Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday May 15 2016, @01:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the let-the-conspiracy-theories-begin dept.

A member of the 9/11 commission has broken his silence about some of the unreleased findings:

A former Republican member of the 9/11 commission, breaking dramatically with the commission's leaders, said Wednesday he believes there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers and that the Obama administration should move quickly to declassify a long-secret congressional report on Saudi ties to the 2001 terrorist attack.

The comments by John F Lehman, an investment banker in New York who was Navy secretary in the Reagan administration, signal the first serious public split among the 10 commissioners since they issued a 2004 final report that was largely read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia, which was home to 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @01:52AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 15 2016, @01:52AM (#346239) Journal

    Wahhabism. "Return to Koranic literalism". What more needs to be said?

    It is hardly surprising that some government officials were involved in 9/11. Actually, I'm surprised that they didn't identify some more senior members of the government, possibly even some of their princes.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 15 2016, @02:36AM

    by frojack (1554) on Sunday May 15 2016, @02:36AM (#346252) Journal

    You listen to half the conspiracy theorists on the web, (some of them here on SN) and they would have you believe it was a CIA operation from the start.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday May 15 2016, @02:47AM

      by opinionated_science (4031) on Sunday May 15 2016, @02:47AM (#346255)

      that's the point. They stir it up so stability doesn't exist. An unstable system is easier to nudge...

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:48AM (#346290)

      conspiracy theorists on the web

      Because conspiracies do not exist, as we all know. The government cannot lie. No government has ever lied and no group has ever lied either. Correct?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:32AM (#346309)

      You didn't learn from the Snowden leak. People weren't enough foil hat conspiracy suspicious. Whenever something is possible in these matters assume it is exploited with bad intent, always.

    • (Score: 2) by Username on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:39AM

      by Username (4557) on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:39AM (#346314)

      Do you have proof is wasn’t a CIA operation?

      Considering the CIA has their hands in all the cookie jars, I’m pretty sure they were involved at some level. I know they armed and trained Al-Qaeda, even trained Osama himself. How far it went after that, I have no idea. Pretty sure no one will know until CIA Snowden comes forth.

      Even knowing how the CIA tremendously fucked up, why did Obama have the CIA train ISIS? Or whatever you want to call them before they became ISIS. Did the CIA recommend it or is Obama that stupid?

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @08:27AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @08:27AM (#346355)

        Pretty sure no one will know until CIA Snowden comes forth.

        That already happened. Snowden was originally CIA before he was tasked with taking NSA down a peg for reducing their HUMINT via shared data.

        Oh, you mean when a leaker from inside CIA gets massive news coverage in CIA influenced western news? Not gonna happen. Protip: Nothing Snowden released wasn't already known either directly or indirectly through other means. Room 641A was known beforehand. ECHELON / Five Eyes and Omnivore / Carnivore before it were known about going back to the 60's. We've been documenting warrantless spying going back to telegraphs and snail mail. However, the media didn't hammer on about it until CIA wanted it talked about.

        Huge leaks happen all the time, but you're not hip to them and they won't get air time like Snowden leaks because CIA doesn't want them to be aired. The leaks happening aren't what's required to get the info out. The ignorant masses will stay ignorant unless the mainstream media makes a point of it, even if gov officials are on the record talking about how DoD and CIA are fighting each other accidentally via their respective creations of FSA and ISIS (also a Mossad OP; protip: Israel gets 70% of their oil from ISIS through Turkey).

        Hint: The 28 pages are primarily propaganda and will not unmask the most grievous of the culprits. Look into who purchased the WTC properties (having a negative ROI) and insured them against terrorist attacks just before the buildings were demolished (they had asbestos and were too expensive to remodel or demolish legally). What commonality does Silverstein have with the [prior] owner of the venue attacked in Paris? Did you know that the Bataclan concert hall was sold just before the attacks, on 9/11? Did you know the 'Eagles of Death Metal' who were playing at the event had a song titled, "San Bernardino", which was where the next major terrorist attack took place?

        Starting making the connections, and it will get a bit too coincidental for Occam's Razor to dismiss. You don't need a Snowden of the CIA, you just need to do a bit of research. Note that you can not determine what the simplest answer might be without knowing most of the evidence.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by https on Sunday May 15 2016, @09:21PM

          by https (5248) on Sunday May 15 2016, @09:21PM (#346535) Journal

          Nice try, but you're a fucking shill. Forumspies Technique #10, but poorly done. If your boss finds out, you're in the shit.

          Nothing Snowden released wasn't already suspected

          Fixed that for you.

          --
          Offended and laughing about it.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 16 2016, @12:41AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 16 2016, @12:41AM (#346616)

            Ha, that's rich. You're deflecting rather than addressing any of the points. That's a classic disinformation tactic. Known Before Snowden: Prism's AT&T room 641A [wikipedia.org] Carnivore / Omnivore [wikipedia.org] Known Before Snowden., ECHELON / Five Eyes [wikipedia.org] Known before Snowden. Hint: The PATRIOT ACT granted RETROACTIVE immunity to telecoms for helping with vast warrantless wiretapping programs. There's plenty more where that comes from if you just do your own research. Ah, but you see, a real shill would be deflecting and denying not telling people to go digging up more data... Which are you doing and which am I doing?

            Just because YOU didn't know about the programs doesn't mean they weren't known about before Snowden.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @02:47AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @02:47AM (#346256)

    Actually, I'm surprised that they didn't identify some more senior members of the government, possibly even some of their princes.

    Just being a prince doesn't make you government employee. It just means you get an allowance.

    There are roughly 15,000 princes and princesses. [economist.com] The house of saud is gynormous.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:44AM

      by frojack (1554) on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:44AM (#346269) Journal

      But there are thousands of government employees. What is the chance that one or more of them were sympathizers? I'd say it was pretty good. The royal family isn't universally popular.

      So given that there are probably a few disaffected among the government employees, I can easily see that there might be support members among this group that were assisting in message passing, passports, etc.

      But nothing that Lehman has said constitutes any proof of anything. Why is he asking for the declassification of these 28 pages? If he knows something, he can say something. Its not like anyone would arrest him and send him to prison if he leaked them, or his recollection of them.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by https on Thursday May 19 2016, @10:39PM

        by https (5248) on Thursday May 19 2016, @10:39PM (#348534) Journal

        Prison, no, but brake lines do fail once in a while, don't they?

        --
        Offended and laughing about it.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:51AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:51AM (#346272)

    Even worse is these mosques that spew out hate propaganda against the western society and is a recruiting ground for militant Islam. And the sponsor is Saudi Arabia and other Wahhabism countries. Those that have the highest tendency to along this seems to be small time criminals but even this the authorities miss time from time.

    So one can make the case that some actions are actually permitted to happen. Then some new law for intruding on the privacy is introduced.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:09AM (#346275)

      > And the sponsor is Saudi Arabia and other Wahhabism countries.

      Which countries are those?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:39AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:39AM (#346287)

        Qatar.
        Just make some searches on Munich. And that's only one example.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:29AM (#346305)

        Have a look here:
        No Petrodollar Land Grabbing for Qatar in Brussels [stopterrorfinance.org]

        Saudi Arabia has devoted over $70 billion to the cause of exporting Salafism/Wahhabism all over the world since the late 1970s.

        Qatar mostly invests in mosques managed by the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF), an umbrella organization including and representing about 250 Muslim organizations on French soil, most of them renowned for their solid ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. This was the case for both the Assalam mosque in Nantes – Qatar paid most of the €4.4 for its construction – and in Mulhouse – for which Qatar Charity disbursed €2 million. The country donated about $1 million to build a mega mosque in Cork, a town that hosts the second biggest Muslim community in the Ireland.

        “More temperate or muted versions of Islam were smothered by Wahhabi petrodollars,” writes A.D. Kendall on Moneyjihad.

        Through mosques and schools, Wahhabi patrons secured effective channels of indoctrination and propaganda – even recruitment if need be - as well as a privileged cover for potential illicit financial transactions.

        What is new is the determined official stance of the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who refused to approve the funding that the Qatari government made available for the project and stressed that “it would be paradoxical and against nature to accept funding coming from a country that does not allow religious freedom.”

        The decision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not isolated. In February 2015, the Austrian Parliament adopted legislation that prohibited Muslim organizations from accepting foreign sources of funding, a measure that France has been considering as well. Shortly after the November 13 terrorist attack in Paris, Iceland’s President took a stance against a donation of a $1 million from Saudi Arabia. Germany’s Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel warned Saudi Arabia..

        French senior imam Hassan El Alaoui told Al Jazeera that "according to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech."

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @08:47PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @08:47PM (#346526)

          Qatar mostly invests in mosques managed by the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF), an umbrella organization including and representing about 250 Muslim organizations on French soil, most of them renowned for their solid ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

          Your own citation disproves your claim. The muslm brotherhood are not wahabis. They call themselves salafist, but most other salafists don't think they qualify. I know it is hard to distinguish between sects of a religion you have no familiarity with, but at least try to get the basics right, ok?