If you’re looking at this to make a case, I think you can make the case. Does that mean the case makes sense?
Saudi Arabia is a oil rich nation. The government there disburses monies to keep the populace placated. We see that funding as something evil, supportive of various “bad things”.
Is it? I’m not convinced it is. I do not think the Saudi Government was consciously funding Osama Ben Laden and his efforts to do severe damage to the United States. I an easily agree that the government was still funding all the groups it had been for decades, and that some of those funds wound up funding Laden’s efforts.
That is conjecture though, because we don’t actually have evidence that the Saudi government funded Ladan at all. We think that it may have an a round-about way, but we don’t know that for sure.
Goerge Soros or another vile player may have been helping Laden along. I’m not accusing Soros here, but merely using him as an example of some nut that might have been sympathetic to Laden’s desires. Russia may have been sympathetic. One or more of the princes may have been sympathetic. The sect of Islam most prominent in Saudi Arabia is vitriolically against America.
My problem with the view that Saudi’s government was involved, is that with 20,000 people here on education VISAs, on 19 took part in the attacks. They may have had more support we don’t know about, but with that large a body of potential attackers, if this had been a government run effort, there would have been a massive broad attack across the nation. It wouldn’t have been 19 individuals in four aircraft. It would have been upwards of 100 aircraft.
There is a lot of pent up animosity on the forum against Saudi Arabia. I’m not sure where it springs from, but I would urge folks to think if Iran, then Saudi Arabia. Don’t you guys see any difference in these two nations?
I see a lot of differences.
Al Qaeda’s:
Leadership
Personnel
Funding
Ideology
Was virtually all 100% Saudi on 9/11. Al Qaeda at that moment was indistinguishable from a plausibly deniable arm of the Saudi Government.
Sure, they kept arms-length. But that would be the POINT of plausible deniability.
That the blowback singed the Kingdom meant the Deniable part became critical.
The Saudis fund Wahabbism, the intellectual font of Al Qaeda.
Saudi princes certainly directly funded Al Qaeda. Does that mean the Government Proper funded Al Qaeda? No, but it makes the idea that they were ignorant of it implausible.
Al Qaeda was led by Saudis. Al Qaeda was staffed by Saudis. Where does all that personnel come from if not from the culture encouraged by the Saudi Government to this day in Mosques around the world that teach Wahabbism?
So I expect that Al Qaeda was a semi-independent operator. But the extreme closeness of the Saudi power structure to the whole existence of Al Qaeda is so strong that the regime’s stench is all over 9/11.
So do I -- Iran is less dangerous to the USA. Shiaism is less dangerous than the Sunnis
It comes from the fact that the Saudis since the 60s and 70s have created the new wellspring of Sunni jihadiism -- they created the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Laskhar-e-Toiba, Abu Sayyaf, etc.
Saudi = Wahabbi