A few facts are coming to light about 9/11 at long last

[Dittohead not!]

[h=1]File 17 is glimpse into still-secret 28 pages about 9/11[/h]

[FONT=&quot]WASHINGTON (AP) — Amid the clamor a year ago to release 28 still-secret pages of a congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks, the government quietly declassified a little-known report listing more than three dozen people who piqued the interest of investigators probing possible Saudi connections to the hijackers.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The document, known as "File 17," offers clues to what might be in the missing pages of the bipartisan report about 9/11.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Much of the information upon which File 17 was written was based on what's in the 28 pages," said former Democratic Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, co-chairman of the congressional inquiry. He believes the hijackers had an extensive Saudi support system while they were in the United States.[/FONT]

Can we admit that Saudi Arabia is one of the ME countries that sponsor terrorism, or do we still need their oil badly enough to look the other way?

 

[Grand Mal]

[h=1]File 17 is glimpse into still-secret 28 pages about 9/11[/h]


Can we admit that Saudi Arabia is one of the ME countries that sponsor terrorism, or do we still need their oil badly enough to look the other way?

You might be surprised by how little oil the US gets from Saudi Arabia.

 

[TheGoverness]

You might be surprised by how little oil the US gets from Saudi Arabia.

It gets about 11% from Saudi Arabia, if my source is correct. But the US gets about 31% of it's oil from OPEC countries.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It gets about 11% from Saudi Arabia, if my source is correct. But the US gets about 31% of it's oil from OPEC countries.

That sounds about right.
Now, what is it that makes Saudi Arabia an ally, a friendly nation?

 

[ecofarm]

From OP source:

The 9/11 Commission's final report stated that it found "no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded" al-Qaida. "This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al-Qaida," the report said.

Can people really not see the difference between state and private sponsorship? Do people really think this is the same as the Iranian government sponsoring terrorism?

 

[TheGoverness]

That sounds about right.
Now, what is it that makes Saudi Arabia an ally, a friendly nation?

:shrug:

 

[Helix]

[h=1]File 17 is glimpse into still-secret 28 pages about 9/11[/h]


Can we admit that Saudi Arabia is one of the ME countries that sponsor terrorism, or do we still need their oil badly enough to look the other way?

but SA is our best bud.

 

[Risky Thicket]

[h=1]File 17 is glimpse into still-secret 28 pages about 9/11[/h]


Can we admit that Saudi Arabia is one of the ME countries that sponsor terrorism, or do we still need their oil badly enough to look the other way?

That is a good question but it is the wrong question. For 99% of us it may well be about what we need. However, this isn't a democracy. The U.S. is an oligarchy. For profit and continued power and control? Sure the powers that be, the 1%, have no problem looking the other way. That is what they do, it's SOP.

 

[joG]

[h=1]File 17 is glimpse into still-secret 28 pages about 9/11[/h]


Can we admit that Saudi Arabia is one of the ME countries that sponsor terrorism, or do we still need their oil badly enough to look the other way?

Let's concentrate on Russia. They are much more of a problem in the ME than SA right now. And if we don't continue acting like total jerks, the Saudis will be just fine.

 

[Grand Mal]

From OP source:



Can people really not see the difference between state and private sponsorship? Do people really think this is the same as the Iranian government sponsoring terrorism?

If a Saudi prince supports a charity that supports Al Qaida, is that state sponsorship? Given that SA is a monarchy 'n all.

 

[Fledermaus]

[h=1]File 17 is glimpse into still-secret 28 pages about 9/11[/h]


Can we admit that Saudi Arabia is one of the ME countries that sponsor terrorism, or do we still need their oil badly enough to look the other way?

The state?

No.

Some within the state?

Most certainly.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That sounds about right.
Now, what is it that makes Saudi Arabia an ally, a friendly nation?

They are mostly good Muslims - just ask Obama or Bush.

 

[Dittohead not!]

but SA is our best bud.

Right, and a peaceful democratic nation committed to human rights.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The state?

No.

Some within the state?

Most certainly.

As Grand Mal pointed out, the monarchy is the state. L'etat c'est moi.

 

[ecofarm]

If a Saudi prince supports a charity that supports Al Qaida, is that state sponsorship?

No. Do you really need someone to explain the difference between state and private sponsorship?

Let me guess... you're one of those people that cannot understand how Planned Parenthood is not state sponsored abortion.

 

[Fledermaus]

As Grand Mal pointed out, the monarchy is the state. L'etat c'est moi.

A gazillion Princes jotting about that are not in charge.

No.

Individual members do not the state make unless it is the king himself.

 

[Grand Mal]

A gazillion Princes jotting about that are not in charge.

No.

Individual members do not the state make unless it is the king himself.

From the Wikipedia article about King Salman...

In November 2002, in reference to charitable organizations accused of terrorism (e.g. al-Haramain Foundation, Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Salman stated that he had personally taken part in the activities of such organizations,[57] but added "I know the assistance goes to doing good. But if there are those who change some work of charity into evil activities, then it is not the Kingdom's responsibility, nor its people, which helps its Arab and Muslim brothers around the world."

So he's not actually saying he personally supports terrorism, he's just saying that it's none of his business if someone he gives money to does.

 

[code1211]

[h=1]File 17 is glimpse into still-secret 28 pages about 9/11[/h]


Can we admit that Saudi Arabia is one of the ME countries that sponsor terrorism, or do we still need their oil badly enough to look the other way?

The problem is not the nationalities.

It's the religion.

Can we admit THAT?

 

[ecofarm]

So he's not actually saying he personally supports terrorism, he's just saying that it's none of his business if someone he gives money to does.

That's not at all what he's saying. He's saying that the government, and people/nation, is not responsible for the evil acts of private individuals. Just as we do not prosecute local, state or federal governments for the acts of gang members.

 

[Grand Mal]

That's not at all what he's saying. He's saying that the government, and people/nation, is not responsible for the evil acts of private individuals. Just as we do not prosecute local, state or federal governments for the acts of gang members.

Wrong analogy. You would prosecute government officials who donated money to support gang activity.
Here's some stuff about that charity he supports...

https://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/tag/al-haramain-islamic-foundation/
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp1043.aspx
US and Saudi Arabia Block Funds of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation

From that last link...
"Today the United States and Saudi Arabia acted jointly to block the funds of the Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina branches of the Al Haramain Islamic foundation because these branches were diverting charitable funds to terrorism."

That was from 2002, the same year King Salman said he'd "taken part" but that he had no responsibility for any "evil activities".

 

[ecofarm]

Wrong analogy. You would prosecute government officials who donated money to support gang activity.

A misrepresentation, again. The money was not donated to support gang activity, it was donated to support charitable activity. Some individuals within the charity commit illegal acts of evil in diverting funds. For this we do not prosecute the donor.

Why do you work so hard to twist and misrepresent the words of others?

 

[Grand Mal]

A misrepresentation, again. The money was not donated to support gang activity, it was donated to support charitable activity. Some individuals within the charity commit illegal acts of evil in diverting funds. For this we do not prosecute the donor.

Why do you work so hard to twist and misrepresent the words of others?

I've quoted directly. And I'm not talking about prosecution, you are. I'm saying Saudi officials support charities that support terrorism.
If you say this isn't state sponsorship, that's fine with me. Strikes me as quibbling, but whatever. And I think it's probably naive to think that the King was unaware of the activities of those organizations, but that's just my opinion and I can't support it.

 

[ecofarm]

I've quoted directly.

And you flagrantly misrepresented those words.

And I'm not talking about prosecution, you are.

Of course you are. You want to hold donors responsible for the illegal acts of individuals within a charity.

I'm saying Saudi officials support charities that support terrorism.

More misrepresentation. The charities do not support terrorism. Individuals within the charities commit illegal acts by diverting funds.

If you say this isn't state sponsorship, that's fine with me. Strikes me as quibbling, but whatever.

Claiming it constitutes state sponsorship is idiotic. To equate charity donors with the Iranian regime is beyond stupid. There must be an ulterior motive.

And I think it's probably naive to think that the King was unaware of the activities of those organizations, but that's just my opinion and I can't support it.

Again, not activities of the organizations. Illegal activities of individuals within the organizations.

So... conspiracy; that's what your claim boils down to. Are you a Truther?

 

[Dittohead not!]

The problem is not the nationalities.

It's the religion.

Can we admit THAT?

Not so far.

 

[code1211]

Not so far.

I didn't think so.