Is There a Growing Consensus that Saudi Arabia is a State Sponsor of Terrorism?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
For quite a long period of time now, thoughtful people interested in 9/11 have pondered the extent to which Saudi Arabia was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Most of the 19 alleged hijackers were thought to be Saudi nationals. An alleged Saudi intelligence officer was linked to the movements of two of the "hijackers" in California. Last but not least, the alleged mastermind of the attacks, Osama bin Laden was of course, a member of a very important Saudi family with close links to the Saud dynasty.

These allegations were not enough for the US judicial system to designate Saudi Arabia a "state sponsor of terrorism". This designation was sought by the families of victims of 9/11 in order that they might bring civil suits in the US courts, seeking damages against the Saudi government in connection with the attacks.

Court actions in connection with 9/11 would be sure to be watched carefully by 9/11 truthers looking for hidden pieces of the story of that day.

Now it has come to light, in an entirely different context, that another group of people are alleging that Saudi Arabia is a state sponsor of terrorism, and these are people who bring a professional perspective to the subject; a newspaper with links to Hezbollah.

There have been accounts of an attempt by the Saudis to bribe Russia into backing away from support for Syria. The first story that I heard involved promises to purchase large quantities of Russian military hardware. This offer was rebuffed.

Now another story has come out about a much more important deal being offered by the Saudis to form a combine with the Russians to collude on the price of natural gas and oil. According to the report, this offer was also refused by the finicky Vladimir Putin, who is squeamish, unlike America and its NATO allies, about abandoning Syria to the cannibals among the Syrian rebels and their takferi allies.

Whether or not some behind the scenes deal was done with the Russians to make them back away from Syria, as they seem to be doing, is not really germane to this post.

I'm more interested in another element of the discussion between the Saudis and the Russians. It is alleged to have featured a statement by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan that Chechen terrorist groups are controlled by Saudi Arabia.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Leaked transcripts of a closed-door meeting between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan shed an extraordinary light on the hard-nosed Realpolitik of the two sides.

Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, allegedly confronted the Kremlin with a mix of inducements and threats in a bid to break the deadlock over Syria. "Let us examine how to put together a unified Russian-Saudi strategy on the subject of oil. The aim is to agree on the price of oil and production quantities that keep the price stable in global oil markets," he said at the four-hour meeting with Mr Putin. They met at Mr Putin’s dacha outside Moscow three weeks ago.

"We understand Russia’s great interest in the oil and gas in the Mediterranean from Israel to Cyprus. And we understand the importance of the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. We are not interested in competing with that. We can cooperate in this area," he said, purporting to speak with the full backing of the US.

The talks appear to offer an alliance between the OPEC cartel and Russia, which together produce over 40m barrels a day of oil, 45pc of global output. Such a move would alter the strategic landscape.

The details of the talks were first leaked to the Russian press. A more detailed version has since appeared in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, which has Hezbollah links and is hostile to the Saudis.

As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. "I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us," he allegedly said.

Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. "These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future."


Obviously, any post that uses the term "allegedly" as many times as this one does, is not proof of anything. But 9/11 victims, and their lawyers, might take a more than casual interest in this news item.

People interested in the Boston Bombing and its Chechen connections might want to look into this as well. Were the Saudis and their backers behind the Boston Bombing, or involved in some way? Was that another steered operation?

What a tangled knot!
edit on 27-8-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-8-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
It's one thing to sponsor.
It's another to turn a blind eye.

I want to look at it this way.
It's a lot easier to plan and outfit your terrorist members from a country where it doesn't rain bombs.
What other country in the area is safe and has a reliable infrastructure?



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


I get your drift but I think this was a coalition effort.

The real controllers were in Washington though.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   
That the Saudis were the number 1 state sponsors of terrorism is something I have figured to be the case for the past n20 years. And they get away with it quite a lot. We turn a blind eye in exchange for easy access to their oil. And they stab us in the back when our heads are turned. Been that way for decades.

Putin better watch his back if he thinks he can deal with this government safely.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   
If Saudi sponsors terrorists including the 911 group then the idiots in Washington didn't pull off 911.

But then again if you have a conspiracy hammer everthing looks like a conspiracy nail.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
It would be great if the Russians would leak the tapes themselves, or at least the part where Prince Bandar says his country controls Chechen terrorists. Maybe the 9/11 victim's families could do something with it.

How about it Mr. Putin? Want to become the most popular politician in America? Just leak the tapes, if they exist.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
It goes to prove that telling someone something 1000 times is no better than telling them once.

You can't evaluate, postulate and opinionate the Saudi Kingdom and compare it to western democracies, European social states or communistic regimes. There is no real central government nor is there any rule of law other than religious doctrines that have been observed over the past 1700 years.

There are three forms of charity in Islam; zakat, waqf and sadaqa. Zakat is the third pillar of Islam and an obligation for all Muslims. All Muslims who possess wealth above a zakat payable amount for one lunar year have to pay zakat, leading some to refer to it as a ‘social purifying tax’. There are no limits, nor are there any restrictions on who receives zakat or for what reason. It is the obligation to give to the mosque, as someone who has achieved waqf, however it not an obligation to know where these funds go.

I pay taxes to the federal government-the federal government creates an army that kills people-am I considered a murder? That is what your logic implies if you judge the Kingdom in the same context as the American democracy.

How can the Monarchy be a state sponsor of terrorism if it has no funds to do so? All of the funds that run the country come from individuals paying zakat, as set fourth in laws established in the 4th century. A wealthy Saudi has an obligation to fund the mosque without ever knowing, or caring, where these funds go.

The funds could be going to feed poor children or they could be paying a forger to facilitate false papers so a terrorist could receive a false passport.

Is the Kingdom a state sponsor of terrorism? If it is then you are also responsible for all the horrors our armed forces have dished out over the past 240 years or so.

If you would take the time (impossible I know) to learn about Islam and the culture of one of the oldest civilizations on the planet you might find some understanding about the Kingdom rather than making blind accusations to further an unknown agenda.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I must say this is one part of the 9/11 truth movement i actually "get".

the Saudi connection to 9/11 and more broadly the funding of the Al-Qa'ida network is something that I think has been grossly overlooked and perhaps for political reasons. The Saudi role is always played down, after all, it would be kind of embarrassing for America to admit that the financiers behind the attack could actually have been one of America's biggest allies. The 9/11 commission really did kind of skim over the financing of the 9/11 attacks saying that it would only have cost about half a million but never went into any real details about where this money may have came form, despite this falling within the remit of the report.

That said however I would not call Saudi Arabia a "state sponsor of terrorism", that implies that people in senior government roles are backing terrorism. Rather I think that there are lots of very wealthy people in Saudi Arabia with government connections who are sympathetic to groups like Al-Qa'ida (particularly before 9/11) and as such provide them with generous financial backing. The Saudi state does not want to admit to this as it is a bit of a embarrassment for them and the West don't want to dig to far when they need all that oil.

How deep this rabbet hole goes, i think its anyone's guess.

S&F OP (not often i gave them out on this forum)
edit on 28-8-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 

This is a question for lawyers.

If Prince Bandar, in the course of discussions with another state is taped saying that he controls Chechen terrorists who are threatening the Solchi Olympics, I think Saudi Arabia is very likely a "state sponsor of terrorism", but that's my opinion.

I think the lawyers for the 9/11 victims would be interested in hearing these tapes, if they exist.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
That said however I would not call Saudi Arabia a "state sponsor of terrorism", that implies that people in senior government roles are backing terrorism.


How about a "state sponsor of freedom fighters"?


Rather I think that there are lots of very wealthy people in Saudi Arabia with government connections who are sympathetic to groups like Al-Qa'ida (particularly before 9/11) and as such provide them with generous financial backing. The Saudi state does not want to admit to this as it is a bit of a embarrassment for them and the West don't want to dig to far when they need all that oil.


I think that is an accurate assessment of the situation. How it would play out in a court of law is a matter of conjecture.

That's one legal show I would love to see.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


I am not saying you aren't right or anything, but if there is a "Growing Consensus" about terrorism in SA.....Your main arguement here is about 9/11.....What if it wasn't them? Does this invalidate this consensus?

One more thing.....If this is a "Growing Consensus" how is it growing? This information is based off of an attack from 2001....Shouldn't it be full grown long ago?? Or are "they" just pointing out the next boogeyman? Not saying one way or the other, just asking what you think about this all?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


I am not saying you aren't right or anything, but if there is a "Growing Consensus" about terrorism in SA.....Your main arguement here is about 9/11.....What if it wasn't them? Does this invalidate this consensus?


You say "what if it wasn't them". You are a little vague here. I don't think it was "them". I think they were among "them", along with other allies of the United States and some private, corporate parties.

Remember, it is the US government's position that most of the hijackers were Saudis and that they had been in contact with Saudi intelligence in California.

The origin of this thread is an interest I have in the attempt by families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia for damages suffered on that day. This was intended to be a civil, not criminal suit. The burden of proof is much less than in the criminal courts.

You would have to look into the background here but the bottom line at the time the suit was contemplated, was that, because a US judge would not rule Saudia Arabia a "state sponsor of terrorism", the suit could not go forward. The judge had reasons for doing so. Reasons cited in his judgement. Making the accusation was not frivolous, but it was deemed that there was not sufficient proof to stamp Saudi Arabia with that legally significant label.


One more thing.....If this is a "Growing Consensus" how is it growing? This information is based off of an attack from 2001....Shouldn't it be full grown long ago?? Or are "they" just pointing out the next boogeyman? Not saying one way or the other, just asking what you think about this all?


In the aftermath of 9/11, large numbers of people suspected Saudi involvement in the matter. The Bush administration even took the precautionary measure of spiriting bin Laden relatives out of the country during the "no fly" period.

In the context of this thread, the assertion of the existence of tapes with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, admitting to be able to control Chechen terrorists, would add another significant group to the families of the 9/11 victims, who believe that Saudi Arabia is a state sponsor of terrorism.

I'm not talking about a consensus of "men in the street" but of significant players or potentially significant players should there ever be court action against the Saudis.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
there are no doubts in my mind, at best they are enablers..as far as taking the saudi's to court..good luck it will never happen



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by vonclod
 


I tend to think you are right but it is not impossible.

The big question for me is "Do these tapes exist?". If they do, they are in the hands of the Russian government. The position of the Russian government vis a vis Saudi Arabia is much different than the American government's position. Russian companies are not the major players on the Arabian peninsula. We are told that the Russians rebuffed the Saudis on the Syrian question. They either did or did not.

Are there circumstances in which the Russians might make those tapes public? Probably not. It's not impossible but it is more likely that some kind of Russian blackmail might ensue with regard to the "alleged" tapes.

The American government would not like slam dunk proof that Saudi Arabia was a "state sponsor of terrorism" to suddenly appear. It could become very awkward in the court of American public opinion. I think most Americans would like to see the victims' families sue the socks off the Saudis.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
oh yes it would become extremley awkward for sure..im with you on the russians holding onto the tapes for future leverage.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   
If you have studied the 9/11 plot in detail you would know money was never an issue. From September 8th through the 10th the plotters returned more than $78,000 of money they did not need. If they had not returned the money they would not die as martyrs but thieves. One of the reasons the commission didn't spend much time on the finance issue is because it was embarrassing that neither the Clinton or the Bush administrations could even slow down the money machine much less stop it.

Only after the attacks the Patriot Act gave the government the right, legally, to freeze funds. That was no more effective than any other attempt to slow funding. Even today money still flows into cells all over the world as electronic 1,000th of a second computer transaction is difficult if not impossible to stop.

Also, the Saudi Kingdom's closed society, allows individuals to freely exchange funds through the UAE at their leisure and the American government is powerless to stop it.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Consensus? Seriously? The house of Saud is, quite factually, the number one financier of Islamic terrorism on the planet. There's no consensus needed. They have, on many occasions, openly done it, too.

Saudi Arabia is almost completely Wahhabi. If you don't know what Wahhabiism is, a simple way of putting it is this: In the 1700s, Islam was VERY moderate. It was on the cusp of a protestant style reformation/division. Sure you still had tribal issues, but where there were unified soverign nations, like the Ottoman Empire, it was a religion that was innovating to cope with the times. The Wahhabi movement was basically a hyper-conservative counter-culture to mainstream Islam at the time, and derided mainstream Islam for having innovations and for evolving with society. To summarize, it would be like super strict southern baptists materializing in 1517 to crush Martin Luther and reverse any attempt at protestant reformation. Despite they themselves being a form of it. There differences between Wahhabi and Southern Baptist is that Wahhabi-ism is extremely expansionist, and more often than not, violently so.

Back to the house of Said. They, along with Kuwait, and a few other hard line Muslim countries, completely, or partially, fund over 80% of new mosque construction. Considering their hardline religious outlook, it's been intimated to me on several occasions that if you want their money, there are specific strings attached. That is to say, if you accept the check, you must be willing to preach Wahhabi values overtly or at the very least covertly. The same goes for their funding of the violent expansion of Islam (Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Southern Philippines, Southern Thailand, India, and on and on) as well as their non violent expansion of Islam (huge birth rates and polygamy of Muslim immigrants in North America, Europe, India, and Russia). Wherever there is Saudi money, those strings are attached.

edit on 29-8-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-8-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I starred your OP because the Saudis involvement in various global events is very much underreported and overlooked and masked by idiot-conspiracy-theories. 200 years from now we will know Saudi Arabia as one of the most underestimated countries in World History.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   


Considering their hardline religious outlook, it's been intimated to me on several occasions that if you want their money, there are specific strings attached.


That is a good point, and I agree. However, that works both ways. None of the donors had the slightest idea what OBL was up to-had they known they would have stopped it. Just like the Taliban would have-OBL got away-they were annihilated.

Conspiracy makers can blow all they want about this and that, without of course having any proof. The bottom line is when flight 11 hit WTC less that 25 people in the entire world knew about the plot. That in itself made it perhaps the shrewdest, cleverest and most tactfully brilliant black opp in modern history-or any historical period.

American citizens donate millions every year to various jehad groups around the world but that doesn't make America a sponsor of the extremest.
edit on 30-8-2013 by spooky24 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
In court cases one hears apologists for racketeers, gang members and other assorted criminals trot out all manner of "explanations" and obfuscations, hoping to avoid court imposed sanctions for crimes.

Wiretap evidence cuts through the baloney. If someone like John Gotti admits to murdering someone, on tape, juries tend to convict.

If Prince Bandar, an official representative of Saudi Arabia, a member state of the United Nations, admits on tape to controlling Chechen terrorists who are threatening the Olympics, it is very difficult to see how an American court could fail to name Saudi Arabia a "state sponsor of terrorism".

It seems like a clear cut situation to me. Perhaps it isn't but I would like to see a court make that determination.
edit on 30-8-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join