CIA Officially Declares There is "No Proof" of Saudi Arabian Involvement in 9/11 - Polidicks

[url="http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/cia-no-proof-saudi-arabia-helped-in-911-attacks/"]NY Post[/url] [url="http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/politics/cia-john-brennan-saudi-arabia-9-11/"]CNN[/url] [quote]CIA Director John Brennan said there is no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials supported the Sept. 11 attacks. Brennan's remarks, in a weekend interview with al-Arabiya, addressed the still-secret 28 pages of a congressional inquiry into the 2001 attacks, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. President Barack Obama has promised to publicly release all or part of the 28 pages of the report, which could happen as early as this month. The rest of the report was released in December 2002.... The Saudi government says it has been "wrongfully and morbidly accused of complicity" in the attacks, is fighting extremists and working to clamp down on their funding channels. Still, the Saudis have long said that they would welcome declassification of the 28 pages because it would "allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner." The pages were withheld from the 838-page report on the orders of President George W. Bush, who said the release could divulge intelligence sources and methods. Still, protecting U.S.-Saudi diplomatic relations also was believed to have been a factor.[/quote] Video summary from Newsy for those too lazy to read, or otherwise short on time. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt0JiMapFiE[/media] Huh. Well, I can't say I'm not surprised, but I don't expect they would release any statements if the opposite were true.

[quote] The Saudi government says it has been "wrongfully and morbidly accused of complicity" in the attacks, [B]is fighting extremists and working to clamp down on their funding channels.[/B] Still, the Saudis have long said that they would welcome declassification of the 28 pages because it would "allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner." [/quote] While I'm quite skeptical that the Saudis played any direct role in 9/11, given that they and Osama Bin Laden were not on friendly terms, the line I've bolded is just bald-faced bullshit. Guess who's bankrolling ISIS.

The Saudi government may not have - but Saudi nationals absolutely have been funding Wahhabist imams across the globe. When people say "Saudi Arabia is doing x," we aren't necessarily referring exclusively to the government of Saudi Arabia, but to all of Saudi Arabia, including citizens. People do the same thing to "the US."

[QUOTE=archangel125;50518450]While I'm quite skeptical that the Saudis played any direct role in 9/11, given that they and Osama Bin Laden were not on friendly terms, the line I've bolded is just bald-faced bullshit. Guess who's bankrolling ISIS.[/QUOTE] I am curious, who do you believe is "bankrolling" ISIS right now? [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/suicide-bombing-at-saudi-arabia-mosque-kills-more-than-a-dozen/[/url] Because it isn't Saudi Arabia: [quote]RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- An allegedly new Islamic State of Iraq and Syria(ISIS) affiliate in Saudi Arabia claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing at a mosque inside a police compound in the country's southwest on Thursday that killed at least 15 people, most of them members and recruits of the kingdom's special forces. It was the deadliest attack against Saudi security personnel in years and one that is likely to pull the kingdom deeper into the regional war with ISIS extremists.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50518541]I am curious, who do you believe is "bankrolling" ISIS right now? [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/suicide-bombing-at-saudi-arabia-mosque-kills-more-than-a-dozen/[/url] Because it isn't Saudi Arabia:[/QUOTE] You're making the mistake of assuming that because an affiliate extremist group to ISIS attacked Saudi Arabia, the Sauds weren't the ones who funded ISIS in the first place.

[QUOTE=archangel125;50518551]You're making the mistake of assuming that because an affiliate extremist group to ISIS attacked Saudi Arabia, the Sauds weren't the ones who funded ISIS in the first place.[/QUOTE] ISIS are almost entirely self-funding. All this obsession with the supposed funding by Gulf states is a red herring. To help stop their funding, bomb their oil fields and destroy their supply routes through strikes.

[QUOTE=archangel125;50518551]You're making the mistake of assuming that because an affiliate extremist group to ISIS attacked Saudi Arabia, the Sauds weren't the ones who funded ISIS in the first place.[/QUOTE] So who "created" ISIS? The New York Times did a good feature on ISIS, not an "affiliate related" but the same ISIS you are talking about as you go on to express your conspiracy theory. They also noted the 20 terrorist attacks they have launched in Saudi Arabia since 2014. It also mentioned how Saudi Arabia was one of the first to carry out airstrikes with Barack Obama’s anti-Isis coalition in 2014. [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/world/middleeast/isis-saudi-arabia-wahhabism.html[/URL] [quote]Among 20 terrorist episodes in Saudi Arabia since late 2014, the killing of Sergeant Rashidi was the third in which citizens had secretly joined the Islamic State and killed relatives in the security services. [B]In each case, they justified their acts by saying [U]Saudi Arabia practiced a corrupted version of the faith[/U][/B], a charge aimed at a kingdom that holds itself up as the only true Islamic state. [B]The Islamic State, like Al Qaeda before it, accuses the Saudi monarchy of corrupting the faith [/B]in order to preserve its power. But Qaeda networks in the kingdom were dismantled years ago, and the group’s leadership abroad has discouraged killing Muslim civilians. The Islamic State, however, has been able to infiltrate the kingdom through digital recruiting, and it has found devotees willing to kill fellow Sunnis, as well as Shiites, to destabilize the monarchy. In July, a 19-year-old man murdered his uncle, a police colonel, before carrying out a suicide attack near a prison, wounding two guards. In an audio message released by the Islamic State after his death, he addressed his own mother. “Your apostate brother was a loyalist to the tyrants,” he said. “Were it not for him, the tyrants would not exist.” .... In addition, about 3,000 Saudis have joined militant groups abroad, and more than 5,000 have been [B]incarcerated at home on terrorism charges, a large increase in recent years.[/B][/quote] Saudi Arabia is also to send troops to Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS according to an article published in February this year (pasted below in quotes). In December 2015 it announced it was forming a coalition of [URL="http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.691851"]34 Islamic countries to fight terrorism[/URL]. [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/saudi-arabia-ground-troops-syria-fight-isis[/URL] [quote]Saudi Arabia has offered for the first time to send ground troops to Syria to fight Islamic State, its defence ministry said on Thursday.[/quote] In stepping back to the New York Times article, the New York Times addresses Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi influences but notes that not even ISIS considers Saudi to be true "Wahhabism" and that ISIS holds that Saudi Arabia emphasizes power and monarchic role over Islam. Indeed— according to the many of the Wahhabi-based terrorist groups that attack Saudi Arabia, the primary motivation for these attacks is that they hold Saudi Arabia as not being"Islamic enough" and in doing this they cite what they perceive to be: • Saudi ties with U.S. (why Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hated Saudi's guts) • Alleged Westernization of Saudi Arabia over the past 50 years (why Bin Laden hated Saudi's guts) I am curious where you derive this conspiracy theory in that Saudi Arabia is willingly (either by neglect or actively) funding ISIS other than saying "Wahhabism" without even knowing what the fuck a Wahhabi means and how they all have repudiated Saudi Arabia's form of Wahhabism as "unislamic." To reply "They fund Wahhabism" abroad as the smoking gun that Saudi Arabia is willingly bombing itself, it's people, security forces and Saudi Army answers nothing because ISIS and Al-Qaeda have long held Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism to be invalid by carrying out terrorist attacks on Saudi Arabia since 70s. There have been so many Wahhabi-led terrorist attacks targeting the Saudi Royal Family (House al-Saud) that I do not know where to start in posting them below. You can research it yourself, the list of attacks on the Saudi royal family by Wahhabi-groups is endless.

Oh yeah,I totally trust the CIA. :v:

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50518614]So who "created" ISIS? I am curious where you derive this conspiracy theory in that Saudi Arabia is willingly (either by neglect or actively) funding ISIS other than saying "Wahhabism" without even knowing what the fuck a Wahhabi means and how they all have repudiated Saudi Arabia's form of Wahhabism as "unislamic." To reply "They fund Wahhabism" abroad as the smoking gun that Saudi Arabia is willingly bombing itself, it's people, security forces and Saudi Army answers nothing because ISIS and Al-Qaeda have long held Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism to be invalid by carrying out terrorist attacks on Saudi Arabia since 70s. There have been so many Wahhabi-led terrorist attacks targeting the Saudi Royal Family (House al-Saud) that I do not know where to start in posting them below. You can research it yourself, the list of attacks on the Saudi royal family by Wahhabi-groups is endless.[/QUOTE] Syria is an ally of Iran, an opponent of Saudi Arabia. Apart from that, the government in Iraq is mostly run by Shiites. Saudi Arabia funding IS to destabilize those countries isn't strange. Besides that, conflict within area's that produce oil increases the oil prices. And that would benefit SA.

[QUOTE=PatrickT;50518776]Syria is an ally of Iran, an opponent of Saudi Arabia. Apart from that, the government in Iraq is mostly run by Shiites. Saudi Arabia funding IS to destabilize those countries isn't strange. Besides that, conflict within area's that produce oil increases the oil prices. And that would benefit SA.[/QUOTE] Care to actually provide evidence or just assertion?

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50518614]So who "created" ISIS? The New York Times did a good feature on ISIS, not an "affiliate related" but the same ISIS you are talking about as you go on to express your conspiracy theory. They also noted the 20 terrorist attacks they have launched in Saudi Arabia since 2014. It also mentioned how Saudi Arabia was one of the first to carry out airstrikes with Barack Obama’s anti-Isis coalition in 2014. [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/world/middleeast/isis-saudi-arabia-wahhabism.html[/URL] Saudi Arabia is also to send troops to Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS according to an article published in February this year (pasted below in quotes). In December 2015 it announced it was forming a coalition of [URL="http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.691851"]34 Islamic countries to fight terrorism[/URL]. [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/saudi-arabia-ground-troops-syria-fight-isis[/URL] In stepping back to the New York Times article, the New York Times addresses Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi influences but notes that not even ISIS considers Saudi to be true "Wahhabism" and that ISIS holds that Saudi Arabia emphasizes power and monarchic role over Islam. Indeed— according to the many of the Wahhabi-based terrorist groups that attack Saudi Arabia, the primary motivation for these attacks is that they hold Saudi Arabia as not being"Islamic enough" and in doing this they cite what they perceive to be: • Saudi ties with U.S. (why Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hated Saudi's guts) • Alleged Westernization of Saudi Arabia over the past 50 years (why Bin Laden hated Saudi's guts) I am curious where you derive this conspiracy theory in that Saudi Arabia is willingly (either by neglect or actively) funding ISIS other than saying "Wahhabism" without even knowing what the fuck a Wahhabi means and how they all have repudiated Saudi Arabia's form of Wahhabism as "unislamic." To reply "They fund Wahhabism" abroad as the smoking gun that Saudi Arabia is willingly bombing itself, it's people, security forces and Saudi Army answers nothing because ISIS and Al-Qaeda have long held Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism to be invalid by carrying out terrorist attacks on Saudi Arabia since 70s. There have been so many Wahhabi-led terrorist attacks targeting the Saudi Royal Family (House al-Saud) that I do not know where to start in posting them below. You can research it yourself, the list of attacks on the Saudi royal family by Wahhabi-groups is endless.[/QUOTE] You raise good points, and I'm forced to revise my earlier position. However, I'm still not convinced that monetary support has not come to ISIS from either the religious authority in Saudi Arabia (Who probably have good reason to resent the monarchy for the same reason ISIS does, especially since many prominent clerics there have expressed their support for the group) and Saudi nationals. Saudi Arabia's biggest enemy in the Middle East is Iran, and since they represent opposite denominations of Islam, it is not hard to imagine that the government or military of SA has funded terrorism as a measure against them in the past. It's little different from the United States government funding and training the Mujahideen as a proxy against Russia during the Cold War. All powers on the world stage fund terrorism. And Saudi Arabia is the country I'm least willing to believe doesn't, given that they're basically an Islamic theocracy. I might be biased against them. As I've said before, I lived there for six years. I hate that country, hate its government, and hate its religious institution for the barbarity it completely embraces as a cultural pillar. Above all else, I hate their blatant hypocrisy and complete lack of rule of law in all but name. Being so intimately acquainted with the way its government operates, any statement made by the Government of Saudi Arabia protesting its innocence on a matter like this immediately makes me suspect the opposite.

Make no mistake, while a different form of Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia's version of Wahhabism has bit the royal family back in the ass hard. They try to claim that their version of Wahhabism is not the same as the terrorist one, which is true but they are tip-toeing around the issue so hard that even ISIS has elected to call the Royal Family "hypocrites" for denouncing the violence. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/world/middleeast/isis-saudi-arabia-wahhabism.html[/url] [quote]But critics argue that many Saudi clerics have never renounced the aspects of the Wahhabi tradition that the Islamic State has adopted, especially with regard to Shiites, who make up an estimated 10 percent of the kingdom’s 20 million citizens. Many Saudi clerics consider Shiites heretics and accuse them of loyalty to Saudi Arabia’s regional rival, Iran. [B]The jihadists have exploited this by repeatedly launching suicide attacks on Shiite mosques and then accusing Saudi clerics of hypocrisy for condemning the violence.[/B][/quote] Saudi Arabia has been victim to countless Wahhabi-led attacks, but they will always find themselves in an awkward position for as long as they tip-toe Wahhabism. [quote]Saudi officials reject comparisons between their ideology and that of the Islamic State, noting that millions of non-Muslims live in the kingdom and that the government is closely allied with the United States and participates in the American campaign against the militant group. They also say that Saudi Islam does not promote the caliphate, as does the Islamic State, and that senior clerics condemn the terrorist attacks and have branded the group “deviant.”[/quote]

I honestly don't think the Royal Family in SA holds the majority of the power. They've got a good share in it, but the country is really run from Mecca.