon (Very relevant on the issue of 911. in the U.S this is why the people of the U.S. are unable to even consider, their own Government carried out this crime.)
 
 
+25 # aaheart 2015-02-06 22:55
There you go again, Carl...posting photos of people alleged by the FBI to have hijacked four planes...but Abdulaziz Al-Omari was upset that his photo and name were used in association with the "Attack on America." Over 13 years ago, he complained, but still you and others who haven't done their homework so you continue to blame him. Mr Al-Omari said he was a student in Denver during the mid-1990s, and that his passport and other papers were stolen in a burglary in the US in 1996.
"Al-Omari has since been found in Saudi Arabia and is apparently cleared in the case" - New York Times

Salem Al-Hazmi is alive and indignant. not one of the people who perished in the American Airlines flight that crashed on the Pentagon. He works at a government-owne d petroleum and chemical plant in the city of Yanbu.

He said 13 years ago that he had not left Saudi Arabia for two years, but that his passport had been stolen by a pickpocket in Cairo three years ago.

Waleed Al-Shehri, is living in Casablanca, according to an official with the Royal Air Moroc, the Moroccan commercial airline. Al-Shehri lived in Dayton Beach, FL where he took flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Now he works for a Moroccan airline." On Sept. 22, 2001, AP reported that Alshehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.

Waleed Al Shehri - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

We might not know who did 9-11, but we can imagine who wanted us to think it was Arabs.
 
 
+16 # FDRva 2015-02-06 23:50
I get concerned when folks complain about 'the US' or 'the government' in general terms. Let us be more specific.

'The government' of 'the US' under President W. Bush did not act--and under Pres. Obama is not apt to act on this matter because of financial/intel ligence community relationships those two figures share. Those overlap more in London than Riyadh.

Do not be misled by the variations in political marketing between the two Presidents.
 
 
+26 # Peace Anonymous 2015-02-07 01:06
The difference between the Bush and Obama administration is what? America thinks it has a 2 party system with all the same corporations owning both parties. Sorry. The sooner you stop the Democrat vs Republican argument the sooner you can address the real problem: Get business out of government.
 
 
+6 # dquandle 2015-02-07 12:18
the difference is nonexistent
 
 
+4 # aaheart 2015-02-09 00:41
The difference is irrelevant, a distraction to hide the true effect of the tactic and the warp and woof of the strategy.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2015-02-09 03:11
"Get business out of government": and your plan for this is?
 
 
+30 # Peace Anonymous 2015-02-07 01:03
Israel, Saudi, and the USA has always made for a strange relationship in the Middle East. The common denominator - money. Questions not answered: Was there collusion between the US and the Saudis regarding 9/11 because, after all, Bush & Company needed a good reason to invade Iraq?

Many of the problems we deal with today date back to post WW II when the US, UK, France and Russia carved up the map of the world based on what they wanted and without consideration for anyone else. Israel was born and forced into the mix - not that Israel is a bad thing but the issue regarding the Palestinian people was never fully addressed and poses a huge problem to this day.

I have come to believe that when the wealthy gather doing the right thing takes a back seat to power and greed. And I don't think there exists any political leadership in this world which, even for a second, considers the well being of the people anywhere. All I have to do is follow the money, which leads to the big question: Can this continue?

Each of us, as individuals, must examine our world. If war is not the right thing why do we support it? Why do we keep doing the same things, over and over, expecting different results?
 
 
+12 # Helen Marshall 2015-02-07 16:01
Israel was born in the Zionist project more than 50 years before the end of WWII. It was the last European colonial project, and was created with collusion from US actors as well, such as Felix Frankfurter. It had caused enormous destruction in its region since Israeli forces expelled Palestinians from their villages in the Nabka. I'd say that there's enough there to consider "a bad thing" as an appropriate term.
 
 
+16 # torch and pitchfork 2015-02-07 05:48
All this leads me to believe that we shouldn't be going to war with people that have been playing chess since the 15th Century. The World Trade Center was attacked for it's symbolism of how America conducts business. I highly recommend everyone see the thought provoking documentary 9/11 Press for Truth. It lays out the timeline of events without proselytizing and makes you think for yourself. As to the game of Chess-- "The poet al-Katib once said, “The skilled player places his pieces in such a way as to discover consequences that the ignorant man never sees... thus, he serves the Sultan’s interests, by showing how to foresee disaster.” ---Wikipedia.
 
 
+13 # corals33 2015-02-07 10:54
[quote name="torch and pitchfork"]All this leads me to believe that we shouldn't be going to war with people that have been playing chess since the 15th Century.
Quote of the month for me. Check.
 
 
+16 # LevD 2015-02-07 06:11
The one indisputable fact which emerges with this article for me is the monumental evangelical effort on the part of the Saudis to promote Wahhabism. Although the article does not mention this, clearly it had a lot to do with countering communism in the seventies (as well as Iran later on, which the article does mention)and therefore fitted in neatly with US objectives (most notably in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the seventies).

The oil angle is also very interesting. Ironically the price of oil has now collapsed while oil states traditionally opposed to the US, like Venezuela and Iran, are in economic trouble. One wonders what the Saudi gameplan is in all this. As we know the Saudis are now worried by the new Iran-influenced regime which has taken over in neighbouring Yemen.

It will be very interesting to learn more from the congressional report about Saudi 9/11 involvement and the FBI probe of Saudis who supported 9/11 hijackers in Florida, if and when they are released.
 
 
+16 # dquandle 2015-02-07 12:22
The US state department, led by the despicable John Kerry, made a deal with the Saudis to decrease oil prices and hold them down, in order to try to subvert the Russian economy, in concert with US and European sanctions against Russia, and also, to subvert the Venezuelan economy, as the Obama regime again attempts to foment a coup there, with the NYT leading the eternal propaganda campaign.
 
 
+15 # Helen Marshall 2015-02-07 16:03
Correct. The oil price did not "collapse." It was driven down by specific action; the Saudis have their own reasons for going after Russia as well, as Putin has been an ally of Assad, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the USG had the major hand in this. We can only hope that some European states get cold feet about this rush to war in time. The neocons running this government will not.
 
 
-5 # LevD 2015-02-08 19:31
@Helen Marshall I have much in common with where you are coming from. However, as I said to @dquandle, while I agree that it does seem suspicious that the oil price should go down so far and so fast, I have no evidence of specific actions undertaken by the Saudis and/or the US which could have led to this. If you have any such evidence please produce it because otherwise you are weakening your own argument by making what might look like speculative assertions unsupported by factual evidence.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2015-02-08 21:30
Quoting LevD:
@Helen Marshall I have much in common with where you are coming from. However, as I said to @dquandle, while I agree that it does seem suspicious that the oil price should go down so far and so fast, I have no evidence of specific actions undertaken by the Saudis and/or the US which could have led to this. If you have any such evidence please produce it because otherwise you are weakening your own argument by making what might look like speculative assertions unsupported by factual evidence.


The Saudi's increase output so the price would go down hoping to run shale oil producers out of business because it is much more expensive than the sweet crude they have. No doubt they will cut production and thus raise prices again if they succeed. It cuts both ways for the US. Consumers are happy with lower gas prices, but the US also has shale oil production that is being squeezed. And the stock market hates low oil prices. It has started to go up again because of hits that oil prices have bottomed out.
 
 
0 # LevD 2015-02-09 05:27
The latest figures I have been able to get are that Saudi crude oil production in November 2014 stood at 9.74M tonnes. This is down from an historic high of 10.04M tonnes in July 2013. No doubt your argument makes sense up to a point but I think there are other extra-economic factors also involved in the geopolitics of the oil industry.
 
 
0 # LevD 2015-02-08 19:25
@dquandle while I clearly don't disagree with you, it would help if you were more specific. How exactly have oil prices been "held down"? By the Saudis increasing production? The reason I mentioned the "oil angle" in my contribution is that like you I have my suspicions about what the Saudis (and the US) are up to but I am not going to speculate as to what that might be in the absence of supporting evidence.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2015-02-08 21:31
Quoting LevD:
@dquandle while I clearly don't disagree with you, it would help if you were more specific. How exactly have oil prices been "held down"? By the Saudis increasing production? The reason I mentioned the "oil angle" in my contribution is that like you I have my suspicions about what the Saudis (and the US) are up to but I am not going to speculate as to what that might be in the absence of supporting evidence.


Supply and demand. Oil is a global market. The higher the supply, the lower the price.
 
 
+2 # LevD 2015-02-09 05:33
I don't think you understand the questions I was raising. As a graduate from the London School of Economics I know a little bit about supply and demand. However as a student of the history of economic thought I also know that there is a lot more to economic valuation than simply supply and demand. My question was directed at @dquandle - I was asking him to provide supporting evidence for his contention (which I find plausible) that oil prices have been deliberately held down by the US and Saudi Arabia in the pursuit of their strategic interests against countries like Russia, Venezuela and Iran.
 
 
+21 # corals33 2015-02-07 10:31
Thank God so many people are waking up to the lies and deception we have to put up with every day. It is so good to read the comments on this page and realise that there are still sensible, intelligent people who refuse to go along just to get along. Utterly refreshing to see the weight of opinion against the "mickey Mouse" explanations of those who should know better.
 
 
+1 # corals33 2015-02-07 10:46
Religion under any guise or banner is actually a statement of failure. It is Mankind admitting that we are no longer capable of handling our own affairs and need the help of some or any supernatural entity to make our decisions for us.The very fact that "politicians" are comfortable being described as Ministers, Prime or any other kind boldly emphasizes who they religiously serve.The Holy Trinity is mankind's thoughts, actions and the consequences.Th at's the Triangle that puts us "On The Square".Amen and A Womb-men.
 
 
+1 # perkinsej 2015-02-07 11:38
Nothing new here. We knew about this all along. But after 9/11 the money was cut off, which helps to explain why USA has remained safe for more than a decade.
 
 
+4 # gdsharpe 2015-02-07 18:09
This is news?
Didn't we know this in 2002?
 
 
-13 # rradiof 2015-02-07 21:49
Carl Gibson and his followers are such squares. Quit quibbling. Are you Experienced? No doubt. Paris 1871, mofo. Over and out.
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2015-02-11 20:22
Quoting rradiof:
Carl Gibson and his followers are such squares. Quit quibbling. Are you Experienced? No doubt. Paris 1871, mofo. Over and out.


Eh????
 
 
+7 # Robbee 2015-02-07 23:01
way back when chrysler bought jeep, lee iacoca said: when you marry someone, you marry warts and all

our economy is wedded to saudi arabia's, warts and all

while bush was prez and until now (except for the year 2008 leading up to obama's election - saudis were promoting bush's economy and mccain's candidacy with low prices), saudis turned the oil taps down, enabling opec to charge over $100 per barrel crude, allowing oil companies to earn record profits every year (despite pumping less every year) while we paid trillions too much to keep our economy rolling - trying to steam ahead while dragging anchor

the wart on saudis current favor of keeping the taps open while it suits them (they are driving high price american shale and canadian tar sands crude out of business), like now, is that they love to gift profits from what they sell to fundamentalist wahabi jihads, their people. we are too dependent on saudi taps to dare offend them - no matter what the cost, in money terms it's far too small to risk our precious relationship with the controllers of the taps
 
 
+18 # DaveM 2015-02-08 18:38
I seem to recall Jimmy Carter declaring that oil imports would be frozen immediately and that the government would fund research and development of renewable energy sources and other means that would allow the United States to achieve energy independence. Had this happened, the Middle East would have long since ceased to have any significance to the United States.

Carter called his proposal "the moral equivalent of war".


He lost the next election, of course, and as far as the "war" is concerned, America appears to have defaulted.

There is of course a great deal of renewable energy equipment being manufactured, at prices lower than could be imagined in the mid-70s. Virtually all of it is made in China.
 
 
+7 # ChrisCurrie 2015-02-08 18:49
The fact the Saudi Arabians helped fund El Queada doesn't necessarily mean that they were aware of El Queada's plan to destroy the World Trade Center Towers. The fact that so many Saudi Arabians needed to be "spirited out" of the US after that attack indicates that they didn't know about such an attack. If they did, they would have arranged to be out of the US before that attack occurred.
 
 
-7 # Above God 2015-02-08 19:03
The Bushes keep the price of oil above $100/ barrel as payback to corporate oil supporting the Republicans. Why bring down the twin towers? To kill as many Jews as possible w/o detection or a trail back to the Saudi Royal family. It worked!
 
 
+1 # jdd 2015-02-08 19:04
The author's premise is ridiculous.The Saudis won't cut off oil to anybody, selling oil is the basis of their wealth. When Obama is forced to release the 28-pages of the 911 report detailing Saudi financing of the greatest attack to ever occur on US soil, there will be a revolution in US foreign policy once it is understood how some of that oil revenue is being used.
 
 
+4 # jdd 2015-02-08 19:10
The Saudis were whisked out of the US to avoid questioning as this would have led to exposure. Don't you think it odd that ONLY they were allowed to leave the country. In any case it is silly to be giving them a free pass while it is clear so much information has already been suppressed. What are you afraid of learning? That everything you thought our foreign policy was based upon turns out to be a lie, that the US was simply providing the dead bodies for the wahabist jihad. It's still going on. In Iraq, Syria, Chechnya and Paris. Wake up.
 
 
+9 # Robbee 2015-02-08 20:43
imagine an america not based on the greatest good for the smallest number
 
 
-9 # WaaDoo 2015-02-09 08:38
Gibson could have just reported the facts without his Leftist/Sociali st bias of using the Koch Bros. as an illustration. This goon chose the Koch Bros. to cast a shadow of suspicion over the Republican Party. The Dems have the Tom Streyers on their side w/ the same subterfuge.

Call the Saudis for what they are. Get independent of the oil. Let them drink their oil !
 
 
0 # Acuda4me 2015-02-09 11:30
"Probably?" That's a pretty low journalistic bar.
 
 
0 # jederfr7 2015-02-10 09:10
The Saudis were in the Us on 9/1/1 because they were at a meeting of the Carlyle group
that George Bush senior also worked for
 
 
+1 # motamanx 2015-02-11 12:18
That's not enough reason to fly them all away without asking them a few questions first.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN