Saudi Arabia did NOT fund Al-Qaeda, 9/11 comm. says

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-28 01:04pm

There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11 (other than limited support provided by the Taliban after Bin Ladin first arrived in Afghanistan). Some governments may have turned a blind eye to al Qaeda's fundraising activities. Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior officials within the Saudi government funded al Qaeda.

Shock to me. Wow.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-06-28 01:08pm

I'm guessing this means relations with the Saudis will stay friendly, so we'll get jacked less often on oil prices?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-06-28 01:09pm

The Saudi GOVERNMENT (at least, the royal part of it) would never fund a terrorist organization. The accusations have mostly claimed that Saudi citizens funded Al Qaeda, which is certainly true.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-28 01:14pm

yeah, and there are no Americans in Baghdad.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-28 04:58pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:yeah, and there are no Americans in Baghdad.

You ever stop to consider that maybe the Saudi government knows how utterly fucked it would be if they gave money to a terror group that's attacking the US? Not to mention the little fact that the Saudi government is on Bin Laden's enemies list? Not very good reasons to help them. The Saudis are perfectly capable of looking the other way to avoid pissing of terrrorists, coddling fundies, and generally just talking the talk in this. But the House of Saud knows that if Al-Quada gets it's way their heads will be on the chopping block too, in a very literal way.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-28 05:02pm

Stormbringer wrote: You ever stop to consider that maybe the Saudi government knows how utterly fucked it would be if they gave money to a terror group that's attacking the US? Not to mention the little fact that the Saudi government is on Bin Laden's enemies list? Not very good reasons to help them. The Saudis are perfectly capable of looking the other way to avoid pissing of terrrorists, coddling fundies, and generally just talking the talk in this. But the House of Saud knows that if Al-Quada gets it's way their heads will be on the chopping block too, in a very literal way.

You're missing the point. Sure, Saudi Arabia doesn't officially support Bin Laden, but that doesn't mean that a great deal of the wealthy families don't give him money and support.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-28 05:04pm

Oops, no "state sponsors of terrorism" anywhere? Whatever will the neo-cons do? Oh yeah, they'll just ignore it and continue to ramble incoherently about "state sponsors of terrorism" whenever they want to justify their actions.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-28 06:52pm

The Kernel wrote:You're missing the point. Sure, Saudi Arabia doesn't officially support Bin Laden, but that doesn't mean that a great deal of the wealthy families don't give him money and support.

Which is a different animal from state sponsored terrorism. As a matter of fact, it even notes that some have turned a blind eye to terrorist activities with in their countries.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-28 07:24pm

Stormbringer wrote:
The Kernel wrote:You're missing the point. Sure, Saudi Arabia doesn't officially support Bin Laden, but that doesn't mean that a great deal of the wealthy families don't give him money and support.
Which is a different animal from state sponsored terrorism.

In what way?

This reminds me of how, back in the 80s, Reagan's State Dept. would be very proud of the fact that the army in El Salvador had cut way back on their atrocities and that the mass murder was the work of "paramilitaries".

HORSESHIT!

The death squads and the army were one and the same. The only difference was that if soldiers dressed in plain clothes or left their army insignia back at the barracks, the murder was chalked up to the death squads and the army was "cleared".

The Saudi government looks the other way and allows certain citizens to give money to Bin Laden and other thugs. They even held a Jerry Lewis-style all-day telethon to raise money for suicide bombers. If the government there allows this kind of thing, they either approve or couldn't care less.

Even in the off chance that the government doesn't condone these actions by Saudis, they might as well have. Silence = consent.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-28 10:26pm

Elfdart wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Which is a different animal from state sponsored terrorism.
In what way?

Hmm, in that the government is not actively sponsoring terrorism? You know, like so many have alleged.

Believe it our not, that's a pretty big difference when you get down to it. A government can be held to account for it's actions in a different manner than we would go about dealing with the action of private citizen or citizens of the same country. There's a huge difference in terms of international law and the like.

Elfdart wrote:The Saudi government looks the other way and allows certain citizens to give money to Bin Laden and other thugs.

They might indeed. Or they might not be in a position to do much with out serious support. Remember what happened to the Shah of Iran?

Elfdart wrote:They even held a Jerry Lewis-style all-day telethon to raise money for suicide bombers. If the government there allows this kind of thing, they either approve or couldn't care less.

I'd really like to see evidence of this alleged telethon.

Elfdart wrote:Even in the off chance that the government doesn't condone these actions by Saudis, they might as well have. Silence = consent.

So you're either with us or against us, aye?

Mind you, I think we ought to take action against those that deliberately turn a blind eye to it. But simply assuming any nation that ever had a terrorist that dislikes us is carrying it to extremes. And frankly, we've seen the result of that kind of thinking already.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-28 11:54pm

When 15 of the 19 hijackers are from Saudi Arabia, it raises some eyebrows. And if some of the wealthiest families in that country are supporting terrorists financially, that's a big deal, even for the government, especially when the government does nothing at all to stop that funding.

Come on people. If we found out that the Hiltons were funding al Qaeda, we'd be on their asses like bullshit on Bush's campaign. And if our government had knowledge of this funding and turned a blind eye, I'd consider it state support of terrorism.

Gambler · Post by **Gambler** » 2004-06-29 10:56am

The Saudi government may not support the terrorist groups directly, but they sure like to spread the same ideology.
The Saudi royal family funds schools around the globe that teach a rather islamic fundie view of things.
Not a week ago I heard on the news here that a saudi funded school had been closed by judicial order because their school textbooks teached that it was OK to kill nonbelievers under certain circumstances for religious matters.