9/11 COVER-UP?

Facebook account of Shepard Smith ^ | April 13, 2015 150413 | Shepard Smith

[Arthur McGowan]

9/11 COVER-UP? The latest claim isn’t from conspiracy theorists--it’s from a former top US Senator. He says documents prove Saudi Arabia helped pull off the attacks, and that the FBI hid the truth. Shep has details:

[Cronos]

DO: If you look at the Saudi Arabian nation, it’s not that heavily populated. You take out the capital and you pretty much control the nation.

Not quite -- if you look at the history of the first Saudi state (in the 1700s) and later on, you will see that there is no central power in the lands conquered by the Sauds. There were and are myriad tribes and clans and the Saudis conquered them. Their capital is in the east Riyadh and surroundings but they have a power base in Mecca and Medina as well.

To conquer "Saudi ARabia" you just need to convince various tribes and clans to stop following the Sauds.(ok, and that's not simple)

[Cronos]

DO: With a guy like Hussein, he doesn’t mellow out and get less dangerous. He and his sons were almost demonic people.

I never said he would mellow out. his aim was to become another Nimrud with his Akkadian Empire

But he would have had his hands full with the Iranis (who he hated and who hated him). To the north, the Turks. To the West he would probably have taken out the Assads but be held back by Shias in Lebanon and Alawis and Druze (not to mention Israel). To the south, his army may have taken the Gulf area but not into Mecca and Medina

Finally - he may have been "almost demonic" in your opinion, but I say he was a pussy cat compared to the Islamic state

And, since I am unashamedly pro-Christian, my take is that he was better for Christians than the other alternatives

[Cronos]

DO: I think of the people of Iraq.

Iraq is a false construct. Like the African states, this would collapse as the borders are arbitrary with tribes spilling over. You have Kurds in the north who have peoples in Turkey, Syria and Iran. You have Shias in the south who are more tied to the Shia Arabs in Eastern Saudia. You have Assyrian Christians who are spread (or were spread) around Mosul. And you have Sunnis who are closer to the Sunnis in Eastern Syria. You had 3 separate Ottoman provinces stitched together by the English

Then you have Lebanon which should have been 3 separate states but was stitched together by the French

This was the same as the false durand line that split Pathans between Afghanistan and Pakistan

[Cronos]

DO: I wouldn’t fault us on Iraq.

I don't fault the USA, I fault Bush Senior and the Saudis. the USA and the world would have been better off if gulf war one hadn't happened

Yes,even the IRaqis would have been better off.

[Cronos]

DO: Let’s say the U. S. does pull back from everywhere and just stay within it’s borders. Do you think for one second the Left in the U. S. would be satisfied with that?

I wasn't talking about that -- I was talking specifically about Iraq. I don't think the USA should pull back from "everywhere" -- we should use force where it serves our interest. So, the war against the Taliban was correct. But Gulf War one was not in the USA's interest. Neither was the bombing of the Serbs.

[Cronos]

you mean Alawis and Druze?

[Cronos]

DO: As I understand it Saudi Arabia is mostly Wahhabi.

Saudi Arabia was created as a pact between Al-Wahhabb and the Saud family -- the Wahabs wanted to have everything returned to Mo's time and the Sauds wanted an empire

They then inter-married, so the King and the Wahabs are one and the same. He promotes jihadi islam among sunnis the world over

-- he does approve

[Cronos]

DO: Saudi Arabia has a long history of not being an enemy of the United States.

a pretend friend -- during the 60s and 70s and 80s with their money they funded madrassas in the Moslem world -- look at pictures of Pakistan or Afghanistan in the 60s and 70s and you won't see burkas -- you will see very few veils as well.

The Saudis used the money to spread their philosophy throughout the Sunni world and spent money to sponsor Islam's spread in the West.

[Cronos]

DO Saudi Arabia has big investments in the West. If the West crumbles, a significant port of the Saudi wealth dies with it. Attacking New York doesn’t strategically enhance Saudi Arabia’s standing in any way.

If the West crumbles, then Saudi Arabia can control Moslem minds to conquer lands and make them Islam only lands

Saudi Arabia has more to fear from it’s regional threat Iran that it does the U. S. by a very large margin. Why would it want to neutralize the U. S.? It just doesn’t make sense for it to.

It plays the long game -- the world MUST be make Dar-ul-Islam, the land of Islam

The Moslems in the 7th century took over three of the five centers of Christianity -- Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem -- Egypt until the 9th century was the center of Christian thought remember as was Antioch

Then in the 15th they took over Constantinople.

Now their next target is Rome.

[Cronos]

Cronos: We should have left the peninsular Arabs to their fate.

DoughtyOne: But that fate would not have stopped on the Peninsula. It would have gobbled up Jordan, Egypt, Libya... down across Africa.

Not really.

Remember that from 1980 to 1988 Saddam faced off against the Iranis. The Iranis were weakened from sanctions, from lower oil production, from culling of top military ranks. And the Iraqis were supported by Gulf money and American weaponry

But Saddam was still unable to win. After 8 years, the borders did not move an inch

While he could easily walk into Kuwait or Qatar,

1. if he stepped on Saudi land, he would have Pakistan coming to fight him along with Egypt and may be turkey
2. if he invaded Jordan, the Israelis would have stepped in to crush him (which they could do easily
3. if he invaded Turkey, he'd be crushed by a much more powerful military
4. if he invaded Syria, he'd get as far as the eastern suburbs of Damascus before the Israelis and Turks jointly crushed him

Egypt? -- ha, ha! They had a much stronger military than him
Libya? - Ghaddafi was mad and would have bled Saddam far -- Saddam's understanding of logistics was poor (the Iran iraq war and Gulf war one showed that)

• down across Africa -- he'd never make it into Chad, the desert there is worse than the empty quarter in Arabia. Maybe Somalia or Ethiopian lowlands, but the highlands no

  And we knew this in 1990. He was a tinpot dictator

[Cronos]

if Iran, then Saudi Arabia. Don’t you guys see any difference in these two nations? I see a lot of differences.

So do I -- Iran is less dangerous to the USA. Shiaism is less dangerous than the Sunnis

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your response on this. I’m not going to give you a pointed response. You touched on the irrationality he used to attack Kuwait. It was started and one with like lightening.

I do believe that he would nave moved on from there, but that doesn’t mean it’s so. That’s just my take on it.

As for the “Holy” cities, he could have bypassed them. If he grabbed everything else, he may have gotten them in time too.

It’s not a must resolve issue for me. Your thoughts are sound as well, perhaps more so.

[DoughtyOne]

Cronos, it seems to me that if you take the capital of Saudi Arabia, you become the defacto government those tribes still answer to.

Hussein could have promised them to leave them alone and let them do as they pleased much like the Saudis had. I doubt they would have argued with that.

Perhaps there are sect issues I haven’t figured in. If so then you may have a good retort.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for your addition insight here.

I’m not familiar with Nimrud or the Akkadian Empire.

[DoughtyOne]

I understand your point about constructs.

I’m not exactly sure why the nations were stitched together like they were by Britain.

It was a different time. The world was a lot larger. It may have made sense at the time, but in a way the area has turned into a time bomb waiting to go off every so often.

[Cronos]

DO: There is a lot of pent up animosity on the forum against Saudi Arabia. I’m not sure where it springs from

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

[DoughtyOne]

I’ll be quick to side with you on the issue of the Serbs.

That was an idiotic effort if ever there was one.

On the issue of Hussein, he was going to be a thorn in everyone’s side. He had to go IMO. You’re not alone in your thoughts on it. I recognize that.

After 09/11, we weren’t in the mood to have him shooting his mouth off about terrorism any longer.

It probably would have been best to get him out of there during the first Gulf War.

[Cronos]

If he did it he would be toppled and a Kallifate would emerge with Wahabbism as it’s driving force.

you mean a Caliphate

you already have the Kingdom with AlQaeda etc. with Wahabbism as its driving force

Also, If the Saudi family is toppled, then the Arabian peninsula returns to what it was before the Saudis -- a mass of different emirates. Even the Ottomans didn't try to control them, all they did was ensure that the routes to Mecca and Medina were secure and that they got tribute from the tribes. Saudi Arabia is an empire -- the Saudi kingdom/clan having conquered the other emirates

[DoughtyOne]

Cronos, I appreciate your comments. I have read them all. I’m not going to address each point. It’s early morning and I’m pretty tired.

Your views on the region are nice to read. I appreciate that you don’t take offense at the differences of opinion.

You take care.

I look forward to reading your posts again. Until next time...