Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

Disturbing Facts About 9/11...

Sign in to follow this  


[b]Part I - “[i]Saudisturbing - Who’s behind 9/11[/i]”[/b]

[b]1. [/b]15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and Osama Bin Laden himself was Saudi-born.

[b]2. [/b]In the days following 9/11, with the blessing of George W. Bush, at least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the U.S. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the Bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country. At least one private plane flew to pick up Saudi nationals while private flights were still grounded. The White House denied the very existence of that flight for years, until they finally [url="http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_now_verifies_flig.shtml"]revealed some of its details[/url] in response to a request from the [i]9/11 Commission[/i].

[b]3. [/b]Former Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke testified before the [i]Senate Judiciary Committee [/i]on September 3, 2003 and stated in part: “[i]It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among[/i] [i]those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review[/i] [i]at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House[/i].”

[b]4. [/b]In 2002, [url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71273,00.html"]the [i]Congress[/i] noted[/url] that Saudi links to 9/11 are not being adequately explored.

[b]5. [/b]In 2003, [url="http://articles.latimes.com/2003/aug/02/nation/na-saudi2"][i]Los Angeles Times[/i] reported[/url] that the classified pages were kept out of a congressional report about 9/11. They demonstrated that the Saudi government not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers, but also allowed hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to [i]Al Qaeda[/i] and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts.

[b]6. [/b]A U.S. official who has read the document said that it describes "[i]very direct, very specific links[/i]" between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators "[i]that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental[/i]."

[b]7. [/b]According to numerous news accounts and the records of the 9/11 Commission, in April 1998, a Saudi national named Osama Basnan wrote to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., seeking financial assistance.

[b]8. [/b]Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador, wrote a check for $15,000 to Basnan. Beginning in December 1999, Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, began sending regular monthly cashier checks to Basnan’s wife, in amounts ranging from $2,000 to $3,500.

[b]9. [/b]Many of these checks were signed over to Manal Bajadr, the wife of Omar al-Bayoumi, another Saudi living in the San Diego area.

[b]10. [/b]Around New Year's Day 2000, two other Saudi nationals, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, arrived at Los Angeles International Airport, where they were greeted by al-Bayoumi, provided with funds, an apartment and Social Security ID cards.

[b]11. [/b]Al-Bayoumi helped the two Saudi men to enrolled in flight schools in Florida. Two months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, al-Bayoumi moved to England, and shortly after that, he disappeared altogether.

[b]12. [/b]Before al-Bayoumi’s disappearance, and within days of the 9/11 attacks, agents of New Scotland Yard, working in conjunction with the FBI, raided his apartment in England. They were able to locate papers hidden beneath the floorboards. These documents had the phone numbers of several officials at the Saudi Embassy in Washington.

[b]13. [/b]Al-Bayoumi was suspected by the Arab community in the San Diego area of being an agent of Saudi intelligence. He covertly kept tabs on Saudi residents in the area, particularly Saudi students attending college in southern California.

[b]14. [/b]Basnan was also long suspected of being an agent for Saudi Arabia's foreign intelligence service. Basnan was reportedly arrested for drug possession in southern California and the Saudi government intervened to get the charges dropped.

[b]15. [/b]Basnan also befriended Alhazmi and Almihdhar prior to their deaths on American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.

[b]16. [/b]At one point, the Basnans, the al-Bayoumis, and the two 9/11 hijackers all lived at the Parkwood Apartments in San Diego.

[b]17. [/b][url="http://articles.latimes.com/2003/aug/02/nation/na-saudi2"][i]FBI[/i] agents said[/url] that Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan, Saudis with direct links to Al Qaeda, acted as conduits for financial aid for the 9/11 hijackers and other Saudi militants. They received "[i]seemingly unlimited funding[/i]" from Saudi Arabia.

[b]18. [/b]Prince Bandar and Princess Haifa denied they played any role in financing the 9/11 hijackers, and claimed that they were merely providing charitable assistance to the Saudi community in the United States. The two co-chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, Robert Graham (D-Fla.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), accused the FBI of failing to fully pursue this "9/11 money trail." The FBI refused to allow the committee to interview the FBI investigators who had probed the Basnan and al-Bayoumi links.

[b]19. [/b]Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is a highly influential former ambassador to Washington, DC. Prince Bandar’s close ties to the Bush family prompted the nickname “[i]Bandar Bush[/i]”. [url="http://www.economist.com/node/12551526?story_id=12551526"]The power Bandar wielded was extraordinary[/url]. For decades he was a close friend to five U.S. Presidents and numerous [i]CIA[/i] directors, as well as heads of state and monarchs of other countries. In the Bush years, Prince Bandar became virtually part of the administration, able to enter the White House unannounced.

[b]20. [/b]Since the mid-eighties, British and American politicians have been operating under suspicion of being compromised by [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/page/0,,2095831,00.html"][i]al-Yamamah[/i][/url], the $80 billion Anglo-Saudi black operations slush fund. It is the product of the 20-year oil-for-arms barter deal, wherein [i]BAE Systems[/i] (formerly [i]British Aerospace[/i]), Britain’s largest defense contractor, [url="http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/15/the-prince-and-the-prime-minister.html"]reportedly paid bribes[/url] to sell combat fighter planes, helicopters, tanks and ammunitions to Saudi Arabia. [url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2941537/Twenty-years-of-smokescreen-over-Saudi-deal.html"]It was the largest arms deal in UK history[/url] that was arranged in a way that circumvented any potential objections by the U.S. Congress.

[b]21. [/b][i]BAE [/i]was said to have paid millions into accounts controlled by Prince Bandar, who had his hand in some of the biggest scandals in modern history. During the Reagan presidency, Bandar secured the purchase of AWACs surveillance aircraft, despite opposition from [i]AIPAC[/i] (after the U.S. rejected an arms order, Bandar covertly arranged the delivery of intermediate-range nuclear-warhead-capable missiles from China). He was exposed for his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal, having arranged $32 million in Saudi financing for the Nicaraguan Contras. Bandar’s wife was reportedly sending money to one of the 9/11 hijackers.

[b]22. [/b]Between April 1998 and May 2002, some $51-73,000 in checks and cashier's checks were provided by the Saudi Ambassador to the United States and his wife to two families in southern California, who in turn bankrolled at least two of the 9/11 hijackers.

[b]23. [/b]Some of the Al-Yamamah funds, including some funds that passed through the Riggs Bank accounts in Washington, financed a migration of Muslim Brotherhood members to the United States, throughout the 1980s and 1990s. This raises serious unanswered questions, particularly in light of the fact that the official staff reports of the 9/11 Commission featured a detailed debriefing of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the purported mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, who admitted that he had been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood since he was 16 years old.

[b]24. [/b]The story was never fully resolved by the 9/11 Commission. To date, it remains one of the key unanswered questions concerning the backing for the worst terrorist attack ever to occur on U.S. soil.

[b]25. [/b]Retired Army Col. Anthony Shaffer, a career intelligence officer, wrote a book entitled [i]Operation Dark Heart[/i], which demonstrates that during his time serving on the secret Able Danger project, Shaffer and his colleagues identified Mohamed Atta, the key 9-11 hijacker involved in the planes that struck the towers, a year before he struck. At that time, he was already in the U.S. Although Col. Schaffer brought this to the attention of the 9/11 Commission, he was not taken up on his offer to testify. None of this intelligence was provided to the American people by the 9/11 Commission.

[b]26. [/b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_of_Attack"]President George W. Bush told Prince Bandar about the invasion of Iraq[/url] before he told Secretary of State Colin Powell about it (incidentally, another one of Prince Bandar’s close connections).

[b]27. [/b][url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19691-2004Apr17?language=printer"]Planning wars[/url] is just one of many perks that come with having friends in high places. Those connections came in handy when Bandar was accused of siphoning off $100 million per year for 10 years, in a $2 billion contract between Saudi Arabia and [i]BAE[/i].

[b]28. [/b]Since Prince Bandar’s wife was providing funding to the 9/11 hijackers, did any of this funding originate from the [i][url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/page/0,,2095831,00.html"]al-Yamamah[/url] [/i]BAE slush fund?

[b]29. [/b]In 2006, when investigators were about to gain access to the Swiss bank accounts linked to Saudi royal family, Tony Blair [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/opinion/14thu3.html?ref=bandarbinsultan"]blocked a corruption investigation[/url] against them. Blair said that the probe would have led nowhere except to the “[i]complete wreckage[/i]” of a vital strategic relationship. Translation: “[i]We don’t want to upset our rich Saudi benefactors[/i].” The Saudis were apparently threatening to back out of a lucrative deal and to halt their participation in anti-terrorism efforts. Bandar had arrogantly warned a U.K. official that “[i]British lives on British streets were at risk[/i]” if the investigation was allowed to continue.

[b]30. [/b]The British High Court ruled that then-Prime Minister [url="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1730126,00.html"]Tony Blair's government may have interfered with the rule of law[/url] in December 2006, when it ordered the British government's [i]Serious Fraud Office[/i] [url="http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/15/the-prince-and-the-prime-minister.html"]to shut down its bribery investigation[/url]. Blair claimed that his decision to scrap the probe was made purely in the interest of national security. The court blasted him in a scathing rebuke that stated in part, “[i]No one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice…It is the failure of Government… to bear that essential principle in mind that justifies the intervention of this court[/i].”

[b]31. [/b]Blair also ensured that the report by the [i]National Audit Office[/i] ([i]NAO[/i]) on [i]BAE's[/i] dealings in Saudi Arabia was not published. It remains the only [i]NAO[/i] report never to have been made public. British [i]Ministry of Defense[/i] stated, "[i]The report remains sensitive. Disclosure would harm both international relations and the UK's commercial interests[/i].”

[b]32. [/b]In 2007, the [i]U.S. Department of Justice [/i]was forced to investigate, since the U.K. government was criticized in the press for halting the inquiry. The [i]DOJ[/i] had the jurisdiction, since Prince Bandar received some of the funds in question in Washington, DC.

[b]33. [/b]Prince Bandar has retained former [i]FBI[/i] Director Louis Freeh to represent him in connection with the [i]DOJ [/i]probe. In a [url="http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/04/louis-freeh-interview.html"]videotaped interview[/url], [url="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/07/nation/na-freeh7"]Freeh admitted on behalf of Bandar[/url] that approximately $2 billion was sent from the [i]al-Yamamah[/i] account in the United Kingdom to bank accounts of the [i]Saudi Ministry of Defense[/i] [i]and Aviation[/i] at [i]Riggs Bank[/i] in Washington, DC. Prince Bandar, who was serving at the time as Saudi Ambassador to the U.S.
exercised control and had signatory authority over those bank accounts. [url="http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/04/louis-freeh-interview.html"]Freeh admits that these monies were sent to purchase arms[/url] through the offices of [i]BAE[/i], which was done [url="http://www.caat.org.uk/issues/saudi-tna/PJ5_40_DESO_oil_agreement.pdf"]in a way that would circumvent "objection" by the [i]U.S. Congress[/i][/url].

[b]34. [/b]Former [i]FBI[/i] Director Louis Freeh is linked to another aspect of 9/11, as a former boss of John Patrick O'Neill, a top American anti-terrorism expert. In 1995, O'Neill investigated the roots of the [i]1993 World Trade Center bombing[/i] after he assisted in the capture of Ramzi Yousef. He also investigated the [i]1996 Khobar Towers bombing[/i] in Saudi Arabia and the 2000 [i]USS Cole bombing[/i] in Yemen.

[b]35. [/b]After years of investigating terrorism, O’Neill was convinced that “[b][i]All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama Bin Laden's organization can be found in Saudi Arabia[/i][/b].” In spite of praising O’Neill and his efforts, not everyone shared his enthusiasm for pursuing and exposing the Saudi links to terror. O'Neill voiced his frustrations with Saudis’ lack of cooperation to Freeh.

[b]36. [/b]As a Director of the [i]FBI[/i], Freeh was involved in controversial investigations of the events at the Ruby Ridge and Waco. The [i]FBI[/i] under Freeh was accused of such severe cover-ups that [url="http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/090399waco-fbi.html"][i]U.S. Marshals[/i] had to be dispatched[/url] to relieve them of the evidence. [url="http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2000/nf20000918_906.htm"][i]Businessweek[/i] called for Freeh to resign[/url], stating in part that he “[i]has overseen a bureau that has bungled investigations of high-profile criminal cases and repeatedly misled probers and judges in legal proceedings -- never more shamelessly than in the matter of Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee. At the same time, Freeh's FBI has tried to run roughshod over the civil liberties[/i][i]of ordinary citizens, demanding access to encryption codes and elbowing its way onto every PC in the country through its Carnivore project[/i].”

[b]37. [/b][url="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/06burrough.html"][i]The New York Times[/i] wrote[/url] that “[i]Freeh will probably go down as either the F.B.I. director who slept as terrorists prepared to attack the World Trade Center or as the man who hounded Bill Clinton for seven years[/i].” Just like Freeh, Prince Bandar has been working to undermine President Bill Clinton for quite some time.

[b]38. [/b]John P. O'Neill certainly wasn’t sleeping on his watch or worrying about sexual proclivities of mischievous Presidents. He had gained a tremendous knowledge of Osama Bin Laden's [i]Al Qaeda[/i] terrorist network, but was repeatedly excluded from terrorism investigations. He became the target of a smear campaign and was subjected to petty internal inquiries. This is not uncommon within federal government, as a [url="http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-los-angeles/office-of-special-counsel-osc-the-dark-legacy"]tactic that is routinely used[/url] to silence those who come across any information that has the potential of embarrassing the government. Freeh was reportedly involved in those attempts to force O'Neill out of the [i]Bureau[/i].

[b]39. [/b]After leaving the [i]FBI[/i], O'Neill became the head of security at the [i]World Trade Center[/i], where he [url="http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/vic.body.terror.expert/"]perished in the September 11, 2001 attacks[/url], while attempting to save others.

[b]40. [/b]In a book “[i]The Age of Sacred Terror[/i]”, Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon state that Louis Freeh deliberately withheld information about Bin Laden and the precursors for the attack of [i]9/11[/i] from the White House.

[b]41. [/b]Richard A. Clarke, a former top counter-terrorism advisor for the White House, criticized Freeh and his actions in his book, “[i]Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror[/i].”

[b]42. [/b]Clarke also expressed serious concerns about Freeh’s representation of Bandar, stating, "[i]Someone who characterizes himself as a U.S. patriot and national security advocate ought not to be on the side of someone blackmailing people not to investigate crimes by threatening to withdraw a nation's cooperation against terrorists[/i]."

[b]43. [/b]Prior to his tenure as the [i]FBI[/i] Director, Freeh was appointed by President George H. W. Bush as a [i]U.S. District Court Judge [/i]for the[i]Southern District of New York[/i].

[b]44. [/b]FBI Director Louis Freeh forged an alliance with “[i]Bandar Bush[/i]”. [url="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/05/14/010514fa_fact_walsh?currentPage=2"]Freeh traveled to Saudi Arabia many times[/url], meeting with Bandar and the highest levels of Saudi government in a relationship that started during Freeh’s investigation of the [i]1996 Khobar bombing[/i].

[b]45. [/b]The secrecy surrounding private meetings between Freeh and Prince Bandar it has been such that Dale Watson, the [i]FBI’s[/i] Chief of Counter-Terrorism, once said, “[i]It’s a killing offense around here to talk about it[/i].”

[b]46. [/b]What was FBI Director Louis Freeh doing during that time? [url="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/05/14/010514fa_fact_walsh?currentPage=3"]He started courting Bandar[/url], spending time in his heavily guarded mansion in McLean, Virginia. Bandar also visited Freeh at his [i]FBI [/i]office, where the privileged Saudi visitor was the only one ever allowed to smoke cigars.

[b]47. [/b]Louis Freeh was bending over backwards to express [url="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/05/14/010514fa_fact_walsh?currentPage=7"]his respect of the Arab culture and Sharia[/url]. He was “[url="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/05/14/010514fa_fact_walsh?currentPage=3"][i]cultivating personal relationships[/i][/url]” with Bandar, as well as the [i]Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia[/i] and other prominent Saudi officials. Freeh said, “[i]The statutory authorities and the resources and all the other factors are significant, but my experience is that none of them are as important as those relationships[/i].”

[b]48. [/b]Could those relationships be the reason behind Freeh’s failure to pursue Saudi links to terror? His shameless hobnobbing with the Saudis has proven to be important (and lucrative) indeed, since Louis Freeh left the [i]FBI[/i] and went on to represent Prince Bandar. [url="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/05/14/010514fa_fact_walsh?currentPage=3"][i]The New Yorker[/i] reported[/url] that “[i]Bandar, like Freeh, is skilled at cultivating people to get things done. Unlike other ambassadors, who exist on the ceremonial fringe, Bandar has real power[/i].”

[b]49. [/b][url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/terrorism/interviews/bandar.html"]Prince Bandar said[/url], “[i]If you tell me… that we misused or got corrupted with $50 billion, I'll tell you, "Yes." … But, more important, more important -- [b]who are you to tell me this[/b]? ... What I'm trying to tell you is, [b]so what[/b]? [b]We did not invent corruption[/b], nor did those dissidents, who are so genius, discover it. [b]This happened since Adam and Eve[/b]. ... [b]I mean, this is human nature[/b][/i].”

[b]50. [/b]The [i]DOJ [/i]filing reflected that [i]BAE[/i] began serving as the prime contractor to the U.K. government in the mid-1980s, after the U.K. and the [i]Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) [/i]entered into a formal agreement. [url="http://www.justice.gov/criminal/pr/documents/03-01-10BAE-information.pdf"][i]BAE[/i] started to provide millions to Prince Bandar[/url] (whose name the [i]DOJ[/i] conspicuously omitted from its charging papers, referring to “[i]Bandar Bush[/i]” as “[i]KSA official[/i]”), who was in a position of influence regarding sales of fighter jets, other defense materials and related support services.

[b]51. [/b]Over a billion dollars was reportedly sent to two Saudi embassy accounts in Washington, DC [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6728773.stm"]controlled by Prince Bandar[/url]. [i]BAE[/i] also transferred over a billion dollars to a bank account in Switzerland controlled by an intermediary, being aware that these payments would also go to Prince Bandar. It is claimed that Bandar [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/07/bae1"]received over $1 billion dollars[/url] over the course of 10 years, with the knowledge and authorization of British [i]Ministry of Defense[/i] officials.

[b]52. [/b]Following [i]BAE’s [/i]criminal conviction by the [i]DOJ[/i], the [url="http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/consent_agreements/pdf/BAES_PCL.pdf"][i]U.S. State Department[/i] also filed charges[/url] against the company for committing over 2,591 separate violations, [url="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/05/163530.htm"]which were settled in May of 2011[/url] for a [url="http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/consent_agreements/pdf/BAES_Order%20.pdf"]civil fine of $79 million dollars[/url].

[b]53. [/b]The[i]State Department[/i] noted that[i]BAE’s[/i] willful refusal to cooperate resulted in [i]“the incomplete nature of the investigation[/i]” and therefore the government was[b]unable [i]“to assess fully the potential harm to U.S. national security[/i][/b].[b]”[/b]

[b]54. [/b]A felony conviction could have interfered with [i]BAE’s[/i] ability to compete for U.S. contracts, but it didn’t. No one seemed too concerned that [i]BAE[/i] paid millions in bribes, to include payments made to the likes of Augusto Pinochet, the former [i]Chilean dictator[/i].

[b]55. [/b]In the 365 days that followed, [i]BAE[/i] was awarded roughly $58 billion in US government contracts.

[b]56. [/b]Nonetheless, the settlement rescinded the statutory debarment, allowing [i]BAE[/i] to get right back to business. [i]BAE[/i] is apparently “[i]too big to bar[/i].” Although the company was sanctioned with a criminal fine of over $400 million for its foreign corrupt practices, none of [i]BAE’s[/i] executives were prosecuted.

[b]57. [/b]Similarly, nothing got in the way of [url="http://production.investis.com/armorholdings/home_read_more/"][i]BAE's[/i] takeover of the US-based [i]Armor[/i] [i]Holdings[/i][/url]. U.S. regulators approved [url="http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_107631191035.html"]the deal[/url], in spite of the company’s history of multibillion dollar bribery and corruption.

[b]58. [/b]Bribery and corruption continued. On July 13, 2011, [i]Armor Holdings [/i][url="http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2011/lr22037.htm"]settled charges of bribery[/url] with the [i]Department of Justice [/i]and the [i]SEC[/i]. The charges arise out of bribes paid to obtain contracts to supply body armor for U.N. peacekeepers ([url="http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2011/comp22037.pdf"][i]SEC v. Armor Holdings, Inc., [/i]Case No. 1:11-CV-01271[/url]). [i]Armor Holdings[/i] agreed to pay a total of $5,690,744 to the [i]SEC [/i]and $10,290,000 to the [i]U.S. Department of Justice[/i] to resolve the charges. Of course, none of the company’s executives were prosecuted.

[b]59. [/b]In 2005, [url="http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/pr_20050624b.htm"][i]BAE[/i] purchased [i]United Defense Industries[/i][/url], maker of combat vehicles, artillery, naval guns, missile launchers and precision munitions.

[b]60. [/b]The implication of these dealings is that a company under control of Saudi money and influence, with a documented history of bribery and corruption, and documented involvement with providing funding to 9/11 hijackers, owns an enormous slice of the American defense industry, striving to be the Pentagon’s biggest supplier. The threat surpasses the “[i]Fast and Furious[/i]” faux pas on an unimaginable scale, because Saudi Arabia ([url="http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45189.pdf"]with its undeniable links to terror[/url]) now controls massive military enterprises inside the U.S.

[b]61. [/b][url="http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Terrorist_Financing_TF.pdf"]A report, prepared by a bipartisan panel of terrorism experts for the [i]Council on Foreign Relations[/i][/url], sharply criticized the Bush administration for its lackadaisical approach towards [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36948-2002Oct16?language=printer"]Saudi Arabia’s involvement in terror funding[/url], which remains a “[i]lethal threat[/i]” to the United States.

[b]62. [/b][i]CFR[/i]report concludes that “[i]it is worth stating clearly and unambiguously [b]what official U.S. government spokespersons have not[/b]:[/i]“[i]For years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for al-Qaeda[/i]… [i]It would be wrong to say that no progress has been made… But it would be equally wrong to overstate the progress that has been made—[b]a mistake that is too often made by U.S. government spokespersons[/b]. In recent years, for instance, Saudi Arabia has taken two or three important steps to improve its capability to cooperate on these matters with the United States, for which it should be commended. [b]A hundred more steps and Saudi Arabia may be where it needs to be[/b][/i].”

[b]63. [/b]The report profoundly summarized why the U.S. is neither being taken seriously by the rest of the world in our “[i]war on terror[/i]”, nor does our own government take it seriously enough to abandon its unholy alliances: “[i]The Task Force appreciates the necessary delicacies of diplomacy and notes that previous administrations also used phrases that [b]obfuscated more than they illuminated[/b] when making public statements on this subject. Nevertheless, when [b]U.S. spokespersons are willing to say only that “Saudi Arabia is being cooperative” when they know very well all the ways in which it is not, both our allies and our adversaries can be forgiven for believing that the United States does not place a high priority on this issue[/b][/i].”

[b]64. [/b]In his book, “[i]Intelligence Matters[/i]”, former Florida Senator Robert Graham also highlighted connections between a Saudi government spy and the planners of the terrorist attacks, criticizing the deletion of 28 pages from the [i]9/11 Commission Report [/i]that dealt with Saudi Arabia.

[b]65. [/b]“[i]The Commission: The Uncensored History Of The 9/11 Investigation[/i]”, written by Philip Shenon, an investigative reporter for the [i]New York Times[/i], details revelations contained in a classified portion of a [i]House-Senate Joint Intelligence Committee [/i]report. It discusses the Saudi links to the 9/11 attacks. The pages pertaining to the Saudi connections never saw the light of day because the White House invoked executive privilege.

[b]66. [/b]While the officials refuse to declassify this information, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld exposed them in her book, “[url="http://smashinginterviews.com/interviews/newsmakers/dr-rachel-ehrenfeld-interview-terrorism-funding-expert-on-speech-act-and-911"][i]Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It[/i][/url][i]”. She was subsequently sued by Saudi billionaire [/i]Khalid bin Mahfouz [i]for “libel[/i][i]” and relentlessly harassed by his affiliates. [/i]Ehrenfeld, Director of the New York-based [i]American Center for Democracy[/i], refused to be intimidated. She championed the [i]SPEECH Act [/i]([i]the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage[/i]) to guard American authors and publishers from enforcement of frivolous foreign libel judgments that undermine the First Amendment and American due process standards. This bill was signed into law on August 10, 2010.

[b]67. [/b]Frustrated by the government’s failure to hold anyone personally accountable in the [i]BAE [/i]bribery scandal, the city of Harper Woods, Michigan has filed a lawsuit against [i]BAE[/i] [i]Systems[/i] over allegations that the company funneled bribes to Prince Bandar. Harper Woods was intimately involved in a $100 billion international arms deal, because its $40 million employee pension fund includes about $135,000 invested in [i]BAE Systems[/i]. William Bradford Reynolds, who served as the [i]Chief of the Justice Department's [/i]civil rights division during the Reagan administration, signed on to represent Bandar in this lawsuit. During this litigation, a [url="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91332402"]U.S. court froze Prince Bandar’s assets[/url] in the U.S., reportedly worth over $150 million dollars.

[b]68. [/b]Prince Bandar was clearly [url="http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/15/the-prince-and-the-prime-minister.html"]furious about these developments[/url]. When George W. Bush visited Saudi Arabia, he asked, “[i]Where's my pal Bandar?[/i]” In response, he was told that Bandar is unavailable. During Cheney’s visit to Saudi Arabia, old pal Bandar was similarly a no-show.

[b]69. [/b]In 2009, the U.S. District court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, holding that English law controls and therefore the city of Harper Woods has no standing to pursue the action. This was a predictable outcome, given the political control of the U.S. government over the judiciary. For the last quarter of a century, motivated by greed, many of our elected officials chose to hold the interests of Saudi Arabian oligarchs above those of the American people.

[b]70. [/b]As of 2011, Bandar is back as a force in world politics. He was present in [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/world/middleeast/07military.html"]recent meetings[/url] between [i]Secretary of Defense[/i] Robert M. Gates (former director of the [i]CIA[/i]) and [i]King Abdullah[/i], as well as during a separate [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tom-donilons-arab-spring-challenge/2011/04/26/AFWVE2sE_story.html"]visit by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon[/url].

[b]71. [/b][url="http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/20/us-usa-saudi-arms-idUSTRE69J4ML20101020"]United States’ recently sold $60 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia[/url], including 84 new F-15 fighter jets (in addition to upgrading 70 of their existing F-15s), 190 helicopters as well as a wide array of missiles and bombs. The deal was announced while Congress was in recess, to ensure that it would move forward without interruptions by any possible opponents.

[b]72. [/b]This was the largest purchase of American arms in Saudi Arabia’s history. [url="http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/04/ap-military-robert-gates-in-saudi-arabia-040611/"]Gates also urged King Abdullah[/url] to buy an upgraded version of [i]Patriot[/i] air defense missiles and the [i]Theater High-Altitude Area Defense System[/i], which is designed to shoot down ballistic missiles of longer range. Gates told reporters, “[i]I think the relationship is in a good place.[/i]” This “[i]relationship[/i]” seems to be blooming indeed, since the U.S. continues to sell arms to the country with direct ties to terrorism.

[b]73. [/b]You may have noticed that the mainstream mediaavoids discussing the issues of Saudi influence and links to 9/11. There’s a good explanation for that. It so happens that the second largest shareholder of [i]News Corp[/i]. is Saudi billionaire, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. His slice of the pie is topped only by the holdings of Rupert Murdoch himself.

[b]74. [/b]Al-Waleed involved himself in a variety of [url="http://stockpickr.com/pro/portfolio/prince-al-waleed/"]Western enterprises[/url] and powerhouses, including but not limited to [url="http://www.ameinfo.com/259466.html"][i]Sony[/i][/url] (now planning to launch more Arabic TV shows), [url="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987454,00.html"]Michael Jackson[/url], [url="http://www.ameinfo.com/266410.html"]Rupert Murdoch’s scandalous media empire[/url], [i]AOL/Time Warner, The Walt Disney Company, Amazon, Apple, Citigroup, Coca Cola, Compaq, Disneyland, eBay, Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, Ford, Hewlett-Packard, Kodak, McDonald's, Motorola, PepsiCo, Priceline, Procter & Gamble [/i]and[url="http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2010-11-24/saudi-gm-ipo"][i]General Motors[/i][/url].

[b]75. [/b]Not to be outdone, Jeffrey Immelt of [i]General Electric[/i], a company that owns [i]MSNBC[/i] and is already [url="http://www.ge.com/sa/"]firmly entrenched in Saudi Arabia[/url], also [url="http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20070207121753/Prince%20Alwaleed%20&%20Mr.%20Immelt,%20GE%27s%20Chairman%20&%20CEO%20Form%20a%20Committee%20to%20Explore%20All%20Possible%20Means%20of%20Cooperation%20Locally%20&%20Regionally"]approached Al-Waleed and solicited him to invest in [i]GE[/i][/url].

[b]76. [/b]In case you were wondering, the acronym “MSM” nowadays stands for “[b][i]Mainly Saudi Media[/i][/b]”.

[b]77. [/b]Al-Waleed was quoted asserting that Arab countries can [url="http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/02/09/opinion/doc4b70ebb097853325026342.txt?viewmode=default"]influence U.S. decision-making[/url] “[i]if they unite through economic interests, not political…We have to be logical and understand that the U.S. administration is subject to U.S. public opinion…[b]And to bring the decision-maker on your side, you not only have to be active inside the U.S. Congress or the administration, but also inside U.S. society[/b][/i].” Al-Waleed donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the building of a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan, also known as [url="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/08/21/fox-shareholder-funded-mosque-imam/"]the "[i]Ground Zero Mosque[/i]"[/url]. The majority of the American public didn’t take too kindly to that idea.

[b]78. [/b][url="http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/02/09/opinion/doc4b70ebb097853325026342.txt?viewmode=2"]Alwaleed has bragged[/url] that it only took a phone call to ensure that the Fox News Channel coverage of Muslims rioting in France not be described as “[i]Muslim[/i]”. Money buys all kinds of undue influence over American and British mainstream media. Is anyone still surprised that there is virtually no open discussion as to the issues of Saudi influence in the western media and politics, as well as Saudi links to Al Qaeda and 9/11?

[b]79. [/b][url="http://hir.harvard.edu/predicting-the-present/getting-a-facelift"]To bolster their public image[/url], the Saudis hired a [url="http://www.qorvis.com/case-studies/media-and-government-relations-kingdom-saudi-arabia"]PR firm[/url] and scores of high-powered Washington lobbyists. Saudi Arabia’s shabby public image in the U.S. has long been exacerbated by reports of a barbaric judicial systemthat believes in chopping off heads and limbs, complete absence of religious freedom, nonexistent human rights and ongoing abuses against women.

[b]80. [/b]According to the [i]Department of Justice [/i]records, Saudi Arabia has spent over $20 million dollars on public relations, advertising and lobbying. Relentless PR efforts to clean up the Saudi image initially failed (especially when [url="http://articles.cnn.com/2001-10-11/us/rec.giuliani.prince_1_saudi-prince-alwaleed-bin-israeli-withdrawal-criminal-attack?_s=PM:US"]Al-Waleed claimed that the U.S. Foreign policy is to blame for the attacks of 9/11[/url]), but later started to pay off. The positive image of Saudi Arabia is being pushed in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

[b]81. [/b]Starting in 2002, series of ads appeared on American TV, in major newspapers and magazines, were broadcast on radio stations and popped up all over the Internet. All of them featured slogans, representing Saudis as America’s allies in the “[i]war on terror[/i]”.

[b]82. [/b]In August 2004, following the final release of the [i]9/11 Commission Report[/i], the Saudi government paid for a series of new radio ads, repeatedly reiterating that no link had been established between Saudi Arabia and the terror attacks of 9/11.

[b]83. [/b]One of the PR firms hired by Saudi Arabia, [i]Qorvis Communications[/i], who received millions for their activities, lobbied on Saudi Arabia’s behalf with US Congressional staffers 62 times in the first half of 2004.

[b]84. [/b]Saudi Arabia also arranged series of meetings with the editorial boards of major US newspapers, including [i]The New York Times[/i] and [i]USA Today[/i], and secured appearances on numerous cable news programs.

[b]85. [/b]A feature film “[url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1401152/companycredits"][i]Unknown[/i][/url]” prominently features a character of a benevolent and magnanimous Saudi prince who bankrolled an expensive research project to create a genetically modified strain of corn that could eliminate world hunger. The film “[i]Unknown”[/i] is based on the novel “[i]Out of My Head”[/i] by Didier van Cauwelaert. There is no such a character in the original version of the story. One has to wonder if this feature film is just another extension of Saudi Arabia’s multimillion dollar PR campaign.

[b]86. [/b]Anything that challenges [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/08/saudiarabia-oil"]the dominance of Saudi Arabia[/url], as it [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/from-the-archive-blog/2011/jun/10/wikileaks-guardian-cables-2010"]holds the rest of the world over an oil barrel[/url], or [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/198178"]exposes the complicity of First World country governments[/url] is assaulted with all the might of the [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/162960"]brute force[/url] that [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/206346"]deems itself too powerful to be held accountable[/url].

[b]87. [/b]It’s quite a spectacular feat for a primitive oligarchy of Saudi Arabia to achieve [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/08/saudiarabia-oil1"]such a level of control[/url] over the world’s supposed super-powers through oil and money, usurping ownership of Western arms, politics and mainstream media.

[b]88. [/b]The new information comes from [i]The Commission: The Uncensored History Of The 9/11 Investigation[/i] by Philip Shenon, an investigative reporter for the [i]New York Times[/i]. The revelation is contained in a portion of a House-Senate Joint Intelligence Committee report with 28 pages on Saudi links to the 9/11 attacks that destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center, struck the Pentagon, caused the crash of jet in a Pennsylvania field--and killed more than 3,000 people in the most deadly terrorist attack ever on United States soil.

[b]89. [/b]While the officials refuse to declassify relevant information in the 9/11 Commission report, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld exposed them in her book, “[url="http://smashinginterviews.com/interviews/newsmakers/dr-rachel-ehrenfeld-interview-terrorism-funding-expert-on-speech-act-and-911"]Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It[/url][i]”. She was subsequently sued by Saudi billionaire [/i]Khalid bin Mahfouz [i]for “libel” and relentlessly harassed by his affiliates. [/i]Ehrenfeld, Director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy, refused to be intimidated. She championed the SPEECH Act (the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage) to guard American authors and publishers from enforcement of frivolous foreign libel judgments that undermine the First Amendment and American due process standards. This bill was signed into law on August 10, 2010.

[b]90. [/b]On Aug. 20, 2001, Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen, a man who would soon be named a minister of the Saudi government and put in charge of its two holy mosques, arrived in the United States to meet with some of this country's most influential fundamentalist Sunni Muslim leaders. Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen’s journey here was to include meetings and contacts with officials of several Saudi-sponsored charities that have since been accused of links to terrorist groups, including the Illinois-based Global Relief Foundation, which was shut down by U.S. authorities last year.

[b]91. [/b]He met with the creators of Islamic Web sites that U.S. authorities contend promote the views of radical Saudi clerics tied to Osama bin Laden. And among the imams on his travel schedule was a leader of a small religious center tucked into a nondescript office building in Falls Church, the same site used for a time by the spiritual leader of a group of area men indicted in June as suspected jihadists.

[b]92. [/b]On the night of Sept. 10, 2001, Hussayen stayed at a Herndon hotel that also housed three of the Saudi hijackers who would slam an aircraft into the Pentagon the next day, though there is no evidence that he had contact with them. The purpose of his meetings remains, in fact, a mystery.

[b]93. [/b]Backed by money from Saudi Arabia, Wahhabis have built or taken over hundreds of mosques in North America and opened branches of Saudi universities here for the training of imams as part of the effort to spread their beliefs, which are intolerant of Christianity, Judaism and even other strains of Islam.

[b]94. [/b]The Saudi government, through its embassy here, declined to discuss any aspect of the probe. Embassy officials agreed in August to forward a request for an interview to Hussayen, but provided no response. Sources said Hussayen was also scheduled to visit officials at the Muslim World League, a multibillion-dollar, Saudi-based umbrella charity organization whose U.S. offices are at 360 S. Washington St.

[b]95. [/b]Hussayen also was scheduled to meet with officials of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), another huge Saudi-based charity headed by the Saudi government's minister of Islamic affairs, according to sources knowledgeable about the investigation. WAMY's U.S. office on Leesburg Pike in Falls Church was incorporated by bin Laden's nephew, Abdullah bin Laden, and operated by him until the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

[b]96. [/b]The investigation is heating up at a time when Washington's relations with Riyadh have been strained by allegations that the Saudi government has done little to rein in huge charities there that have been accused of funding terrorism. The Saudis strenuously deny funding terrorists and say they are cracking down on organizations accused of doing so.

[b]97. [/b]U.S. authorities have contended that operating under the guise of a charity is a powerful engine for groups that promote teachings and religious [i]fatwas[/i] -- orders that advocate violence against the United States -- issued by two radical Saudi clerics.

[b]98. [/b]The clerics, Safar Hawali and Salman Ouda, were identified in the first World Trade Center bombing trial as spiritual advisers to bin Laden. Both were jailed for radicalism during the 1990s in Saudi Arabia.

[b]99. [/b]There is an unwritten rule in government to never speak evil of the Saudi regime. To make matters worse, the army of the Beltway lobbyists, experts and consultants are directly or indirectly supported by Saudi money, or derive their incomes from U.S. government officials who do not want to hear ill of the Saudis. This is one of many reasons why American people are not being provided with the complete set of facts and investigations pertaining to 9/11.

[b]100. [/b]Following 9/11, the U.S. chose to portray the Saudis as another ally in the "Global War on Terror." Far less attention was paid to the facts that some of the 9/11 al Qaeda terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and that Saudis have long been major financial sponsors of terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda. The U.S. and other allies refuse to declassify information documenting these links.

(To be continued… Next, Part II – "[i][b]Inside the attacks of 9/11[/b][/i]")

Sign in to follow this  


Recommended Comments

Poor taste, poor judgement and incredibly selfish as well as disrespectful of the thousands affected by the atrocity itself and ongoing repercussions, I think you should seriously reconsider leaving this blog online. Or at least remove it for a few days before reposting.

Try and show a little bit of humanity, or if that is too much to expect then consider that scoring points on the day that remembers a huge loss of life, and subsequently set the world on a path that is still destroying lives to this day is sick. If after considering this you think it is still right to score conspiracy theory points, then every point you make, every post, every viewpoint expressed is cheapened by your obvious inability to demonstrate compassion ahead of your mission to swallow every morsel of misinformation you can find and regurgitate it like a projectile vomiting infant desperately sticking his fingers down his own throat in the hope that someone will give him some attention.

No attention is available, just a mop in the hope you will clear up your own mess and learn not to do it again.

Share this comment

Link to comment
Fully agreed Ian. PP, your viewpoints are controversial at the best of times, but posting this blog on this day is incredibly disrespectful. No matter who the cause was, the bottom line is that thousands of lives were lost and no amount of political points scoring is going to change that.

Share this comment

Link to comment
No problems with people wanting to believe conspiracies and cover ups, but just thinking for 2 seconds would have made any normal person think that yesterday was not the time to air them. They aren't even his thoughts, just a copy and paste job, so it was hardly a heartfelt or well constructed view, just cheap plagiarism.

Share this comment

Link to comment
Fair enough if you'd rather some heart felt by PP, but then I'm sure there would have been responses asking him to keep his opinions to himself and to stick to the evidence!
He's not forcing the people who lost loved ones to read this, everyone is free to look away as most do. I don't see any disrespect in discussing and pointing out the possible motives/reasons behind the attacks on the 10th anniversary. I find it more disrespectful that the US government won't be open and honest about what happened whist waging war across the globe in the name of those who died in those tragic events.

Share this comment

Link to comment
The other problem is that ALL of these kind of posts by PP are merely copied and pasted by hysterical websites from all over the web.

Share this comment

Link to comment
[size=6][b] Disturbing Facts About 9/11?[/b][/size]

Just think how much time PP would have on his hands if he didn't keep hapring on about this subject endlessly? Now that is disturbing....... [img]http://hw.nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/doh.gif[/img]

At least the British Public are generally spared him walking the streets bothering them!

Share this comment

Link to comment


Share this comment

Link to comment
PP, why don't you actually post something of your own rather than repeatedly referring to scaremongering sites?

Share this comment

Link to comment
Oh dear lord, have you not worn out this drum yet...................or been sectioned?

Share this comment

Link to comment
  • Create New...