• Doug Holland@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Astonishingly, the attacks of 9/11 had little effect on the Saudi approach to religious extremism, as diplomats and intelligence officials have attested. What finally changed royal minds was the experience of suffering an attack on Saudi soil. In May 2003, gunmen and suicide bombers struck three residential compounds in Riyadh, killing 39 people. The authorities attributed the attacks to al-Qaeda, and cooperation with the U.S. improved quickly and dramatically.

    Suspicion: The attack was actually planned and/or executed by the CIA or some US agency you’ve never heard of. RIP, 39 people, but America got the policy cooperation it wanted.

  • slickgoat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    How many minutes would the Saudis remain an alli if they suddenly ran out of oil?

    Five? Ten minutes?

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It would probably take the Houthis 5 minutes to invade the entire country if the USA dipped lol.

    • exscape@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Did you post evidence 20 years ago? Otherwise it’s not worth much more than “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams”.

      • Asidonhopo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Plenty of people were collecting and posting evidence like this in the early/mid 00s, a lot of it’s probably still searchable if you want to comb through, I don’t know, the archives of fark.com, suck. com*, plastic. com*, I dunno a hundred other dusty forgotten forums. In many ways the internet we have today is structured to hide a lot of realizations people had in those times about the changes that happened under the Bush admin. The jet fuel line is just the echoes of crank theories that got turned into a joke meant to silence that effort.

        *dead websites only available on the internet archive, the links probably go to something fucked up now so please don’t follow them

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    But we have to keep them as a close ally no matter what, right? There is no low Saudi Arabia can’t sink to.

    Similar to Israel.

  • someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Quick let’s buy more oil from them.

    Fuck it pisses me off. The oil embargoes in the 70s should have been the pants on fire moment we put an ungodly amount of R&D into nuclear, fusion, solar, wind, and batteries. And built Metro lines.

    • answersplease77@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      If the US can choose who rules North Korea, sell trillions worth of weapons to them, buy cheap oil from them, and install as many military bases as they want on their lands, then North Korea would’ve been the US closest ally no matter how many crimes against humanity they commit against their people.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Jimmy Carter tried to convince America to move to renewables, but was stymied by the Iran Crisis. Carter put solar panels on the White House, and Reagan removed them. Reagan’s Veep was Texas oilman George HW Bush, who’d called Reagan’s tax cuts for the wealthy nonsense before being asked to join the ticket.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I love how in the alternate history of For All Mankind the world basically ditched fossil fuels in the seventies and went nuclear.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    For more than two decades, through two wars and domestic upheaval, the idea that al-Qaeda acted alone on 9/11 has been the basis of U.S. policy. 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. This vanguard of jihad, it seemed, was the first nonstate actor that rivaled nation-states in the damage it could wreak.

    That assessment now appears wrong.

    Yeah no shit. It was wrong at the time. Many, many people said so.

    Like “it turns out basing our economies on destroying the planet might have been a bad idea.” Yeah. Howabout that.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    After 9/11, President George W. Bush and his team argued that a nonstate actor like al-Qaeda could not have pulled off the attacks alone, and that some country must have been behind it all. That state, they insisted, was Iraq—and the United States invaded Iraq. In a savage irony, they may have been right after all about state support, but flat wrong about the state.

    Whaaaaaaaaaat???

    Nooooooooooooooooooo!

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Pretty much — it makes it clear that they didn’t just come from Saudi Arabia but had active support from within the government there.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    The 9/11 Commission Report recounted numerous contacts between Bayoumi and Thumairy, but described only “circumstantial evidence” of Thumairy as a contact for the two hijackers and stated that it didn’t know whether Bayoumi’s first encounter with the operatives occurred “by chance or design.” But the evidence assembled in the ongoing lawsuit suggests that the actions Thumairy and Bayoumi took to support the hijackers were actually deliberate, sustained, and carefully coordinated with other Saudi officials.

    The 9/11 Commission Gee Dubby and Darth Cheney fought against for a year? That they refused to testify under oath to? That they wanted Dark Lord Henry Kissinger to chair, and appointed him to do so before a hurricane of backlash slapped a hair of shame into their faces?

    That 9/11 Commission? You say they fucked up some key evidence? No. It can’t be. They met for years. There must be a simple explanation.

  • snownyte@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Dude, this shit is so outdated now it’s not even funny. We knew it was Osama. We knew he operated in a terrorist network which is pretty damn broad over in the Middle-East as that’s been their issue for quite some time even back then. Of course there’s going to be some complicity and those helping eachother because of whatever code they function under since they’re a terrorist network.

    Of course George Bush was a fucking idiot along with Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney and every other war-mongering shithead in that administration who simply wanted to go to Iraq anyways as a make-good because they derailed their primary objective. Can’t find Osama? Get rid of Saddam, why not, it’ll make for some sugarcoated sounding progress. All the while, let’s tank the fucking economy while we’re at it. Oh and get rid of some American lives who were just thrown into this makeshift war too.

    Shit, we knew there was some level of complicity with the 1993 WTC bombing attempt. Almost nobody talked of that. Big fucking clue there!

    The Middle-East is seriously corruption central, there’s barely any resemblance of dignity over there. We shouldn’t have been surprised of anything fucked up that ever happened while in there and around there.