NYTimes: "Documents Back Saudi Link to Extremists"

[ElMondoHummus]

Story in the New York Times today:

Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles...

... Allegations of Saudi links to terrorism have been the subject of years of government investigations and furious debate. Critics have said that some members of the Saudi ruling class pay off terrorist groups in part to keep them from being more active in their own country.

But the thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents compiled by lawyers for the Sept. 11 families and their insurers represented an unusually detailed look at some of the evidence.

Internal Treasury Department (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/treasury_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org) documents obtained by the lawyers under the Freedom of Information Act, for instance, said that a prominent Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, showed “support for terrorist organizations” at least through 2006.

A self-described Qaeda operative in Bosnia said in an interview with lawyers in the lawsuit that another charity largely controlled by members of the royal family, the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, provided money and supplies to the terrorist group in the 1990s and hired militant operatives like himself.


No commentary on my part yet, since I've yet to digest this. And also since I'm multitasking and a bit busy right now, so I'm just posting it for everyone else's edification. Discuss!

ETA: D'oh! Link -
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

[Macgyver1968]

As acting head of NWO-ME ..I guess my department forgot to cover this up...my bad. You know..since the Saudi Royal family is Jewish and all. :)

[Gravy]

To me the extent of Saudi government involvement in financing terrorism is the most interesting of the unanswered questions about 9/11. I hope this stuff is made public, sooner rather than later. (And isn't it supposed to be unpossible for such embarrassing revelations to squeak through the NWO Wall of Secrecy at all?) The article also states, "The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001."

[TruthersLie]

This article while informative is not really ground breaking.

I live and work in the UAE. And it is a known fact that money is laundered from the Saudi's to AlQ and other terrorists organizations in the guise of "humanitarian aid" or "public donations" for "charity."

So while it is interesting to finally SEE the money trail, it is certainly understood here.

[T.A.M.]

To me the extent of Saudi government involvement in financing terrorism is the most interesting of the unanswered questions about 9/11. I hope this stuff is made public, sooner rather than later. (And isn't it supposed to be unpossible for such embarrassing revelations to squeak through the NWO Wall of Secrecy at all?) The article also states, "The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001."

Amen.

TAM:)

[BigAl]

To me the extent of Saudi government involvement in financing terrorism is the most interesting of the unanswered questions about 9/11. I hope this stuff is made public, sooner rather than later. (And isn't it supposed to be unpossible for such embarrassing revelations to squeak through the NWO Wall of Secrecy at all?) The article also states, "The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001."

You can substitute "Saudi royal family" (Reportedly about 5000 of them) for "Saudi government" and from what I read, they are all independent operators unless the King tells them otherwise. On a tangent, the bin Laden family were not members of the Saudi family.

[ElMondoHummus]

To me the extent of Saudi government involvement in financing terrorism is the most interesting of the unanswered questions about 9/11. I hope this stuff is made public, sooner rather than later. (And isn't it supposed to be unpossible for such embarrassing revelations to squeak through the NWO Wall of Secrecy at all?) The article also states, "The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001."

This article while informative is not really ground breaking.

I live and work in the UAE. And it is a known fact that money is laundered from the Saudi's to AlQ and other terrorists organizations in the guise of "humanitarian aid" or "public donations" for "charity."

So while it is interesting to finally SEE the money trail, it is certainly understood here.

Yes, true, this is indeed not quite new information, nor is it a firm, direct link to the House of Saud. But, it does seem to confirm elements that other authors, like Wright (The Looming Tower (http://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/B001H4K15M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245881515&sr=1-2)), Coll (Ghost Wars (http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076)) and a few others have mentioned.

Gravy, from what I remember - correct me if I'm wrong; it's been a while since I've looked into this - there wasn't a whole lot of proof of actual Saudi "government" funding as much as there were ministers helping shepard the funds and recruit volunteers for "charity" work, supposedly on their own, outside the government (yeah, right :rolleyes:... but my point is that there's no real link pinning it on the government itself, save for the exception I mention below). That other government members provided the "funding" (supposedly out of their own pocket... again, yeah right :rolleyes:) and helped shepard things along was sort of a hush-hush thing, not mentioned out loud, but unfortunately also not really provable. The point is that I sort of recall the "plausible deniability" script saying that the government didn't provide resources, but private individuals did (insert 3rd eye roll here :D). That's how I recall what's known, but it's been about a year since I've read much of this stuff, so my memory's hazy. I do recall that for Afghanistan, however, there was open government involvement; one of the books I read got into the story of how Prince Turki was even dispatched to rein bin Laden in. The Saudi involvement was that open. But that was Afghanistan. For everything else, I think, much of it is suspected, and reasonable to conclude, but unfortunately not actually provable.

TruthersLie, yeah, the fact that these "charities" are involved is one of the worst kept secrets since Charles and Diana's famous marital struggles years ago before their separation and her death. Both the books I invoked and linked above blandly state the involvement of such charities, and I think it's simply their mostly overseas nature that keeps them from really being hounded by the US a couple of years ago. I vaguely recall at least one Islamic charity here stateside getting busted by the FBI, but I'm frustratingly unable to recall any details about it without Googling.

[RedIbis]

Perhaps this will shed some light on the links from al-Hamzi and al-Midhar to al-Biyoumi, and from there, the Saudi Consulate, the Saudi Kingdom and eventually to the Bush administration itself.

At the very least, there was a nearly incomprehensible reason why the Bush administration did not want Saudi involvement exposed.

[T.A.M.]

Perhaps this will shed some light on the links from al-Hamzi and al-Midhar to al-Biyoumi, and from there, the Saudi Consulate, the Saudi Kingdom and eventually to the Bush administration itself.

At the very least, there was a nearly incomprehensible reason why the Bush administration did not want Saudi involvement exposed.

I suspect you might be correct about "al-Hamzi and al-Midhar to al-Biyoumi", and I look forward to all it reveals.

I think you are sadly mistaken if you think their will be any connection that shows the Bush admin new about them, or allowed them into the country.

The reason the Bush admin, and perhaps the Obama admin, do not want to expose Saudi Involvement, would be due to the relationship between the two countries, the delicacy of relations in the middle east, the "oil" factor, and how such exposure would effect all of the above.

Is that incomprehensible?


TAM:)

[TruthersLie]

Red.

Nice jump of logic. from Saudi to the Bush Administration. (But thank you for displaying your anti GWB attitudes. I'd wager you were running around in 2000 saying he "stole" the election.. but that is off topic).

Everyone in this part of the world KNOWS the charities fund terrorists.

The best reasoning that was given to me (by a local Emirati noble) is that the terrorists are like people who live in really bad neighborhoods who own pit bulls and other nasty dogs.

you feed the dogs, and when you walk down the street people leave you alone or they fear you. The terrorists are the same way.

The biggest problem is the fact that these dogs are rabid. Everyone here knows it. But they pay the money anyways.. now to keep from being attacked.

It would help if you even tried to UNDERSTAND how the jihadists minds work, instead of being intellectually lazy and blaming everything on GWB and the NWO.

[RedIbis]

I suspect you might be correct about "al-Hamzi and al-Midhar to al-Biyoumi", and I look forward to all it reveals.

I think you are sadly mistaken if you think their will be any connection that shows the Bush admin new about them, or allowed them into the country.

The reason the Bush admin, and perhaps the Obama admin, do not want to expose Saudi Involvement, would be due to the relationship between the two countries, the delicacy of relations in the middle east, the "oil" factor, and how such exposure would effect all of the above.

Is that incomprehensible?


TAM:)

This isn't the activities of some rogue elements connected to the Saudis, this is support given by operatives in direct contact with Saudi officials and royals, being covered up first by the FBI and next by the administration.

I know you have Shenon's book. Check his accounts of how Commissioner John Lehman was "struck by the determination of the Bush White House to try to hide any evidence of the relationship between the Saudis and al-Qaeda."

If your explanation is true, that the Bush admin. covered up this relationship for geo-political reasons, this was not only criminal, it was a very dangerous act that threatened the security of this country. Agreed?

[FineWine]

This isn't the activities of some rogue elements connected to the Saudis, this is support given by operatives in direct contact with Saudi officials and royals, being covered up first by the FBI and next by the administration.

I know you have Shenon's book. Check his accounts of how Commissioner John Lehman was "struck by the determination of the Bush White House to try to hide any evidence of the relationship between the Saudis and al-Qaeda."

If your explanation is true, that the Bush admin. covered up this relationship for geo-political reasons, this was not only criminal, it was a very dangerous act that threatened the security of this country. Agreed?


Criminal? If the Bush administration realized that Saudi officials were trying to buy off Islamist terrorists but didn't expose them in order to keep them on board, you think this is criminal? Was FDR a criminal for refusing to publicize Stalin's atrocities? Do you ever think before writing?

[RedIbis]

Criminal? If the Bush administration realized that Saudi officials were trying to buy off Islamist terrorists but didn't expose them in order to keep them on board, you think this is criminal? Was FDR a criminal for refusing to publicize Stalin's atrocities? Do you ever think before writing?

Now that's a false analogy. I didn't say anything about Saudis buying off "Islamist terrorists."

[Myriad]

Wait, are you saying that Saudis were responsible for 9/11?

Man, the crazy theories you Truthers come up with! There's no way any cave-dwelling Arabs could have pulled off an operation with such a high, dare I say Mossad-like, degree of precision organization. Try again.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Bobert]

Perhaps this will shed some light on the links from al-Hamzi and al-Midhar to al-Biyoumi, and from there, the Saudi Consulate, the Saudi Kingdom and eventually to the Bush administration itself.

At the very least, there was a nearly incomprehensible reason why the Bush administration did not want Saudi involvement exposed.
wow dude you are talking a stadium to hold all the people that were involved if 9-11 was an inside job but of course the truther response to this is, "oh no just a handful".
:crazy:

[Bobert]

red.

Nice jump of logic. From saudi to the bush administration. (but thank you for displaying your anti gwb attitudes. I'd wager you were running around in 2000 saying he "stole" the election.. But that is off topic).

Everyone in this part of the world knows the charities fund terrorists.

The best reasoning that was given to me (by a local emirati noble) is that the terrorists are like people who live in really bad neighborhoods who own pit bulls and other nasty dogs.

You feed the dogs, and when you walk down the street people leave you alone or they fear you. The terrorists are the same way.

The biggest problem is the fact that these dogs are rabid. Everyone here knows it. But they pay the money anyways.. Now to keep from being attacked.

It would help if you even tried to understand how the jihadists minds work, instead of being intellectually lazy and blaming everything on gwb and the nwo.
who is your handler?!?!?!?!
Shill alert!!!!

[johnny karate]

If your explanation is true, that the Bush admin. covered up this relationship for geo-political reasons, this was not only criminal, it was a very dangerous act that threatened the security of this country.

And one that is being perpetuated by the current administration since the Justice Department is siding with the Saudis. Funny that you're not calling Obama out. I guess it's only a crime when the guy you don't like does it.

[RedIbis]

And one that is being perpetuated by the current administration since the Justice Department is siding with the Saudis. Funny that you're not calling Obama out. I guess it's only a crime when the guy you don't like does it.

It's just my opinion, but I think Obama is savvy enough not to publically address these investigations, while at the same time not obstructing the release of the documents.

As you can see in the article, according to Breitweiser, Obama said he would be willing to have the documents released.

[RedIbis]

Wait, are you saying that Saudis were responsible for 9/11?

Man, the crazy theories you Truthers come up with! There's no way any cave-dwelling Arabs could have pulled off an operation with such a high, dare I say Mossad-like, degree of precision organization. Try again.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I didn't say anything about cave dwelling Arabs, I'm talking about San Diego dwelling Saudis.

[Horatius]

The biggest problem is the fact that these dogs are rabid. Everyone here knows it. But they pay the money anyways.. now to keep from being attacked.




Essentially a modern, Arab version of the Danegeld. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld)


It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

http://jeffersonian.therealgunguys.com/danegeld.html

[Brainster]

The problem is that Osama was raising money for lots of other things than terrorism, and the Saudis can claim that at least prior to 9-11 that's what they thought they were donating to. In terms of the amount of money flowing through Osama's various operations, the amount actually spent on the 9-11 operation was pitifully small.

[johnny karate]

It's just my opinion, but I think Obama is savvy enough not to publically address these investigations, while at the same time not obstructing the release of the documents.


Did you even read the article?
The case has put the Obama administration in the middle of a political and legal dispute, with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court last month in seeking to kill further legal action. Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

Obstruction is exactly what the Obama administration is doing.


As you can see in the article, according to Breitweiser, Obama said he would be willing to have the documents released.


You apparently failed to read any further:
But she said she had not heard from the White House since then.

Obama paid Breitweiser a little lip service while he allowed his Justice Department to do whatever they could to squash this lawsuit.

Tell me Red, if one party commits a crime, then what does that make those who aid in covering up that crime?

[ElMondoHummus]

The problem is that Osama was raising money for lots of other things than terrorism, and the Saudis can claim that at least prior to 9-11 that's what they thought they were donating to. In terms of the amount of money flowing through Osama's various operations, the amount actually spent on the 9-11 operation was pitifully small.

Yes. Just compared to the Afghanistan activities alone where they built fortified tunnels, or the Sudan operations alone where he had multiple front businesses, what they spent to house, pay for flight schools, and buy tickets for the 9/11 hijackers was miniscule.

[T.A.M.]

This isn't the activities of some rogue elements connected to the Saudis, this is support given by operatives in direct contact with Saudi officials and royals, being covered up first by the FBI and next by the administration.

I know you have Shenon's book. Check his accounts of how Commissioner John Lehman was "struck by the determination of the Bush White House to try to hide any evidence of the relationship between the Saudis and al-Qaeda."

If your explanation is true, that the Bush admin. covered up this relationship for geo-political reasons, this was not only criminal, it was a very dangerous act that threatened the security of this country. Agreed?

I have Shenon's book. I recall the quote.

I honestly believe that the Bush admin was/is protecting the Saudi involvement. I do not think it reaches to the level of "State Sponsored Terror", but I think there would be some very serious "dirty laundry" aired, if all the truth were to come out.

If it does, great. No one here wants the truth withheld. As to whether it is criminal, I do not know, I would leave that up to law makers and officials.

I personally think it is a bad thing, but It is not without much, much president, I am sure, if all truth were known. That is not excusing it, of course.

But why should we believe the reports from the MSM like the NY Times...;)

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Wait, are you saying that Saudis were responsible for 9/11?

Man, the crazy theories you Truthers come up with! There's no way any cave-dwelling Arabs could have pulled off an operation with such a high, dare I say Mossad-like, degree of precision organization. Try again.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Yes but in this case, the caves would be plated in gold., and would be fully powered with the blood of little children...right?

TAM;)

[thatsmystory]

For years we have been told that al Qaeda was a independent terrorist group opposed to both the Saudi royal family and the US government. OTOH, journalists, politicians and intel agents have all suggested that there was pressure on US intelligence to back off terrorist investigations linked to Saudi Arabia. Michael Scheuer stated (in a Book TV interview with Steve Coll) that before 9/11 the Saudi royal family supported Bin Laden. Scheuer has previously stated that there were about nine or ten chances to kill Bin Laden before 9/11. Sure looks like al Qaeda wasn't so independent after all.

Peter Lance raises key questions about alleged "triple agent" Ali Mohamed who was supposedly able to fool US agencies for years. Lance also raises good questions about the failed efforts to apprehend KSM.

James Bamford has raised good questions about CIA withholding of al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar information and about bizarre NSA conduct.

Lawrence Wright has raised good questions about CIA withholding of al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar information going so far to characterize this conduct as "tantamount to obstruction of justice (in the Cole investigation)."

Cooperative research has detailed the efforts of Alec Station and the FBI UBLU to obstruct the search for al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar.

It is long overdue for US officials to stop hiding behind all these foreign trails and tell the public the truth. US officials could clear up the confusion in 24 hours if they wanted to do so. Where is their respect for the people murdered on 9/11? Or is that not a fair question? Maybe only the conduct of 9/11 skeptics should be up for review.

[Bobert]

I have a witness that I was not involved with 9-11. Maybe TAM is part of the coverup though.
check out TAM's avatar!
i will check with my wife though to see if she may have been in on it.
Our son was only 5 at the time so I doubt he could have been part of it.

[BigAl]

For years we have been told that al Qaeda was a independent terrorist group opposed to both the Saudi royal family and the US government. OTOH, journalists, politicians and intel agents have all suggested that there was pressure on US intelligence to back off terrorist investigations linked to Saudi Arabia. Michael Scheuer stated (in a Book TV interview with Steve Coll) that before 9/11 the Saudi royal family supported Bin Laden. Scheuer has previously stated that there were about nine or ten chances to kill Bin Laden before 9/11. Sure looks like al Qaeda wasn't so independent after all.

Peter Lance raises key questions about alleged "triple agent" Ali Mohamed who was supposedly able to fool US agencies for years. Lance also raises good questions about the failed efforts to apprehend KSM.

James Bamford has raised good questions about CIA withholding of al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar information and about bizarre NSA conduct.

Lawrence Wright has raised good questions about CIA withholding of al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar information going so far to characterize this conduct as "tantamount to obstruction of justice (in the Cole investigation)."

Cooperative research has detailed the efforts of Alec Station and the FBI UBLU to obstruct the search for al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar.

It is long overdue for US officials to stop hiding behind all these foreign trails and tell the public the truth. US officials could clear up the confusion in 24 hours if they wanted to do so. Where is their respect for the people murdered on 9/11? Or is that not a fair question? Maybe only the conduct of 9/11 skeptics should be up for review.

Have you read Cole, Bamford, Scheuer or Wright? I have, all of them. I also recommend Chapter 6.3 in the 9/11 Comission Report for what Clinton and Bush did to try to capture ObL.

What are you "confused" about, specifically?

I'm not sure what your points are. Over the 20 year period we are speaking of some of the above was true and some of it wasn't. For example:

"before 9/11 the Saudi royal family supported Bin Laden. "

What are you insinuating? That is certainly true but the Saudis and the entire bin Laden clan cut Osama off sometime in the mid-90s.

Cole just wrote a biography of the bin Laden family that goes into great detail on the relationship of the Saudi family and the bin Laden family starting when Osama's father was a young goat herder in Yemen right up to the present day. I recommend it.

[TruthersLie]

who is your handler?!?!?!?!
Shill alert!!!!

Bobert. As you fully know, we nwo operatives cannot divulge our hanlders names on line.. but know it is the same one you have. I just get paid more shiny sea shells.

[Tweeter]

Bobert. As you fully know, we nwo operatives cannot divulge our hanlders names on line.. but know it is the same one you have. I just get paid more shiny sea shells.

Why do you get more sea shells than bobert? Hardly seems right since youre a noob to the forum. Are you that much better?

[T.A.M.]

For years we have been told that al Qaeda was a independent terrorist group opposed to both the Saudi royal family and the US government. OTOH, journalists, politicians and intel agents have all suggested that there was pressure on US intelligence to back off terrorist investigations linked to Saudi Arabia. Michael Scheuer stated (in a Book TV interview with Steve Coll) that before 9/11 the Saudi royal family supported Bin Laden. Scheuer has previously stated that there were about nine or ten chances to kill Bin Laden before 9/11. Sure looks like al Qaeda wasn't so independent after all.

Peter Lance raises key questions about alleged "triple agent" Ali Mohamed who was supposedly able to fool US agencies for years. Lance also raises good questions about the failed efforts to apprehend KSM.

James Bamford has raised good questions about CIA withholding of al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar information and about bizarre NSA conduct.

Lawrence Wright has raised good questions about CIA withholding of al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar information going so far to characterize this conduct as "tantamount to obstruction of justice (in the Cole investigation)."

Cooperative research has detailed the efforts of Alec Station and the FBI UBLU to obstruct the search for al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar.

It is long overdue for US officials to stop hiding behind all these foreign trails and tell the public the truth. US officials could clear up the confusion in 24 hours if they wanted to do so. Where is their respect for the people murdered on 9/11? Or is that not a fair question? Maybe only the conduct of 9/11 skeptics should be up for review.

Maybe only the whining of childish complaining goodfornothings should be up for review.

Now back to your current adult programming.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

... want Saudi involvement exposed.
Who paid for the 5 buck box cutters? Do you think the Saudis could have bought them 747s but they only bought the 19 hijackers some box cutters. (ie small knives)

Can you see the terrorists begging for planes and the big money man says "no way I have seen Atta and Hani fly; they would crash our jets"! No jets, we give you small knives instead. Big money on 911 goes undetected. Oops, there was no big money.

I can see it now, you are going to crash big jets into Wall Street and ruin my stock and damage the USA who buy our oil! Sure take the knives but no planes today.

Gee whiz if the Saudis were in on the plot they could have bought dozens of jets and hit dozens of cities at the same time. But 911 was a plot so complicated it only used the high tech weapons that cost so much, small knives. Now that is a money trail. The pilot training is in the noise, if you want to be a pilot training in the US is not a red flag of anything. 4 pilots in training, and some knives were the big cost for the plot so complex only 19 people in the whole world can memorize it and they are dead.

Plot, step 1.
Kill pilots.
Step 2.
Take planes and crash into buildings.

Complex and a most expensive plot the Saudis are the only people in the whole world who have the money?

Overall, the big picture, it is very possible some Saudis give money to terrorists, knowingly and unknowingly. What is new? Some people support the moronic ideas of 911TruthLies like you do, what is new? The news must be slow.

[Allen773]

I remember that the 9/11 Commission Report theorized that charities in the Kingdom with significant sponsorship from the royal family gave money to AQ.

Whether members of the royal family were aware of it is anyone's guess.

There is a rumor that the CIA hoped to "flip" Hazmi and Midhar into double agents working against AQ, hence their not telling the FBI about their presence in the U. S. Or the CIA may have wanted to keep the FBI out altogether because of the longstanding hostility between the two agencies.

In any case, the CIA made a fatal error in not alerting the FBI to the presence of two known AQ terrorists in America.

As for Bayoumi-I suspect that he was doing intelligence work on Hazmi and Midhar on behalf of the Saudi government.

[BigAl]

In any case, the CIA made a fatal error in not alerting the FBI to the presence of two known AQ terrorists in America.



In Spying Blind, Zegart makes the case that the FBI all by itself could have discovered and disrupted the plot if only all the investigations in the several US cities (run by FBI branch offices) had been examined by a fusion center in Washington.

This is not to say that everyone didn't screw up in some way, but as I read it, The FBI came closest to having nearly all the information.

[Allen773]

In Spying Blind, Zegart makes the case that the FBI all by itself could have discovered and disrupted the plot if only all the investigations in the several US cities (run by FBI branch offices) had been examined by a fusion center in Washington.

This is not to say that everyone didn't screw up in some way, but as I read it, The FBI came closest to having nearly all the information.

Didn't know that, I'll have to get my hands on that book. Thanks for the info.

[T.A.M.]

In Spying Blind, Zegart makes the case that the FBI all by itself could have discovered and disrupted the plot if only all the investigations in the several US cities (run by FBI branch offices) had been examined by a fusion center in Washington.

This is not to say that everyone didn't screw up in some way, but as I read it, The FBI came closest to having nearly all the information.

It didn't help that the "counterterrorism" FBI agents in 2001 were treated like Lepers by their fellow agents...laughed at, made fun of, asked to go get the coffee so to speak.

TAM:)

[Bobert]

Bobert. As you fully know, we nwo operatives cannot divulge our hanlders names on line.. but know it is the same one you have. I just get paid more shiny sea shells.
You get sea shells?
WELL I GOT THE CRABBY PADDY RECIPE!!!!!

[Lensman]

How many American citizens & large corporations gave money to Irish "charities" that ended up arming the IRA & INLA?

[Gravy]

How many American citizens & large corporations gave money to Irish "charities" that ended up arming the IRA & INLA?

I give up. Do you have some approximate stats? That's the kind of thing I'd like to see regarding Saudi involvement in sponsoring terrorism.

[thatsmystory]

In Spying Blind, Zegart makes the case that the FBI all by itself could have discovered and disrupted the plot if only all the investigations in the several US cities (run by FBI branch offices) had been examined by a fusion center in Washington.

This is not to say that everyone didn't screw up in some way, but as I read it, The FBI came closest to having nearly all the information.

US officials always act in good faith. Right? I skimmed through her book and watched her presentation on Book TV. The plot could have been disrupted if people didn't obstruct investigations. But Zegart won't go there. That would be unpatriotic.

[thatsmystory]

Have you read Cole, Bamford, Scheuer or Wright? I have, all of them. I also recommend Chapter 6.3 in the 9/11 Comission Report for what Clinton and Bush did to try to capture ObL.

What are you "confused" about, specifically?

I'm not sure what your points are. Over the 20 year period we are speaking of some of the above was true and some of it wasn't. For example:

"before 9/11 the Saudi royal family supported Bin Laden. "

What are you insinuating? That is certainly true but the Saudis and the entire bin Laden clan cut Osama off sometime in the mid-90s.

Cole just wrote a biography of the bin Laden family that goes into great detail on the relationship of the Saudi family and the bin Laden family starting when Osama's father was a young goat herder in Yemen right up to the present day. I recommend it.

I'm suggesting that US officials are not telling the truth. Which is it--Was al Qaeda an independent terrorist group or was al Qaeda a Saudi sponsored terrorist group protected by corrupt US officials? Tenet can't have it both ways. He can't claim the CIA was on point while at the very same time they were withholding information about al Qaeda operatives inside the US! That is absurd.

[thatsmystory]

I remember that the 9/11 Commission Report theorized that charities in the Kingdom with significant sponsorship from the royal family gave money to AQ.

Whether members of the royal family were aware of it is anyone's guess.

There is a rumor that the CIA hoped to "flip" Hazmi and Midhar into double agents working against AQ, hence their not telling the FBI about their presence in the U. S. Or the CIA may have wanted to keep the FBI out altogether because of the longstanding hostility between the two agencies.

In any case, the CIA made a fatal error in not alerting the FBI to the presence of two known AQ terrorists in America.

As for Bayoumi-I suspect that he was doing intelligence work on Hazmi and Midhar on behalf of the Saudi government.

Why are we talking about rumors? When will somebody at the CIA explain their bizarre conduct?

The FBI had jurisdiction for counterterrorism. Period. If the CIA didn't like that then too bad. Incredibly the CIA blamed 9/11 on lack of funding despite the fact that it wasn't their job to track al Qaeda operatives inside the US. How did the CIA expect a terrorist attack to be prevented if the FBI wasn't told?

Turf battle? Where were Clarke, Berger, Hadley and Rice? Did they not think that the FBI should be in the loop for counterterrorism?

Recruiting al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar? Even after the Cole attack? Really? That is the best explanation the CIA can come up with?

[BigAl]

I'm suggesting that US officials are not telling the truth. Which is it--Was al Qaeda an independent terrorist group or was al Qaeda a Saudi sponsored terrorist group protected by corrupt US officials? Tenet can't have it both ways. He can't claim the CIA was on point while at the very same time they were withholding information about al Qaeda operatives inside the US! That is absurd.

AQ was bin Laden's invention circa 1988 and he took money from anyone who would donate. Many of those people were Saudi royals. King Saud and the entire bin Laden family disowned him some point in the mid-90s.

Your rant is incoherent and I recommend you read the books who's author's names you toss off.

[BigAl]

US officials always act in good faith. Right? I skimmed through her book and watched her presentation on Book TV. The plot could have been disrupted if people didn't obstruct investigations. But Zegart won't go there. That would be unpatriotic.

Don't confuse corporate culture and bureaucracy with evil intent.

[Allen773]

Why are we talking about rumors? When will somebody at the CIA explain their bizarre conduct?

The FBI had jurisdiction for counterterrorism. Period. If the CIA didn't like that then too bad. Incredibly the CIA blamed 9/11 on lack of funding despite the fact that it wasn't their job to track al Qaeda operatives inside the US. How did the CIA expect a terrorist attack to be prevented if the FBI wasn't told?

Turf battle? Where were Clarke, Berger, Hadley and Rice? Did they not think that the FBI should be in the loop for counterterrorism?

Recruiting al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar? Even after the Cole attack? Really? That is the best explanation the CIA can come up with?

Clarke, Berger, Hadley, and Rice had to work with the information given to them. They weren't aware that the CIA had intelligence on Hazmi and Midhar, let alone knowing that the FBI wasn't aware of it.

The recruiting theory is not the CIA's explanation. I personally don't believe that they would try to recruit the AQ terrorists.

There was a failure to communicate at several levels.

[BigAl]

I'm suggesting that US officials are not telling the truth. Which is it--Was al Qaeda an independent terrorist group or was al Qaeda a Saudi sponsored terrorist group

Since AQ has executed major attacks on Saudi facilities and is the avowed enemy of the Royal family, it would be hard to call AQ "Saudi sponsored".


Al Qaeda Organization in the Arabian Peninsula

Al-Qaeda Organization in the Arabian Peninsula leader Abdulaziz Al-Muqrin issued calls for the Saudi royal family to be overthrown. Conquering Saudi Arabia would be the first step towards establishing a Caliphate that would liberate the third holy place [Jerusalem] and unite all the Muslims of the world. The nightmare scenario for the West in one in which Saudi oil production (10% of world output) is taken out by terrorist attacks or by regime change. The Saudi ruling family is stuck between two contradictory policies: appeasement of puritanical Islam and alliance with America.

Until 2003, the Saudi government played down evidence that Islamic radicals were posing a threat to security. That changed after a series of deadly attacks in early 2003. The six million expatriate workers in Saudi Arabia are vital to the smooth functioning of the world economy. They run the country's oil industry and other sectors.

Prior to the May 2003, Al Qaeda bombings, ...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida-arabia.htm

[thatsmystory]

AQ was bin Laden's invention circa 1988 and he took money from anyone who would donate. Many of those people were Saudi royals. King Saud and the entire bin Laden family disowned him some point in the mid-90s.

Your rant is incoherent and I recommend you read the books who's author's names you toss off.

I read their books.

The only thing incoherent is the CIA's explanation for letting al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar roam around the US for 20 months.

Evidently Zegart found it credible when Tenet blamed the sharing failure on poor watchlisting/cable trafficking procedures. Or when FBI officials blamed their risk aversion on improper understanding of the criminal/intel "Gorelick wall." If one reads these books it becomes clear that investigations were obstructed. For some reason al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar--despite being ID'ed as al Qaeda at least by late '99--were protected from surveillance/deportation/arrest. This protection is contradictory to everything we have been told about al Qaeda by government officials. They are the ones who tell us al Qaeda was a dangerous threat. Yet they sure didn't act like this was so when they knew al Qaeda operatives were in the US. Why should any citizen accept this nonsense? Why should we simply chalk it all up to incompetence?

Another book that raises some interesting questions is Unsafe at any Altitude by Joe and Susan Trento. Trento alleges that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were Saudi intelligence agents. I asked him about his sources because no other journalist had reported such a thing. He stands by his sources. Trento also reported the story of Dulles security checkpoint worker Eric Gill. Gill claims he got into a confrontation with none other than Nawaf al-Hazmi on the night of 9/10 at Dulles. Cooperative Research has a good synopsis of this incident.

[thatsmystory]

Since AQ has executed major attacks on Saudi facilities and is the avowed enemy of the Royal family, it would be hard to call AQ "Saudi sponsored".

I read The King's Messenger by David Ottaway a few months ago. The book is about Prince Bandar's long career as Saudi ambassador to the US. Ottaway writes about the terrorist attacks inside Saudi Arabia attributed to al Qaeda. It seems the term "al Qaeda" is thrown around too loosely. For sure there are radical groups who seek to overthrow the House of Saud. No argument there. But that doesn't mean they are taking marching orders from Bin Laden and Zawahiri. States sure find it convenient to label all internal opposition as al Qaeda likely because the association with the public is automatic.

It is exceedingly difficult to determine who is telling the truth. Sheuer claims that Bin Laden was supported by the royal family before 9/11. He and Coll are not in disagreement on this point. I believe this interview is available for streaming on the Book TV website. If Scheuer is right then one must ask why the royal family were supporting someone who wanted them to fall? It doesn't make sense unless there is something else going on. Is the royal family known for their leniency? Would they truly sit back and tolerate Bin Laden's efforts to topple their regime? Would they plead with the Taliban to reign him in? IMO if Bin Laden was truly a concern, they would have killed him and blamed it on an internal faction in Sudan or Afghanistan. They could have blamed it on the Northern Alliance/CIA. There is no reason to believe the Saudis would have had to publicly admit they killed Bin Laden. Or they could have retaliated against his family until Bin Laden turned himself in.

[MikeW]

Sheuer claims that Bin Laden was supported by the royal family before 9/11. He and Coll are not in disagreement on this point. I believe this interview is available for streaming on the Book TV website. If Scheuer is right then one must ask why the royal family were supporting someone who wanted them to fall?
Perhaps part of the issue is you are considering "the royal family" as one block who must either support bin Laden or want him dead/exiled. I think the reality is more complex.

[TruthersLie]

Mike and Thatsmystory.

it is much MUCH more complex. There are many members of the Saudi "royal family" (which is in the HUNDREDS to thousands if you count all the cousins), who quietly support what Al Q has been doing. The culture here (and in Saudi) is one of hypocrisy and lying to save face. In this part of the world is it COMPLETELY understood that if you give money to the Red Crescent (for example) that a good portion of that money will go to "freedom fighters."

So while publically the bin laden family and the saudi royal family have disavowed UBL and disowned him, it is VERY possible that many of those individuals have still funneled money to UBL and Al Q.

[funk de fino]

I read The King's Messenger by David Ottaway a few months ago. The book is about Prince Bandar's long career as Saudi ambassador to the US. Ottaway writes about the terrorist attacks inside Saudi Arabia attributed to al Qaeda. It seems the term "al Qaeda" is thrown around too loosely. For sure there are radical groups who seek to overthrow the House of Saud. No argument there. But that doesn't mean they are taking marching orders from Bin Laden and Zawahiri. States sure find it convenient to label all internal opposition as al Qaeda likely because the association with the public is automatic.

It is exceedingly difficult to determine who is telling the truth. Sheuer claims that Bin Laden was supported by the royal family before 9/11. He and Coll are not in disagreement on this point. I believe this interview is available for streaming on the Book TV website. If Scheuer is right then one must ask why the royal family were supporting someone who wanted them to fall? It doesn't make sense unless there is something else going on. Is the royal family known for their leniency? Would they truly sit back and tolerate Bin Laden's efforts to topple their regime? Would they plead with the Taliban to reign him in? IMO if Bin Laden was truly a concern, they would have killed him and blamed it on an internal faction in Sudan or Afghanistan. They could have blamed it on the Northern Alliance/CIA. There is no reason to believe the Saudis would have had to publicly admit they killed Bin Laden. Or they could have retaliated against his family until Bin Laden turned himself in.

have you ever been to saudi?

[T.A.M.]

US officials always act in good faith. Right? I skimmed through her book and watched her presentation on Book TV. The plot could have been disrupted if people didn't obstruct investigations. But Zegart won't go there. That would be unpatriotic.

Why do you find it hard to accept that it was a failure to transmit the information, a failure to share? Is your paranoia so deep that you assume malicious conspiracy to obstruct, to purposely cause harm, in all the actions of USG workers/intelligence officers, etc...?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I'm suggesting that US officials are not telling the truth. Which is it--Was al Qaeda an independent terrorist group or was al Qaeda a Saudi sponsored terrorist group protected by corrupt US officials? Tenet can't have it both ways. He can't claim the CIA was on point while at the very same time they were withholding information about al Qaeda operatives inside the US! That is absurd.

ok, perhaps you missed it.

I think the possibility is that they were an independent terrorist group, that obtained resources from a number of partners who either (A) knew what was going on and wished to remain anonymous, or (B) had no idea that their donations were going to, among other things, support terrorism.

Please name the US officials you feel were PROTECTING al-Qaeda?

What you find absurd, I find disturbing, but not uncommon or unexpected. Do you not do any reading about these two insitutions?

Read Shenon's "The commission"
Read Clarke's "Against All Enemies"

and stop reading paranoid speculative bullcrap by Ruppert etc....

TAM:)

[BigAl]

Mike and Thatsmystory.

it is much MUCH more complex. There are many members of the Saudi "royal family" (which is in the HUNDREDS to thousands if you count all the cousins), who quietly support what Al Q has been doing. The culture here (and in Saudi) is one of hypocrisy and lying to save face. In this part of the world is it COMPLETELY understood that if you give money to the Red Crescent (for example) that a good portion of that money will go to "freedom fighters."

So while publically the bin laden family and the saudi royal family have disavowed UBL and disowned him, it is VERY possible that many of those individuals have still funneled money to UBL and Al Q.

The Cole bio of the bin Laden family makes a good case that bin Laden got no money from family members after he was disowned. As a group, they were much more connected to Western values than ObL was.

[T.A.M.]

I read The King's Messenger by David Ottaway a few months ago. The book is about Prince Bandar's long career as Saudi ambassador to the US. Ottaway writes about the terrorist attacks inside Saudi Arabia attributed to al Qaeda. It seems the term "al Qaeda" is thrown around too loosely. For sure there are radical groups who seek to overthrow the House of Saud. No argument there. But that doesn't mean they are taking marching orders from Bin Laden and Zawahiri. States sure find it convenient to label all internal opposition as al Qaeda likely because the association with the public is automatic.

It is exceedingly difficult to determine who is telling the truth. Sheuer claims that Bin Laden was supported by the royal family before 9/11. He and Coll are not in disagreement on this point. I believe this interview is available for streaming on the Book TV website. If Scheuer is right then one must ask why the royal family were supporting someone who wanted them to fall? It doesn't make sense unless there is something else going on. Is the royal family known for their leniency? Would they truly sit back and tolerate Bin Laden's efforts to topple their regime? Would they plead with the Taliban to reign him in? IMO if Bin Laden was truly a concern, they would have killed him and blamed it on an internal faction in Sudan or Afghanistan. They could have blamed it on the Northern Alliance/CIA. There is no reason to believe the Saudis would have had to publicly admit they killed Bin Laden. Or they could have retaliated against his family until Bin Laden turned himself in.

your statement is full of "IMO" and "it is difficult to say" etc... which indicates your conclusions are based on speculation, and likely a paranoid word view. That is fine, if you admit that is all it is. What I can't stand is when people try to pass off their opinion as "the truth".

read Wright's "The Looming Tower"

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Mike and Thatsmystory.

it is much MUCH more complex. There are many members of the Saudi "royal family" (which is in the HUNDREDS to thousands if you count all the cousins), who quietly support what Al Q has been doing. The culture here (and in Saudi) is one of hypocrisy and lying to save face. In this part of the world is it COMPLETELY understood that if you give money to the Red Crescent (for example) that a good portion of that money will go to "freedom fighters."

So while publically the bin laden family and the saudi royal family have disavowed UBL and disowned him, it is VERY possible that many of those individuals have still funneled money to UBL and Al Q.

Well said.

TAM:)

[TexasJack]

read Wright's "The Looming Tower"

TAM:)

The problem is, he claims he has. His misinterpretation of the book is so bad, you would think you were reading fiction.

[thatsmystory]

your statement is full of "IMO" and "it is difficult to say" etc... which indicates your conclusions are based on speculation, and likely a paranoid word view. That is fine, if you admit that is all it is. What I can't stand is when people try to pass off their opinion as "the truth".

read Wright's "The Looming Tower"

TAM:)

Paranoid is an authoritarian description likely intended to ridicule anyone who dares to challenge authority.

Why do you keep suggesting I haven't read these books? Is it because I didn't come to the correct conclusion?

We haven't heard from Rich B. (chief of Alec Station) or Rod Middleton (chief of the FBI UBLU). Why not? How on earth did Rich B. retain his classified status after 9/11 and a promotion to head the reopened Kabul station in 12/01? Does that mesh with "the worst intelligence failure in US history?" Rich B. replace Scheuer in mid-'99. So he was in charge of Alec Station while al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were free to roam around the US.

Why incompetence doesn't make sense:

1) Bamford reported Rossini and Miller were ordered to withhold the fact that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhdar had US visas. In the Cooperative Research write up we are told a CIR was sent internally stating that the information was shared with the FBI. That isn't indicative of incompetence.

2) The FBI ULBU knew al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were ID'ed as al Qaeda operatives. They knew they were associated with USS Cole plotters. Thus there wasn't any valid reason to keep the search for them from the stateside Cole investigations (i.e. Steve Bongardt). A UBLU agent named Dina Corsi misrepresented the legal advice she was given by NSLU attorney Sherry Sabol. This conduct isn't indicative of incompetence.

3) Bamford can't explain the contradiction between Hayden's pre-9/11 involvement in warrantless surveillance programs and his failure to use FISA. Hayden's explanation for not using FISA was his excessive worry about civil liberty violations. One, this doesn't mesh with pre-9/11 surveillance that is alleged to have started shortly after Bush was inaugurated. Two, FISA was created to safeguard civil liberties in the wake of the Church hearings. Hayden's conduct isn't indicative of incompetence.

CIA. FBI. NSA. Then we have Rice, Hadley and Clarke evidently failing to bring the FBI into the loop on all the al Qaeda chatter in the summer of '01. For example, the 7/10/01 briefing with Tenet and Rich B. Clarke likes to talk about shaking the trees. How did he intend to do so if Pickard, Watson, Rolince, etc. were not briefed? Then there is Bush/Cheney. Their conduct in the lead up to 9/11 could not be more suspicious.

[BigAl]

Paranoid is an authoritarian description likely intended to ridicule anyone who dares to challenge authority.

Why do you keep suggesting I haven't read these books? Is it because I didn't come to the correct conclusion?

We haven't heard from Rich B. (chief of Alec Station) or Rod Middleton (chief of the FBI UBLU). Why not? How on earth did Rich B. retain his classified status after 9/11 and a promotion to head the reopened Kabul station in 12/01? Does that mesh with "the worst intelligence failure in US history?" Rich B. replace Scheuer in mid-'99. So he was in charge of Alec Station while al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were free to roam around the US.

Why incompetence doesn't make sense:

1) Bamford reported Rossini and Miller were ordered to withhold the fact that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhdar had US visas. In the Cooperative Research write up we are told a CIR was sent internally stating that the information was shared with the FBI. That isn't indicative of incompetence.

2) The FBI ULBU knew al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were ID'ed as al Qaeda operatives. They knew they were associated with USS Cole plotters. Thus there wasn't any valid reason to keep the search for them from the stateside Cole investigations (i.e. Steve Bongardt). A UBLU agent named Dina Corsi misrepresented the legal advice she was given by NSLU attorney Sherry Sabol. This conduct isn't indicative of incompetence.

3) Bamford can't explain the contradiction between Hayden's pre-9/11 involvement in warrantless surveillance programs and his failure to use FISA. Hayden's explanation for not using FISA was his excessive worry about civil liberty violations. One, this doesn't mesh with pre-9/11 surveillance that is alleged to have started shortly after Bush was inaugurated. Two, FISA was created to safeguard civil liberties in the wake of the Church hearings. Hayden's conduct isn't indicative of incompetence.

CIA. FBI. NSA. Then we have Rice, Hadley and Clarke evidently failing to bring the FBI into the loop on all the al Qaeda chatter in the summer of '01. For example, the 7/10/01 briefing with Tenet and Rich B. Clarke likes to talk about shaking the trees. How did he intend to do so if Pickard, Watson, Rolince, etc. were not briefed? Then there is Bush/Cheney. Their conduct in the lead up to 9/11 could not be more suspicious.

To the extent that the above is accurate and not cherry-picked, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[RedIbis]

Paranoid is an authoritarian description likely intended to ridicule anyone who dares to challenge authority.

Why do you keep suggesting I haven't read these books? Is it because I didn't come to the correct conclusion?

We haven't heard from Rich B. (chief of Alec Station) or Rod Middleton (chief of the FBI UBLU). Why not? How on earth did Rich B. retain his classified status after 9/11 and a promotion to head the reopened Kabul station in 12/01? Does that mesh with "the worst intelligence failure in US history?" Rich B. replace Scheuer in mid-'99. So he was in charge of Alec Station while al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were free to roam around the US.

Why incompetence doesn't make sense:

1) Bamford reported Rossini and Miller were ordered to withhold the fact that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhdar had US visas. In the Cooperative Research write up we are told a CIR was sent internally stating that the information was shared with the FBI. That isn't indicative of incompetence.

2) The FBI ULBU knew al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were ID'ed as al Qaeda operatives. They knew they were associated with USS Cole plotters. Thus there wasn't any valid reason to keep the search for them from the stateside Cole investigations (i.e. Steve Bongardt). A UBLU agent named Dina Corsi misrepresented the legal advice she was given by NSLU attorney Sherry Sabol. This conduct isn't indicative of incompetence.

3) Bamford can't explain the contradiction between Hayden's pre-9/11 involvement in warrantless surveillance programs and his failure to use FISA. Hayden's explanation for not using FISA was his excessive worry about civil liberty violations. One, this doesn't mesh with pre-9/11 surveillance that is alleged to have started shortly after Bush was inaugurated. Two, FISA was created to safeguard civil liberties in the wake of the Church hearings. Hayden's conduct isn't indicative of incompetence.

CIA. FBI. NSA. Then we have Rice, Hadley and Clarke evidently failing to bring the FBI into the loop on all the al Qaeda chatter in the summer of '01. For example, the 7/10/01 briefing with Tenet and Rich B. Clarke likes to talk about shaking the trees. How did he intend to do so if Pickard, Watson, Rolince, etc. were not briefed? Then there is Bush/Cheney. Their conduct in the lead up to 9/11 could not be more suspicious.

Excellent post. Incompetence and CYA are just catch-all debunking excuses, and poor ones at that.

What Bamford book are you referring to? Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get to his work, but it sounds like I need to start.

[johnny karate]

Did you even read the article?


Obstruction is exactly what the Obama administration is doing.





You apparently failed to read any further:


Obama paid Breitweiser a little lip service while he allowed his Justice Department to do whatever they could to squash this lawsuit.

Tell me Red, if one party commits a crime, then what does that make those who aid in covering up that crime?

Bump for RedIbis.

[BigAl]

Excellent post. Incompetence and CYA are just catch-all debunking excuses, and poor ones at that.

What Bamford book are you referring to? Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get to his work, but it sounds like I need to start.

All of Bamford's books are excellent, 4 I think. I've lost count.

This would be his latest, The Shadow Factory - The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 but th etitle is misleading. It starts with tracking of the AQ Bad Guys well before 9/11.

[RedIbis]

All of Bamford's books are excellent, 4 I think. I've lost count.

This would be his latest, The Shadow Factory - The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 but th etitle is misleading. It starts with tracking of the AQ Bad Guys well before 9/11.

Thanks. I'll definitely start checking them out.

[parky76]

Paranoid is an authoritarian description likely intended to ridicule anyone who dares to challenge authority. .

This is an excuse that paranoid people often use to disregard accusations..that they are indeed paranoid.

Paranoia is "irrational fear".

The government is gonna take your guns.
The government is spraying the air with chemicals from jet planes.
The government is putting mind control chemicals into the water.
The government is run by small secret societies bent on world domination and reducing the world's population by 90%
The government is just itching to install martial law.
The government is planning to put all dissenters into secret FEMA extermination camps.
The government is manufacturing flu's and other viruses to have an emergency requiring martial law..and FEMA camps.

Dude..this is irrational fear to the max.

[thatsmystory]

To the extent that the above is accurate and not cherry-picked, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

What does that mean?

Cherry-picked? All I've done is analyze the CIA's account. Their own story doesn't make sense! Instead of clarification we have gotten lies and secrecy. Anyone can understand that people make mistakes. I'm not pointing to mistakes but rather failure of key officials to follow standard procedure. Why do you hold them to such a low standard of conduct?

Hindsight? We still don't know why they acted as they did. NARA hasn't declassified the MFR's with key officials like Rich B. John Farmer claimed the 9/11 Commission report was far from the truth. Granted, many 9/11 truthers have misinterpreted what he is saying. Still it's somewhat odd that Farmer is making such a statement years after the report was released.

[thatsmystory]

This is an excuse that paranoid people often use to disregard accusations..that they are indeed paranoid.

Paranoia is "irrational fear".

The government is gonna take your guns.
The government is spraying the air with chemicals from jet planes.
The government is putting mind control chemicals into the water.
The government is run by small secret societies bent on world domination and reducing the world's population by 90%
The government is just itching to install martial law.
The government is planning to put all dissenters into secret FEMA extermination camps.
The government is manufacturing flu's and other viruses to have an emergency requiring martial law..and FEMA camps.

Dude..this is irrational fear to the max.

Conflation is a good propaganda tactic. It worked for linking al Qaeda/Hussein to 9/11. It worked for linking support for soldiers with support for Bush administration policies. And it works for linking skeptics of 9/11 with hate groups and/or fringe conspiracy theories.

One can question official 9/11 explanations with buying into the concepts of one issue agreement or big tent.

One issue agreement: "Who cares what other beliefs X has, X questions 9/11! That is all that matters."

Big tent: "Who cares what 9/11 theories X has, X doubts the OCT. That is all that matters."

Does government conduct in relation to 9/11 bother you at all or are you only concerned with the conduct of people/groups who question 9/11?

[BigAl]

Conflation is a good propaganda tactic. It worked for linking al Qaeda/Hussein to 9/11. It worked for linking support for soldiers with support for Bush administration policies. And it works for linking skeptics of 9/11 with hate groups and/or fringe conspiracy theories.

One can question official 9/11 explanations with buying into the concepts of one issue agreement or big tent.

One issue agreement: "Who cares what other beliefs X has, X questions 9/11! That is all that matters."

Big tent: "Who cares what 9/11 theories X has, X doubts the OCT. That is all that matters."

Does government conduct in relation to 9/11 bother you at all or are you only concerned with the conduct of people/groups who question 9/11?

Some things about 9/11 "bother" me but none of them are about the fact that ObL declared war on the US (and others) circa 1990 and has killed nearly 4,000 Americans, since.

I see no reason to believe that ObL was in any way aided or directed any Americans since he declared war and we had damn little to do with him when we both fought the Russians in Afghanistan.

[BigAl]

What does that mean?

Cherry-picked? All I've done is analyze the CIA's account. Their own story doesn't make sense! Instead of clarification we have gotten lies and secrecy. Anyone can understand that people make mistakes. I'm not pointing to mistakes but rather failure of key officials to follow standard procedure. Why do you hold them to such a low standard of conduct?

Hindsight? We still don't know why they acted as they did. NARA hasn't declassified the MFR's with key officials like Rich B. John Farmer claimed the 9/11 Commission report was far from the truth. Granted, many 9/11 truthers have misinterpreted what he is saying. Still it's somewhat odd that Farmer is making such a statement years after the report was released.

People have legitimate complaints about how the commission operated but none of those faults affect the core findings and none of those people deny the core findings.