this post was submitted on 24 May 2024

302 points (96.3% liked)

World News

39161 readers

2002 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

302

New 9/11 Evidence Points to Deep Saudi Complicity (www.theatlantic.com)

submitted 6 months ago by TokenBoomer to c/world

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Two decades of U.S. policy appear to be rooted in a mistaken understanding of what happened that day. archive

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] corroded 72 points 6 months ago (5 children)

I'm old enough to remember the 9/11 attacks. It was never in question that Saudi Arabia was complicit in what happened. The majority of the terrorists were Saudi. It took a bit longer for the fact that the Saudi government was complicit to emerge, but we knew within a short time that at the very least, they provided financial support to the terrorists.

The argument for starting the "war on terror" was that Al-Qaeda planned the attack, so we should attack the countries that harbor them. At the time, the majority of the country supported this; I remember George Bush Jr.'s approval ratings being in the 90s for a short time. Even then, most of us knew that Saudi Arabia was at least complicit in what happened. The lust for revenge, as much as it was justified, made people forget that.

Over the last 23 years, I feel like a lot of Americans have forgotten the role that Saudi Arabia played in the events of 9/11; after all, they're our "ally," right? I have always been on the fence regarding whether or not invading Iraq and Afghanistan was a good idea. Back in 2001, though, I felt like invading Saudi Arabia was a great idea. 23 years later, I don't feel any different. Should the United States have attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd say "probably"; should we have attacked Saudi Arabia? Absolutely. Yet it never happened.

[–] phoneymouse 48 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

I agree with your entire comment except the end.

We shouldn’t have attacked Iraq or Afghanistan. The premise for the war in Iraq was that Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction. That was a flat out lie. The Iraq war and the power vacuum it created led to the creation of ISIS.

Afghanistan had elements of Al-Qaeda present. The Taliban tolerated them. We should have hunted bin Laden there and hit Al-Qaeda where we could find them, but toppling the government was mostly useless and we ended up needing to get the hell out of there after spending $2 trillion dollars, only to have the Taliban return.

Should we have attacked Saudi Arabia though? Absolutely. We should have actually done regime change there and maybe even helped ourselves to the oil revenues to cover the costs of 9/11 and our military. Our presence would’ve also helped modernize their medieval society in ways beneficial to the Middle East.

[–] daltotron 24 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I agree with your entire comment except the end.

I'm not sure the US has the greatest track record when it comes to those sorts of occupational wars, realistically. I think the only times we've ever really seen it turn out well is maybe in vietnam, where we actively just like, lost the entire war and got sent packing, and they're still having to deal with the ongoing problem of their country being contaminated by chemical incendiary weapons that produce larger percentages of birth defects. So, even given that Saudi Arabia is kind of a theocratic monarchic shithole, I dunno if us overthrowing it would realistically do any good, you know? I dunno. I'd probably need to see more on the numbers of dissent amount the saudi population. I think probably capitalizing on a popular movement for regime change, much like the arab spring, would probably be the best route if that was possible, and it would probably have to be more grassroots than something that the US might intentionally attempt to foment in the population, I'd imagine.

In totality though I'm not really sure to what extent it's in the US's best interest to destabilize saudi arabia. I think the US would probably prefer predictable fascists compared to, say, if they decided to rapidly nationalize and democratize their oil supply. Another, relatively understated, good reason to move away from petroleum, I would say.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure the US has the greatest track record when it comes to those sorts of occupational wars, realistically. I think the only times we've ever really seen it turn out well is maybe in vietnam, where we actively just like, lost the entire war and got sent packing, and they're still having to deal with the ongoing problem of their country being contaminated by chemical incendiary weapons that produce larger percentages of birth defects.

Not disputing anything you said about Vietnam, but we did alright with Japan and South Korea.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Crackhappy 20 points 6 months ago (5 children)

If we had only invaded Afghanistan, I could understand it. But Iraq, as I said at the time, had absolutely nothing to do with it, and it was bullshit.

[–] FlyingSquid 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

People seem to forget, people even seemed to forget in 2002 and 2003, that Bush had been talking about finishing what his father started all the way back when he was running for president the first time in 1999. I kept telling people at the time.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I was in the Army then and we all knew it was Daddies War 2.0. I tried to help as many people get out of the Army as I could and then got myself out with full honors and no PTSD. Being a conscientious objector was hilariously easy because everyone knew "fuck bush and fuck the army -- I aint fighting."

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not have wmd's, and was the only major Sunni power in the region. Saddam Hussain was not a good guy by any means but he actively worked against Iranian influence and was a stabilizing presence on the middle east after the first Gulf War. Pre-invasion Iraq was good for US policy. The invasion led to the growth of Iranian influence in the region and the rise of the Islamic State terrorist organization. We should not have attacked Iraq.

I was in support of attacking Afghanistan at the time and still think military action to go after Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Ladin was warranted. The diversion of resources from that conflict is another reason we shouldn't have attacked Iraq. We probably should have extended that conflict into northern Pakistan where we knew Al-Qaeda's leadership and the bulk of their fighters were hiding.

We definitely should have invaded Saudi Arabia. They provided training, equipment, travel, and money to enable the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 would not have been possible without Saudi Arabia's support. Saudi Arabia was(is) in the curious position of publicly allying with us while plotting terrorism against us. Curious because by siding with us publicly they gave up Iran's advantage of attacks against them potentially leading to conflict with Russia. Iran had some part in 9/11 but between their having a lesser role and the risk of Russia coming to their defense it would not have been worth it to attack Iran. Saudi Arabia had our backing instead of Russia's. When they used proxies to attack us we should have leveled their royal palace. So far we haven't even pulled our support.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I haven't forgotten that George H.W. Bush (the President's father) was literally in a meeting with a member of the bin Laden family when the attacks occurred. The Bush and the bin Laden families were highly entangled in oil business dealings. I remember, too, that the only airplanes allowed to fly in U.S. airspace in the days after 9/11—all other traffic everywhere being grounded, stranding Americans far from home—were the flights taking members of the bin Laden family out of the United States, and back to Saudi Arabia.

I wonder why that attack on Saudi Arabia never happened?

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] extremeboredom 61 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Don't you love how Saudi Arabia, the country who was very obviously behind 9/11, hasn't suffered a single negative consequence as a result of their actions? They literally got away with 9/11. And then the US invaded some unrelated countries. Mind blowing.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago

When you don’t normalize it, it really is mind blowing. Bush should be in Prison

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 45 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Remember kids: Iran is the bad Middle East autocracy and Saudi Arabia is the good Middle East autocracy.

US foreign policy has always been and will always be interest based rather than value based, but they will use moral arguments and threat inflation to drum up support for their misadventures abroad.

[–] Badeendje 8 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Or.. one is bad and the other one is way worse.

Anyway this just means that a straight B-line for no longer being fossil fuel dependent is just more important.

If we can then combine that by sourcing the oil from countries that do not perform stonings and public executions in stadiums, of call it a win.

Keep in mind that not 50 years ago, we had an oil crisis that showed how incredibly depended we where, and the EU learned the hard way what energy dependence on Russia meant.

Solar, Wind and a hydro/Geothermal/nuclear baseload with at least 60 months of stored fission material would be my hope.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Or.. one is bad and the other one is way worse.

The thing that always amuses me about this is that Iran was a burgeoning liberal democracy until the CIA and MI6 toppled it in 1953, installing a previously overthrown autocrat (overthrown by said forces of democracy), who ruled until 1979, when he was overthrown by religious hard liners, who really only had mass support because the autocrat was too authoritarian.

And the reason the U.S. and Britain overthrew their democracy? They nationalized their oil industry to give profits back to their people, which entailed taking over refineries and wells ‘owned’ by British Petroleum.
The U.S. created their own boogeyman in the area because they wanted to give a corporation near-free access to Iran’s oil. Which in turn lead to the oil crisis and instability in the region.
The U.S. has really got to stop trying to put out fires while covered in crude oil.

[–] Badeendje 5 points 6 months ago

"Amusing" and yeah the geopolitics of the 50's and 60's. The gift that keeps on giving. Especially the interventions done in name of big corporations are wonderful examples of nightmares that just don't end.

[–] FlyingSquid 7 points 6 months ago (8 children)

Which one is the way worse one? Because I can't really think of a way in which one is way worse than the other. I wouldn't ever want to live in either place if I were a woman or a queer person.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

was that evidence called "literally what everyone has known for the last 25 years"?

[–] postmateDumbass 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Obligatory Kitty History

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] jeffw 22 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I love The Atlantic but "Two decades of U.S. policy appear to be rooted in a mistaken understanding of what happened that day"? I'm not sure I buy that. Maybe the Saudi complicity is deeper than we originally realized but I don't think anybody is really shocked by these recent revelations. US policy has driven by political agendas or, sadly, certain VP's business interests

[–] kescusay 22 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Perhaps it would make more sense to describe it as an intentionally mistaken understanding.

We've been a fragile, fractured country since that day. Al Qaida - and Saudi Arabia - did us lasting, potentially terminal, damage.

In 2001 before 9/11, George W. Bush was clearly going to be a one-term failure of a president, a mistake of the electoral college brought about by complacency, never to be repeated. He would get the boot, be replaced by a better and more competent president in 2005, and that would be that. No Patriot Act. No Department of Homeland Security. No TSA security theater. No war against Iraq, no formation of ISIS, and likely no Tea Party, let alone the travesty that was four years of Donald Trump.

Saudi Arabia may have actually dealt the killing blow to this country, causing the ongoing, slow-motion disaster in politics we see today.

[–] FordBeeblebrox 5 points 6 months ago

One could argue that the Florida Supreme Court is responsible for millions of Iraqi/Afghan deaths and untold damage to democracy and the climate by forcing that election the way people didn’t vote. W should have been a baseball manager, he was, as the Rs do, completely unqualified against an actual experienced person at the job but had the quips and genealogy.

Florida, republicans, consistently making everyone’s life worse. WHY DO PEOPLE STILL VOTE FOR THEM

[–] PorradaVFR 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Hesitant, forlorn and very much hopefully misplaced resigned upvote.

I want to dismiss your assertions out of hand as too pessimistic and cynical but…yeah, we let them win at least the battle if not the whole shebang.

My hope stems from kids today generally being kinder, open minded and not “tolerant” but actually coexisting with nary a thought. Better people will make a better world if we give them the chance to before fucking up beyond repair.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] CodexArcanum 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

I, like most of the millenial lemmings it seems, am not shocked about this. I remember what Dubya said as president, the daily evils. I would have never thought it could get worse and then we got Trump, and I think it all does echoes out from 9/11. If there are future historians, 9/11 is going to be the pivot that this entire century stumbles over, probably leading directly to WW3 any day now.

But when I see articles like this, (in the Atlantic ofc, always this one or the NYT) my nostrils fill up with the smell of consent being manufactured. Has the shadow council decided that we shall war with the Saudis now? With Russia and China just flat-out taking land now, has the US decided to extend it's "protection" more directly over a few strategic areas?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

Israel is about to be made an example of. This is BiBi airing dirty laundry on his way out.

BDS ISRAEL -it’s the only way

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] PanoptiDon 21 points 6 months ago

the costly policies that the United States has pursued for the past quarter century have been rooted in a false premise.

No shit

[–] Zehzin 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So we should invade Iran?

[–] AngryCommieKender 10 points 6 months ago

Red tailed hawk screeching intensifies

[–] Paraponera_clavata 14 points 6 months ago

Tl;dr: A new filing in a lawsuit brought by the families of 9/11 victims against the government of Saudi Arabia alleges that al-Qaeda had significant, indeed decisive, state support for its attacks. Officials of the Saudi government, the plaintiffs’ attorneys contend, formed and operated a network inside the United States that provided crucial assistance to the first cohort of 9/11 hijackers to enter the country.

[–] jaybone 13 points 6 months ago

You mean the only people that were allowed to fly when all other air traffic was shut down?

[–] mightyfoolish 8 points 6 months ago

A blue-ribbon commission concluded that Osama bin Laden had pioneered a new kind of terrorist group—combining superior technological know-how, extensive resources, and a worldwide network so well coordinated that it could carry out operations of unprecedented magnitude

Caves in Afghanistan...

Honestly, the conspiracy theories for 9/11 were a thousand times more believable than this "expansive terrorist network" that somehow lacked influence outside of perhaps the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Seeing this sponsored by a US ally makes a lot of sense to me.

[–] madcaesar 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea are the Mount Rushmore of asshole governments.

[–] machineLearner 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

where does america fall here? Or do they have their own mountain?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

I'm definitely furrowing my eyebrows at you. You're not wrong, and I'm mad about that.

[–] werefreeatlast 7 points 6 months ago

So did they want to raise the price and we said no so then they asked us to start a fake war against one of their competitors? Is that what actually happened?

[–] mycathas9lives 5 points 6 months ago

Saudi got away with killing Americans on American soil. End of that story. They did it, we all know they did it, and no one will do anything about it. That's just how it works. That's how all of this works.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's only a mistaken understanding if it was accidental. For a long time all the signs are that the focus was deliberately taken off Saudi Arabia despite the known complicity of its officials, and Iraq was deliberately targeted despite the US knowing it had nothing to do with 9-11. Lies were deliberately spread to manufacture the consent of the American (and British) people for what its advocates knew to be an unjustified war.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

pikachu face

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

This isn't new. Also, this is a false narrative that the invasion of Iraq was ever about retribution for 9/11.

It was started because the Dubya administration insisted that Iraq had WMDs and implied that Saddam was planning on using them relatively soon

[–] jordanlund 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Not even that... W. had been planning to attack Iraq on day 1 because of the failed assassination plot against his dad.

[–] RestrictedAccount 6 points 6 months ago

That was Bush’s motivation. Cheney recruited him to be President while Cheney was head of Halliburton.

Halliburton made a metric shit ton off all this shit.

Cheney was WAAAYYY more involved in policy - especially geopolitics - than previous VPs.

Once W realized that Cheney was a lying sack of shit, he was banished from policy, but that wasn’t until almost the end of the second term.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments