The global War on Terror was based on a mistake
August 7, 2024 4:02 AM Subscribe
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. from New 9/11 Evidence Points to Deep Saudi Complicity [The Atlantic; ungated]
The global War on Terror was based on a mistake
No shit, Sherlock.
posted by flabdablet at 4:08 AM on August 7 [35 favorites]
No shit, Sherlock.
posted by flabdablet at 4:08 AM on August 7 [35 favorites]
We knew Iraq didn't do it, but I've never heard that Saudi Arabia (the government, our ally) actually DID. I guess I'm gonna have to read the article now, but... Can we stay allies if this is proven? We just say "eh, water under the bridge?"
That boggles my mind.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:17 AM on August 7 [11 favorites]
That boggles my mind.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:17 AM on August 7 [11 favorites]
It wasn't a mistake. Breaking with the Saudis was never on the table.
posted by pattern juggler at 4:19 AM on August 7 [43 favorites]
posted by pattern juggler at 4:19 AM on August 7 [43 favorites]
"I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling in this establishment."
"Your winnings, sir."
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 4:21 AM on August 7 [83 favorites]
"Your winnings, sir."
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 4:21 AM on August 7 [83 favorites]
I mean, at least on the left I remember reading quite a lot of references to Saudi involvement with Al-Qaeda. I never did a really deep dive because it never seemed like the US would hold them to account so I don't know what level of certainty/detail people had, but it was at least known that the Saudis backed Al-Qaeda generally.
But whatever, the global War On Democracy, Decent Living Standards and A Livable Future has proved nothing but wonderful for most governments, even if not most people, so nothing was ever going to be done about it.
posted by Frowner at 4:29 AM on August 7 [41 favorites]
But whatever, the global War On Democracy, Decent Living Standards and A Livable Future has proved nothing but wonderful for most governments, even if not most people, so nothing was ever going to be done about it.
posted by Frowner at 4:29 AM on August 7 [41 favorites]
We knew Iraq didn't do it, but I've never heard that Saudi Arabia (the government, our ally) actually DID.
I did.
Can we stay allies if this is proven? We just say "eh, water under the bridge?"
Oil, not water. That's the reason why they're still our allies and why we never said anything earlier.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:41 AM on August 7 [56 favorites]
I did.
Can we stay allies if this is proven? We just say "eh, water under the bridge?"
Oil, not water. That's the reason why they're still our allies and why we never said anything earlier.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:41 AM on August 7 [56 favorites]
aside from less local air pollution, phenomenal acceleration, a lot less maintenance expense & hassle, their quiet rides, the ability to 'refuel' directly from home solar for free* essentially, no per-mile GHG emissions, and ~$15,000 in gov't rebates, I got my first electric car in 2015 to also not send any money to Big Oil here at home, nor to religious fundamentalists in the mideast, especially Saudi Arabia.
Looking at the "Wahhabi" article on wikipedia, apparently MBS has been cracking down on the movement and power structure in the KSA. All that's way too murky for me . . . there could have been ISI (Pakistan's CIA) involvement too.
* I intentionally limited my home charging to 4kW so I don't pull any energy from the grid when I charge in the day.
posted by torokunai at 4:44 AM on August 7 [12 favorites]
Looking at the "Wahhabi" article on wikipedia, apparently MBS has been cracking down on the movement and power structure in the KSA. All that's way too murky for me . . . there could have been ISI (Pakistan's CIA) involvement too.
* I intentionally limited my home charging to 4kW so I don't pull any energy from the grid when I charge in the day.
posted by torokunai at 4:44 AM on August 7 [12 favorites]
Just talk to non-Saudi Muslims about Saudi Arabia - the measures they have to take to limit the risks they face travelling for the hajj to Mecca. Most consider the travel through Saudi Arabia as a journey through hostile territory.
Mecca was an independent state - a bit like the Vatican. The holiest site for Islam with its own prince, who was responsible for making sure that pilgrims were welcomed and cared for. And after WWI, the English-French Sykes-Picot agreement handed it to Saudi Arabia.
A possible Christian equivalent would be giving the Vatican to the Mormons. Or Utah to the Russian Orthodox Church. Mecca under the control of Saudi Arabia is still worse.
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 5:01 AM on August 7 [34 favorites]
Mecca was an independent state - a bit like the Vatican. The holiest site for Islam with its own prince, who was responsible for making sure that pilgrims were welcomed and cared for. And after WWI, the English-French Sykes-Picot agreement handed it to Saudi Arabia.
A possible Christian equivalent would be giving the Vatican to the Mormons. Or Utah to the Russian Orthodox Church. Mecca under the control of Saudi Arabia is still worse.
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 5:01 AM on August 7 [34 favorites]
REALLY? We're going with Oops, we didn't know?! JMFC, I'm not that bright, try my best not to follow current events and I knew! Who are we suggesting was so fucking gullible that the they didn't know the Saudis, the same guuys that gave Jared Kushner billions of dollars, same guys who had a journalist tortured to death, same guys who seem to be behind SO MANY horrible events, were the same guys that paid for 9/11? And sleazy US politicians have been looking the other way? "Wasn't my kids, deposit the money in this account, please and thank you."
posted by evilDoug at 5:22 AM on August 7 [34 favorites]
posted by evilDoug at 5:22 AM on August 7 [34 favorites]
New details may have been uncovered, but Saudi involvement in the plot was never in doubt. The U.S., when flights were grounded after 9-11, flew a bunch of Saudi's back home, in just one of many suspicious turns of circumstance.
posted by kozad at 5:28 AM on August 7 [37 favorites]
posted by kozad at 5:28 AM on August 7 [37 favorites]
this is all just so sad. like even mainstream left and left-ish voices were connecting these dots in the early 2000s (iirc michael moore was bringing this up a lot, esp in fahrenheit 9/11), and the best anyone could hope for from establishment anti-war folks was "well, invading iraq is baffling, but afghanistan, that makes sense". all that bloodshed, two broken states, countless displaced people still trying to find a home in countries ironically calling them the "invaders". and saudi arabia will likely never be held to account, either
every time i see that smug, simpering war criminal doing his "aw shucks" routine on talk shows and showing off his ghastly paintings i want to throw a chair through a window. if there were any justice in this world he'd been standing before the hague
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:29 AM on August 7 [46 favorites]
every time i see that smug, simpering war criminal doing his "aw shucks" routine on talk shows and showing off his ghastly paintings i want to throw a chair through a window. if there were any justice in this world he'd been standing before the hague
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:29 AM on August 7 [46 favorites]
I'll be honest, I thought the fact that Al Qaeda was at least heavily funded and supported by Saudi Arabia was common knowledge at this point.
"Bush did 9/11" isn't true in the strictest sense, but it is true that the administration had the chance to prevent it, that it provided opportunities for profit and power, and that thousands of dead Americans aren't a major concern for most presidents, so long as they aren't members of the yacht club.
posted by jy4m at 5:30 AM on August 7 [29 favorites]
"Bush did 9/11" isn't true in the strictest sense, but it is true that the administration had the chance to prevent it, that it provided opportunities for profit and power, and that thousands of dead Americans aren't a major concern for most presidents, so long as they aren't members of the yacht club.
posted by jy4m at 5:30 AM on August 7 [29 favorites]
>We knew Iraq didn't do it, but I've never heard that Saudi Arabia (the government, our ally) actually DID.
I did.
Okay, I heard conspiracy theories on the internet, but I never heard any credible source making this claim.
Having now read the article, I think I still haven't. As a service to others I'm going to quote the few paragraphs (amid a lot of filler) where the authors actually allege new facts and cite sources...
Were they instructed by the Saudi government to help? Did they even work for the Saudi Government, really? Did they or the Saudi Government know that the hijackers were going to be hijackers?
Until the answers to those questions are known and proven, these are just allegations. And there have been a lot of allegations, and lot of bad intelligence, around this subject over the years. So I think I'm going to shrug this off for now, until something more concrete comes out.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:39 AM on August 7 [24 favorites]
I did.
Okay, I heard conspiracy theories on the internet, but I never heard any credible source making this claim.
Having now read the article, I think I still haven't. As a service to others I'm going to quote the few paragraphs (amid a lot of filler) where the authors actually allege new facts and cite sources...
The plaintiffs [in a lawsuit brought by the families of 9/11 victims against the government of Saudi Arabia] argue that [Saudi agents] Thumairy and Bayoumi organized safe reception, transportation, and housing for hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, beginning upon their arrival in California on January 15, 2000. (Both Thumairy and Bayoumi have denied aiding the plot. Bayoumi, along with Saudi Arabia, has also denied that he had any involvement with its intelligence operations.) The filing further argues that Thumairy and Bayoumi introduced the pair to local sympathizers in Los Angeles and San Diego who catered to their day-to-day needs, including help with immigration matters, digital and phone communications, and receiving funds from al-Qaeda by wire transfer. Saudi officials also helped the two al-Qaeda operatives—both Saudi nationals with little education or command of English, whose experience abroad consisted mostly of training and fighting for jihadist causes—to procure a car as well as driver’s licenses. This support network was crucial.What is alleged (but not yet proven) in court, by people who are suing the Saudi Government over this... is just that some Saudis in the US helped some visiting Saudis rent a car and get a cell phone qnd so on, and they turned out to be the hijackers.
[...]
The plaintiffs’ claims are contested by lawyers representing Saudi Arabia on a range of technical, jurisdictional, and factual grounds. They deny that Saudi officials directed support to the hijackers or were otherwise complicit in the attacks. Thumairy “did not assist the hijackers at all,” the lawyers have said, and his alleged actions would not have fallen within the scope of his official responsibilities. Bayoumi’s assistance was “minimal” and unrelated to terrorist activity, the lawyers argue, and neither he nor Thumairy belonged to a jihadist network. Some of the disputes are less about facts than about interpretation. The Capitol video, in the Saudi view, is nothing more than a typical home movie by an enthusiastic tourist; the San Diego video of Bayoumi’s party in the hijackers’ apartment is said to depict a gathering of mosque-goers for some purpose unrelated to the presence of two newly arrived al-Qaeda terrorists.
[...]
Should the plaintiffs overcome the Saudi motion to dismiss, an extended period of merits discovery and a potential trial on liability for 9/11 will exacerbate matters. But many years after the attacks, it seems likely that judicial determination—not military action—is the most viable means by which to close the books on 9/11.
Were they instructed by the Saudi government to help? Did they even work for the Saudi Government, really? Did they or the Saudi Government know that the hijackers were going to be hijackers?
Until the answers to those questions are known and proven, these are just allegations. And there have been a lot of allegations, and lot of bad intelligence, around this subject over the years. So I think I'm going to shrug this off for now, until something more concrete comes out.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:39 AM on August 7 [24 favorites]
Can we stay allies if this is proven?
Allies? You mean more like our military are their servants. The USA deforms its foreign policy around KSA, and will until the world breaks its oil addiction.
There s so much noise about fracking, but KSA has so much more easy oil, much less drilling is necessary. They will always have the advantage, they are pre peak oil.
This is also the fault of the UK/USA, though. After King Saud watched the USA overthrow Mosaddegh, the Petrodollar deal was solidified. I feel like that assassination really set the tone for 'how things work' that remains today..
posted by eustatic at 5:50 AM on August 7 [7 favorites]
Allies? You mean more like our military are their servants. The USA deforms its foreign policy around KSA, and will until the world breaks its oil addiction.
There s so much noise about fracking, but KSA has so much more easy oil, much less drilling is necessary. They will always have the advantage, they are pre peak oil.
This is also the fault of the UK/USA, though. After King Saud watched the USA overthrow Mosaddegh, the Petrodollar deal was solidified. I feel like that assassination really set the tone for 'how things work' that remains today..
posted by eustatic at 5:50 AM on August 7 [7 favorites]
Mod note: Comment and response removed. Per the guidelines, "Allow others to express themselves" and don't scold them about what they're expressing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:12 AM on August 7 [4 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:12 AM on August 7 [4 favorites]
My take on “bush did 9/11” Is that because of how close allies the Saudi were with the GOP Leadership in general and the Bush family in particular, the scion of the most powerful in-royal family in Saudi Arabia (and all the connections that implies) could use his money and connections in attack America without his own country being held responsible.
posted by Jon_Evil at 6:17 AM on August 7 [6 favorites]
posted by Jon_Evil at 6:17 AM on August 7 [6 favorites]
I'm reminded of the Doonesbury strips about the "secret bombings" in Cambodia. "There wasn't anything secret about them! I said, 'Look, Martha, here come the bombs.' "
But yeah, people have been saying it was the Saudis for years and years.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 6:23 AM on August 7 [15 favorites]
But yeah, people have been saying it was the Saudis for years and years.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 6:23 AM on August 7 [15 favorites]
Were they instructed by the Saudi government to help? Did they even work for the Saudi Government, really? Did they or the Saudi Government know that the hijackers were going to be hijackers? Until the answers to those questions are known and proven, these are just allegations. And there have been a lot of allegations, and lot of bad intelligence, around this subject over the years. So I think I'm going to shrug this off for now, until something more concrete comes out.
While it's true that the Saudi government argued that "this is all allegations", a good number of their arguments were based on technicalities - and there are a good deal of other things not included in that law suit, like another allegation that the Saudi government funded a "dry run" back in 1999, and the accidental release of a third Saudi diplomat's name back in 2020.
Frankly, to my mind protestations that the Saudi individuals who were caught up in things could have just been lone weirdos or that they "didn't know" they were supporting hijackers sound like those two Russian dudes who tried to poison Russian dissident Sergei Skripal in the UK, but tried to say that they were just tourists who were really gung-ho about "the "famous ... 123-metre spire at Salisbury Cathedral".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:27 AM on August 7 [7 favorites]
While it's true that the Saudi government argued that "this is all allegations", a good number of their arguments were based on technicalities - and there are a good deal of other things not included in that law suit, like another allegation that the Saudi government funded a "dry run" back in 1999, and the accidental release of a third Saudi diplomat's name back in 2020.
Frankly, to my mind protestations that the Saudi individuals who were caught up in things could have just been lone weirdos or that they "didn't know" they were supporting hijackers sound like those two Russian dudes who tried to poison Russian dissident Sergei Skripal in the UK, but tried to say that they were just tourists who were really gung-ho about "the "famous ... 123-metre spire at Salisbury Cathedral".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:27 AM on August 7 [7 favorites]
Didn't the Saudi government make a direct reference to 9/11 in a Canadian newspaper ad or something? They were threatening the Canadians about something and the gist was, "keep your nose out or else".
Like, conspiracies in the modern American sense are things like chem-trails. This was just not openly talked about. What, 80% of the hijackers were Saudi nationals or something to that effect?
posted by Slackermagee at 6:38 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
Like, conspiracies in the modern American sense are things like chem-trails. This was just not openly talked about. What, 80% of the hijackers were Saudi nationals or something to that effect?
posted by Slackermagee at 6:38 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
There's a photograph of bandar bush kissing george w bush on the lips, loyal lackeys of the old world order , laughing . We are an Empire now..
posted by hortense at 6:41 AM on August 7 [2 favorites]
posted by hortense at 6:41 AM on August 7 [2 favorites]
I'll be honest, I thought the fact that Al Qaeda was at least heavily funded and supported by Saudi Arabia was common knowledge at this point.
It absolutely is.
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:46 AM on August 7 [13 favorites]
Echoing the many comments to the point above, this has been in the water for decades. The timing is significant and presumably intentional, though -it's a helluva time to ask candidates what they're going to do about it.
posted by aesop at 6:57 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
posted by aesop at 6:57 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
What, 80% of the hijackers were Saudi nationals or something to that effect?
Close, 79%.
"15 of them were citizens of Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one from Lebanon."
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:29 AM on August 7 [7 favorites]
Close, 79%.
"15 of them were citizens of Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one from Lebanon."
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:29 AM on August 7 [7 favorites]
I've been thinking about the "mistake" framing and I'd prefer "misunderstanding," "falsehood," or even just "wrong" as the first paragraph of the article says. The public arguments for the war on terror and second Iraq wars were definitely mistaken in a number of ways. Its just not clear to me that this was a well meaning error. The U.S. government clearly withheld information on Saudi government involvement in 9/11. The key decision makers for the war on terror and the Iraq war were all professional dissemblers who stood to benefit in various ways from some sort of extended military conflict. The war on terror continues against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, or anyone else we want to deem a terrorist.
It would have been nice if, in 2002, we had a sort of Russia-gate style investigation of Saudi Arabia's connections to 9/11. I feel like the evidence, at this point, is too cold for a legal case to withstand the posturing of a well-paid legal defense. I have a suspicion that, if the lawyers weren't able to fend off the case, someone else would step in to set things right.
posted by Hume at 7:36 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
It would have been nice if, in 2002, we had a sort of Russia-gate style investigation of Saudi Arabia's connections to 9/11. I feel like the evidence, at this point, is too cold for a legal case to withstand the posturing of a well-paid legal defense. I have a suspicion that, if the lawyers weren't able to fend off the case, someone else would step in to set things right.
posted by Hume at 7:36 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
What, 80% of the hijackers were Saudi nationals or something to that effect?
I've never understood why people think this is evidence of involvement by the Saudi government. They have plenty of enemies among their own citizens, plenty of people among their citizens who hate others on political or religious grounds.
If you look at my own country, there were decades of terrorist attacks on UK people and infrastructure by Irish citizens, but it didn't mean the Irish government was behind them. It didn't justify bombing Dublin. The argument alone is utterly specious, actual evidence of government involvement is needed to make the case.
posted by biffa at 7:46 AM on August 7 [8 favorites]
I've never understood why people think this is evidence of involvement by the Saudi government. They have plenty of enemies among their own citizens, plenty of people among their citizens who hate others on political or religious grounds.
If you look at my own country, there were decades of terrorist attacks on UK people and infrastructure by Irish citizens, but it didn't mean the Irish government was behind them. It didn't justify bombing Dublin. The argument alone is utterly specious, actual evidence of government involvement is needed to make the case.
posted by biffa at 7:46 AM on August 7 [8 favorites]
I mean, if we want to zoom out a half stop more, is there even any way to fill in this blank, "Begun because of __________________________, the global war on terror turned out to be a well-justified good decision"?
(imagine me skipping the rest of this obvious rant to end with the Eric Idle line about "the bombing of an abstract noun.")
I mean... you know. We all know. We've known forever, basically. But we occasionally have to stop and remember we always knew, or we'll go mad.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:56 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
(imagine me skipping the rest of this obvious rant to end with the Eric Idle line about "the bombing of an abstract noun.")
I mean... you know. We all know. We've known forever, basically. But we occasionally have to stop and remember we always knew, or we'll go mad.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:56 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
I know I'm an oil brat and raised with those prejudices but man, yeah, another one who thought the Saudis did it all along. Like the day it happened, my mom and I were talking about the Saudis having been at least partially responsible (because they were tied up with the religious fundamentalists and had been forever).
It's nice to see more confirmation all this time for folks who didn't know and to keep it in public memory though.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:12 AM on August 7 [4 favorites]
It's nice to see more confirmation all this time for folks who didn't know and to keep it in public memory though.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:12 AM on August 7 [4 favorites]
Yeah, we knew this back when it happened.
posted by Ludi at 8:15 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
posted by Ludi at 8:15 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
*blink*
*blink*
How the everlivin' hell is anyone, anywhere, still trying to push the 'mistake' narrative? Am I confabulating memories of primary sources publicly stating it was based on convenient lies?
posted by Enturbulated at 8:16 AM on August 7 [3 favorites]
*blink*
How the everlivin' hell is anyone, anywhere, still trying to push the 'mistake' narrative? Am I confabulating memories of primary sources publicly stating it was based on convenient lies?
posted by Enturbulated at 8:16 AM on August 7 [3 favorites]
My only reaction to this headline was "Duh!"
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:27 AM on August 7 [3 favorites]
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:27 AM on August 7 [3 favorites]
Genuinely I thought we knew this 20 years ago and have found the ongoing refusal to admit it one of the more discrediting aspects of society in general.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:29 AM on August 7 [11 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:29 AM on August 7 [11 favorites]
The WTC bombings allowed for conservative and Republican domination of our elected government and courts, as well as a massive windfall for “security”. They were not going to be distracted by concerns about truth or who-did-what.
$6 Trillion, lots of dead peeps, and a resurgent Iran. Just to elect Repubs and keep marginal tax rates low.
posted by pdoege at 8:30 AM on August 7 [17 favorites]
$6 Trillion, lots of dead peeps, and a resurgent Iran. Just to elect Repubs and keep marginal tax rates low.
posted by pdoege at 8:30 AM on August 7 [17 favorites]
The irony of this being published in David Frum's organ is not lost on me.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 8:30 AM on August 7 [9 favorites]
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 8:30 AM on August 7 [9 favorites]
$6 Trillion, lots of dead peeps, and a resurgent Iran. Just to elect Repubs and keep marginal tax rates low.
Don't forget throwing more money at the military-industrial complex to make up for the end of the Cold War.
posted by briank at 8:32 AM on August 7 [7 favorites]
Don't forget throwing more money at the military-industrial complex to make up for the end of the Cold War.
posted by briank at 8:32 AM on August 7 [7 favorites]
Am I confabulating memories of primary sources publicly stating it was based on convenient lies?
You are not. We knew, in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq, that Iraq had no WMDs and yet the invasion proceeded anyway. We knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and yet I recall a poll saying that immediately prior to the invasion over 75% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was instrumental in that and working with bin Laden (despite them being known longtime enemies, for anyone who bothered to make the slightest effort to look it up).
All of this was due to the longstanding relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud.
There was no confusion on the part of anybody making even a marginal effort to stay informed, but we were both palpably and statistically in a minority at that time.
posted by Ryvar at 8:35 AM on August 7 [37 favorites]
You are not. We knew, in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq, that Iraq had no WMDs and yet the invasion proceeded anyway. We knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and yet I recall a poll saying that immediately prior to the invasion over 75% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was instrumental in that and working with bin Laden (despite them being known longtime enemies, for anyone who bothered to make the slightest effort to look it up).
All of this was due to the longstanding relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud.
There was no confusion on the part of anybody making even a marginal effort to stay informed, but we were both palpably and statistically in a minority at that time.
posted by Ryvar at 8:35 AM on August 7 [37 favorites]
There was no confusion on the part of anybody making even a marginal effort to stay informed, but we were both palpably and statistically in a minority at that time.
Since I can only favourite it once, I will simply quote it and scream "this!"
I remember when the 2000 election was over, saying to myself "that motherfucker's going to find a reason to go back to Iraq." I didn't expect what would happen in less-than a year's time....
posted by Dark Messiah at 8:49 AM on August 7 [10 favorites]
Since I can only favourite it once, I will simply quote it and scream "this!"
I remember when the 2000 election was over, saying to myself "that motherfucker's going to find a reason to go back to Iraq." I didn't expect what would happen in less-than a year's time....
posted by Dark Messiah at 8:49 AM on August 7 [10 favorites]
The global "war on terror" was a terrible decision. The invasion of Iraq was a terrible decision. It would also be a terrible decision for us to invade or go to war with Saudi Arabia now, for this reason or really for any reason. War is almost always a terrible decision.
But Saudi Arabia and the US see Iran as a common enemy. And there is a still a sort of echo of the Cold War playing out, where the alliance between Syria and Russia, and the worry that Russia is building up relationships with other countries in the region, makes the US feel that we need allies there too, so that Russia doesn't just establish hegemony over the whole area. And yes, the desire of Saudi Arabia to sell oil and the United States to buy it have traditionally given the two countries reason to work together as well. (Though the US is a net exporter now, and is anyway decreasing its reliance on oil out of a desire for energy independence as much as concerns about climate change, so the "it's all about oil" theories which were oversimplistic back in 2003 are now just silly.)
Anyway, the US/Saudi Arabia relationship has endured for a long time but has often been very strained. It's endured the end of the original Cold War, a bunch of diplomatic incidents, the war in Iraq, the Saudi war in Yemen, everything that has happened in Israel/Palestine... These two countries think they need each other, but as far as I can tell they absolutely do not trust each other.
I think that if there were evidence that the Saudi government actually backed 9/11, we might not invade, but we would absolutely be done with the alliance. That would be good for Iran and Russia, bad for Israel, and would have implications for the whole world. The balance of power in the middle east would be upset, and I'm not sure what kinds of conflicts would result, or who would win.
But so far all the evidence that has been shared in this thread is just... weak. Weaker than the evidence Bush tried to share about Iraq being involved.
From the "dry run" link above:
As for the "accidental release of a diplomat's name" link (which quotes Trump himself eagerly buying into the idea that his enemies at the FBI were covering up Saudi involvement), I don't even really understand how anything in that is supposed to prove Saudi involvement.
This is really, really not good evidence.
Everybody who is saying they knew all along that Iraq was NOT behind 9/11... Congratulations. You were right. The evidence that the Bush administration presented alleging a connection there WAS weak, and there never WAS any really good reason to believe it.
But guess what, this evidence is ALSO weak, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Saudi Arabia was behind it either.
In the end we just need to accept that it does not take the resources of a national government to get 19 guys on a few planes with box cutters. Regular old criminals are more than capable of managing that themselves, especially if they organize. If that makes you feel vulnerable or unsafe getting onto an airplane, welcome to the modern world. If it makes you feel better to believe that some more powerful or more understandable entity like a government was behind the attack, whether it be Iraq's or Saudi Arabia's... Maybe interrogate that feeling a little bit. Think about what that kind of urge to place blame can lead to - what it DID lead to, with the Iraq war.
We also need to accept that sometimes we just don't know, and may never know, everything about why a terrible event happened. Lots of people were lying. Lots of people were keeping secrets. Some people took them to the grave. But just because we may not know exactly what happened, and may not trust the official narratives, doesn't many any particular alternative theory of what happened is automatically correct. There are lots of things that COULD have happened, and lots of affiliations and incidents and hints that could lend support to different theories. But no conclusive evidence for any conspiracy stretching beyond Al Quaeda itself. And we can't act on mere suspicions. That way lies tragedy.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:52 AM on August 7 [10 favorites]
But Saudi Arabia and the US see Iran as a common enemy. And there is a still a sort of echo of the Cold War playing out, where the alliance between Syria and Russia, and the worry that Russia is building up relationships with other countries in the region, makes the US feel that we need allies there too, so that Russia doesn't just establish hegemony over the whole area. And yes, the desire of Saudi Arabia to sell oil and the United States to buy it have traditionally given the two countries reason to work together as well. (Though the US is a net exporter now, and is anyway decreasing its reliance on oil out of a desire for energy independence as much as concerns about climate change, so the "it's all about oil" theories which were oversimplistic back in 2003 are now just silly.)
Anyway, the US/Saudi Arabia relationship has endured for a long time but has often been very strained. It's endured the end of the original Cold War, a bunch of diplomatic incidents, the war in Iraq, the Saudi war in Yemen, everything that has happened in Israel/Palestine... These two countries think they need each other, but as far as I can tell they absolutely do not trust each other.
I think that if there were evidence that the Saudi government actually backed 9/11, we might not invade, but we would absolutely be done with the alliance. That would be good for Iran and Russia, bad for Israel, and would have implications for the whole world. The balance of power in the middle east would be upset, and I'm not sure what kinds of conflicts would result, or who would win.
But so far all the evidence that has been shared in this thread is just... weak. Weaker than the evidence Bush tried to share about Iraq being involved.
From the "dry run" link above:
[Saudi students Mohammed al-Qudhaeein and Hamdan al-Shalawi] had trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan at the same time some of the hijackers were there. And while living in Arizona, they had regular contacts with a Saudi hijacker pilot and a senior al Qaeda leaderSo these guys (who were not involved in 9/11, but who did act creepy on a plane) turned out to be Saudi government employees who also had some involvement with Al Quaeda. That's not a great look. But it's definitely not proof that the Saudis did 9/11. It could just be proof that their background check process for people applying to government jobs is crappy.
[...]
Qudhaeein and Shalawi both worked for and received money from the Saudi government, with Qudhaeein employed at the Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Shalawi was also “a longtime employee of the Saudi government.” The pair were in “frequent contact” with Saudi officials while in the US, according to the filings.
[...]
After they boarded the plane in Phoenix, they began asking the flight attendants technical questions about the flight that the flight attendants found suspicious,” according to a summary of the FBI case files. “When the plane was in flight, al-Qudhaeein asked where the bathroom was; one of the flight attendants pointed him to the back of the plane,” it added. “Nevertheless, al-Qudhaeein went to the front of the plane and attempted on two occasions to enter the cockpit.”
As for the "accidental release of a diplomat's name" link (which quotes Trump himself eagerly buying into the idea that his enemies at the FBI were covering up Saudi involvement), I don't even really understand how anything in that is supposed to prove Saudi involvement.
Catherine Hunt, a former FBI agent helping the families behind the lawsuit, said her investigation revealed that the FBI believed Mr Jarrah [a mid-level Saudi Foreign Ministry official who was working in the Saudi Embassy in Washington DC in 1999 and 2000] was "supporting" and "maintaining" Mr Thumiary during the 9/11 investigations. Thus far, the FBI's suspicions of Mr Jarrah are just that - suspicions. Agents were unable to prove that Mr Jarrah knew that Mr Thumiari and Mr Bayoumi were associated with al-Qaeda and that the men were plotting a terror attack, citing a "lack of evidence" to move the case forward.So the FBI suspected, but could not prove, that the Saudi diplomat was helping someone who in turn helped the 9/11 hijackers rent a car, etc?
This is really, really not good evidence.
Everybody who is saying they knew all along that Iraq was NOT behind 9/11... Congratulations. You were right. The evidence that the Bush administration presented alleging a connection there WAS weak, and there never WAS any really good reason to believe it.
But guess what, this evidence is ALSO weak, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Saudi Arabia was behind it either.
In the end we just need to accept that it does not take the resources of a national government to get 19 guys on a few planes with box cutters. Regular old criminals are more than capable of managing that themselves, especially if they organize. If that makes you feel vulnerable or unsafe getting onto an airplane, welcome to the modern world. If it makes you feel better to believe that some more powerful or more understandable entity like a government was behind the attack, whether it be Iraq's or Saudi Arabia's... Maybe interrogate that feeling a little bit. Think about what that kind of urge to place blame can lead to - what it DID lead to, with the Iraq war.
We also need to accept that sometimes we just don't know, and may never know, everything about why a terrible event happened. Lots of people were lying. Lots of people were keeping secrets. Some people took them to the grave. But just because we may not know exactly what happened, and may not trust the official narratives, doesn't many any particular alternative theory of what happened is automatically correct. There are lots of things that COULD have happened, and lots of affiliations and incidents and hints that could lend support to different theories. But no conclusive evidence for any conspiracy stretching beyond Al Quaeda itself. And we can't act on mere suspicions. That way lies tragedy.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:52 AM on August 7 [10 favorites]
Tl; dr: Just because it wasn't Iraq doesn't mean it WAS Saudi Arabia.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:54 AM on August 7 [2 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:54 AM on August 7 [2 favorites]
The Atlantic Jackie Harveying 9/11 a quarter of a century later is predictable enough to be a Jackie Harvey column.
posted by Don Pepino at 8:55 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
posted by Don Pepino at 8:55 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
It did seem for a few weeks in October 2001 that we were going to pursue justice through the legal system. Then we invaded Afghanistan and opened Gitmo and that all went to hell. I'd be happy to see this lawsuit run its course.
posted by credulous at 9:38 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
posted by credulous at 9:38 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
Allies? You mean more like our military are their servants. The USA deforms its foreign policy around KSA, and will until the world breaks its oil addiction
More like until we decide to give the US oil refineries $50 or $100 billion to rework their plant to deal with US and/or South American crude. There is zero chance they'll do it themselves thanks to the stagnant market for most oil products. They barely have interest in keeping things going as it is.
Hell, the big oil companies barely have enough interest in the business to bother getting more oil even when they have leases with absurdly low royalties. They just want to milk the assets they already have. High US onshore production is mostly driven by the smaller companies and wildcats who don't already have billions upon billions of dollars worth of assets that they fear will be going to not quite zero in the next decade or two.
And just to make it clear, the US still imports an absolute fuck ton of oil despite producing more than enough for our own consumption. We sell most of our domestic production to other people because few of our refineries are set up to process what we're making. Crude oil has a vastly different mix of fractions and contaminants like sulfur depending on where it comes from. (Though Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are beginning to run low on the stuff we buy from them, their newer fields are much lower grade, more like what we produce)
posted by wierdo at 9:45 AM on August 7 [7 favorites]
More like until we decide to give the US oil refineries $50 or $100 billion to rework their plant to deal with US and/or South American crude. There is zero chance they'll do it themselves thanks to the stagnant market for most oil products. They barely have interest in keeping things going as it is.
Hell, the big oil companies barely have enough interest in the business to bother getting more oil even when they have leases with absurdly low royalties. They just want to milk the assets they already have. High US onshore production is mostly driven by the smaller companies and wildcats who don't already have billions upon billions of dollars worth of assets that they fear will be going to not quite zero in the next decade or two.
And just to make it clear, the US still imports an absolute fuck ton of oil despite producing more than enough for our own consumption. We sell most of our domestic production to other people because few of our refineries are set up to process what we're making. Crude oil has a vastly different mix of fractions and contaminants like sulfur depending on where it comes from. (Though Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are beginning to run low on the stuff we buy from them, their newer fields are much lower grade, more like what we produce)
posted by wierdo at 9:45 AM on August 7 [7 favorites]
Twenty-two years and one day ago (just eleven months after the 9/11 attacks):
Finally somebody's saying it out loud. A "top Pentagon advisory board" says the real enemy in the War on terrorism is...drum roll, please....Saudi Arabia.posted by mbrubeck at 10:03 AM on August 7 [7 favorites]
How the everlivin' hell is anyone, anywhere, still trying to push the 'mistake' narrative? Am I confabulating memories of primary sources publicly stating it was based on convenient lies?
The Chimp-in-Chief didn't make the mistake, the Chimp-in-Chief was the mistake.
I was twelve years old when Nixon was forced out of office and at the time I could not imagine a worse US President than him. But Reagan was worse than Nixon, and W was worse than Reagan, and TFG was worse than W, and fuck knows what the fucking Republican monster construction laboratory will cook up next but the US keeps making that mistake.
STOP ELECTING FUCKWITS, YOU FUCKING FUCKWITS. YOUR FUCKING FUCKWITS FUCKING FUCK ALL OF US. Fuck's sake.
Sorry. Got a bit verklempt there. Howl of rage and frustration not directed at anybody who votes non-fuckwit.
posted by flabdablet at 10:19 AM on August 7 [20 favorites]
The Chimp-in-Chief didn't make the mistake, the Chimp-in-Chief was the mistake.
I was twelve years old when Nixon was forced out of office and at the time I could not imagine a worse US President than him. But Reagan was worse than Nixon, and W was worse than Reagan, and TFG was worse than W, and fuck knows what the fucking Republican monster construction laboratory will cook up next but the US keeps making that mistake.
STOP ELECTING FUCKWITS, YOU FUCKING FUCKWITS. YOUR FUCKING FUCKWITS FUCKING FUCK ALL OF US. Fuck's sake.
Sorry. Got a bit verklempt there. Howl of rage and frustration not directed at anybody who votes non-fuckwit.
posted by flabdablet at 10:19 AM on August 7 [20 favorites]
IT seems like this is significant new evidence. I don't have the expertise to evaluate how significant. The 'mistake' framing is bullshit and hard not to react to, but I'd like to see some analysis of this from experts. It came out in May..
posted by latkes at 10:20 AM on August 7 [2 favorites]
posted by latkes at 10:20 AM on August 7 [2 favorites]
Being Cassandra really sucks.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 10:31 AM on August 7 [4 favorites]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 10:31 AM on August 7 [4 favorites]
Uhh, I didn't even think it was remotely a secret that Saudi Arabia paid for 9/11. That's why all of our cozying up to them has been so disgusting, everyone forgot 9/11 lol.
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:52 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:52 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
There are lots of things that COULD have happened, and lots of affiliations and incidents and hints that could lend support to different theories. But no conclusive evidence for any conspiracy stretching beyond Al Quaeda itself. And we can't act on mere suspicions. That way lies tragedy.
As much as I admire your strict adherence to ensuring accuracy, I am afraid I cannot agree that it is required in this instance. But you do you.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:56 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
As much as I admire your strict adherence to ensuring accuracy, I am afraid I cannot agree that it is required in this instance. But you do you.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:56 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
There’s paying for terrorism in the sense that the CIA has funded multiple coups in South America, and there’s paying for terrorism in the sense of Netanyahu’s payments to Hamas. Both end up funding terrorism, but most people seem to make a distinction between the two, for whatever reason. It’s not at all clear to me which category Saudi funding of al Quaeda fell into - I don’t think that was widely reported at the time. I’ll read the article to find out if it has more info.
posted by eviemath at 10:58 AM on August 7 [4 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 10:58 AM on August 7 [4 favorites]
(To be more clear: I’m pointing out the distinction between a payment for services rendered - the coups being the goal of CIA funding - versus a payoff - Oct. 7 probably being at least more in the category of payoff having backfired rather than something the Israeli government specifically intended and directed to happen.)
posted by eviemath at 11:03 AM on August 7 [3 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 11:03 AM on August 7 [3 favorites]
According to this article, Bush & Company knew that the 9/11 attacks were state-sponsored, but they got the wrong state. Also, regardless of the facts, Bush probably could not have been deterred from attacking Iraq. Many other undercurrents helped us to destabilize the shakey balances of power in the Middle East. I swim in the same end of the pool as those who think the top tier of the Bush administration should stand before a war crimes court.
America has floated on a pink, feel-good cloud of misadventure in the Middle East for over a century, believing that those foreigners were simply Americans who hadn't yet learned to speak English.
I'm sure many of my fellow MeFites (as they've declared here) owned the common sense to know that something was not quite right about the Bush administration. As was I. We still haven't redeemed ourselves from excesses such as Gitmo. We'll never repair the loss of over 7,000 military, 30,000 suicides, or the more than 800,000 deaths we left in our wake, many of which were non-combatants (read "children").
We've swept other shameful acts under the rug--the pathetic treatment we visited on our citizens. Not just the Arab-Americans and Hindi, but on anybody who had the guts to speak out against the war. I'll give you a hint: Duxie Chicks. Remember them? That's just for starters. While our more enlightened citizens blithered, rumor mongers lovingly authored racist anecdote (Arabs at the 7-11 dancing at the sight of the collapsing towers). I won't bore you with more details.
In our righteous zeal to criticize the cynical movers and shakers who dwell in hubris and never have to see the elephant in person, let us keep our feet firmly on the ground while deciding whose handbasket we wish to ride on our way to Hell.
posted by mule98J at 11:24 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
America has floated on a pink, feel-good cloud of misadventure in the Middle East for over a century, believing that those foreigners were simply Americans who hadn't yet learned to speak English.
I'm sure many of my fellow MeFites (as they've declared here) owned the common sense to know that something was not quite right about the Bush administration. As was I. We still haven't redeemed ourselves from excesses such as Gitmo. We'll never repair the loss of over 7,000 military, 30,000 suicides, or the more than 800,000 deaths we left in our wake, many of which were non-combatants (read "children").
We've swept other shameful acts under the rug--the pathetic treatment we visited on our citizens. Not just the Arab-Americans and Hindi, but on anybody who had the guts to speak out against the war. I'll give you a hint: Duxie Chicks. Remember them? That's just for starters. While our more enlightened citizens blithered, rumor mongers lovingly authored racist anecdote (Arabs at the 7-11 dancing at the sight of the collapsing towers). I won't bore you with more details.
In our righteous zeal to criticize the cynical movers and shakers who dwell in hubris and never have to see the elephant in person, let us keep our feet firmly on the ground while deciding whose handbasket we wish to ride on our way to Hell.
posted by mule98J at 11:24 AM on August 7 [5 favorites]
I "joined" MetaFiler on September 13, 2001 because it was a shining light in a sea of uncertainty - folks were sharing news and insights that the mainstream news wasn't covering. Going back to look at the posts from the 9/11 week shows that much of the above was in discussion at the time on the Blue.
posted by mfoight at 11:51 AM on August 7 [11 favorites]
posted by mfoight at 11:51 AM on August 7 [11 favorites]
During the second intifada, my Mideast history professor argued one of the most significant events in contemporary global history was the Seizure of the Grand Mosque in November 1979. Americans missed the forest for the trees; the Reagan Administration had manipulated the Iran Hostage Crisis to win the election that would have shorter impact. The seizure cast the current relationship of Saudis officially funding extremist schools to direct dissent outwards, and setting Iran and the US as useful fools for each other to do the same (all the while Reagan provided Iran arms).
mfoight - I remember the same exactly. Deep connections between the Saudi Royal family and funding organizations were known at the time. Perhaps the new big is exactly how direct the connections were after all?
posted by rubatan at 2:11 PM on August 7 [6 favorites]
mfoight - I remember the same exactly. Deep connections between the Saudi Royal family and funding organizations were known at the time. Perhaps the new big is exactly how direct the connections were after all?
posted by rubatan at 2:11 PM on August 7 [6 favorites]
Seizure of the Grand Mosque in November 1979.
I was just about to mention that the Saudi Royals are constrained in part by Wahabists. The article starts the story in 1990 but the Grand Mosque Seizure in 1979 demonstrated the limits of royal power, with them imposing more oppression of women and cultural prohibition in response.
same guys who had a journalist tortured to death
Critically, these are not the same guys. As the article notes, MBS rolled back much of the police state and liberalized the society, against the wishes of islamic fundamentalists. Just because he is also a terrible human being doesn't mean he gets along with all the other groups who hate you or I.
posted by pwnguin at 2:52 PM on August 7 [7 favorites]
I was just about to mention that the Saudi Royals are constrained in part by Wahabists. The article starts the story in 1990 but the Grand Mosque Seizure in 1979 demonstrated the limits of royal power, with them imposing more oppression of women and cultural prohibition in response.
same guys who had a journalist tortured to death
Critically, these are not the same guys. As the article notes, MBS rolled back much of the police state and liberalized the society, against the wishes of islamic fundamentalists. Just because he is also a terrible human being doesn't mean he gets along with all the other groups who hate you or I.
posted by pwnguin at 2:52 PM on August 7 [7 favorites]
Just another voice to say that those of us paying attention, this was pretty obvious.
I can be pretty damn charitable to power and this is still the best I can do: that the GWB administration didn't assist with the attacks, but certainly allowed them through incompetence in response to intelligence. The they expedited removing Saudi citizens who should have been detained back out of the country afterwards. That they found the political upheaval useful to their pre-existing projects and goals for military action in Afghanistan and especially Iraq. That actually getting to the bottom of the attacks was less useful, especially if things started pointing to our oil 'allies'. That Al Quaida represented a convenient scapegoat and Osama Bin Laden a particular target that allowed distraction and deflection from a variety of poor policy decisions and outcomes.
I thought it was obviously a disaster (with more on the way c.f. Iraq) by mid-October of 2001 and nothing in the subsequent 23 years has substantially changed my opinion. Just watching the thread unspool with sadness.
posted by meinvt at 4:14 PM on August 7 [9 favorites]
I can be pretty damn charitable to power and this is still the best I can do: that the GWB administration didn't assist with the attacks, but certainly allowed them through incompetence in response to intelligence. The they expedited removing Saudi citizens who should have been detained back out of the country afterwards. That they found the political upheaval useful to their pre-existing projects and goals for military action in Afghanistan and especially Iraq. That actually getting to the bottom of the attacks was less useful, especially if things started pointing to our oil 'allies'. That Al Quaida represented a convenient scapegoat and Osama Bin Laden a particular target that allowed distraction and deflection from a variety of poor policy decisions and outcomes.
I thought it was obviously a disaster (with more on the way c.f. Iraq) by mid-October of 2001 and nothing in the subsequent 23 years has substantially changed my opinion. Just watching the thread unspool with sadness.
posted by meinvt at 4:14 PM on August 7 [9 favorites]
> that the GWB administration didn't assist with the attacks, but certainly allowed them through incompetence in response to intelligence
this wouldn't surprise me, that people at the top in 2001 would not have been unhappy to see the typical taxiway hostage drama unfold for their political purposes, similar to the Trump admin allowing Covid to run free when it looked like a Blue State issue.
posted by torokunai at 5:19 PM on August 7 [4 favorites]
this wouldn't surprise me, that people at the top in 2001 would not have been unhappy to see the typical taxiway hostage drama unfold for their political purposes, similar to the Trump admin allowing Covid to run free when it looked like a Blue State issue.
posted by torokunai at 5:19 PM on August 7 [4 favorites]
The question has never been whether or not much of the money funding al Qaeda came from Saudi Arabia, including some in the royal family. That part we've known. We knew that after they bombed the USS Cole and probably before.
The question has always been whether the money was coming from the minor royals who have little to no power, only no show jobs, or it was coming from people much closer to the King who actually exert significant influence over parts of the government or indeed the government itself.
posted by wierdo at 8:48 PM on August 7 [4 favorites]
The question has always been whether the money was coming from the minor royals who have little to no power, only no show jobs, or it was coming from people much closer to the King who actually exert significant influence over parts of the government or indeed the government itself.
posted by wierdo at 8:48 PM on August 7 [4 favorites]
Pretty sad when the absolutely most charitable view that could be taken is that the US government and a range of its agencies with intelligence responsibilities were abjectly incompetent and remained so for decades.
posted by dg at 12:05 AM on August 8 [5 favorites]
posted by dg at 12:05 AM on August 8 [5 favorites]
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the only commercial airliner allowed to leave the US was the Saudi family. Or am I mistaken?
posted by DJZouke at 5:15 AM on August 8 [4 favorites]
posted by DJZouke at 5:15 AM on August 8 [4 favorites]
This is all pretty triggering.
I'm trying to find out why 9/11 was so traumatizing for me -- I'd moved back to Europe, it didn't directly affect my life, none of my friends were harmed. But it's like that day and the following years broke me.
At least one reason is the gaslighting. It was so obviously Saudis that were supporting the terrorists, maybe even with a little shot of Pakistani assistance in Afghanistan. And yet "we" invaded two other countries. I was working as a journalist at the time, and the lies were driving me crazy. I traveled to the Middle East and to Washington D.C. and London to look for explanations and got lies, or just no answers. Some people laughed out loud at me. Or if they were about to be the victims of an invasion, they shrugged sadly: don't look for logic where there is none to be found.
But the thing is, most of my friends believed the lies, because they trusted the politicians and the mainstream media. It felt very isolating.
It must be so much worse for the families of the victims, who had to deal with the gaslighting while grieving. I hope for them they will find some justice this way.
Pretty sad when the absolutely most charitable view that could be taken is that the US government and a range of its agencies with intelligence responsibilities were abjectly incompetent and remained so for decades.
I think there were a lot of competent people in government. But the Bush administration didn't want to hear what they knew. This was the administration who were building their own reality, after all.
posted by mumimor at 5:28 AM on August 8 [11 favorites]
I'm trying to find out why 9/11 was so traumatizing for me -- I'd moved back to Europe, it didn't directly affect my life, none of my friends were harmed. But it's like that day and the following years broke me.
At least one reason is the gaslighting. It was so obviously Saudis that were supporting the terrorists, maybe even with a little shot of Pakistani assistance in Afghanistan. And yet "we" invaded two other countries. I was working as a journalist at the time, and the lies were driving me crazy. I traveled to the Middle East and to Washington D.C. and London to look for explanations and got lies, or just no answers. Some people laughed out loud at me. Or if they were about to be the victims of an invasion, they shrugged sadly: don't look for logic where there is none to be found.
But the thing is, most of my friends believed the lies, because they trusted the politicians and the mainstream media. It felt very isolating.
It must be so much worse for the families of the victims, who had to deal with the gaslighting while grieving. I hope for them they will find some justice this way.
Pretty sad when the absolutely most charitable view that could be taken is that the US government and a range of its agencies with intelligence responsibilities were abjectly incompetent and remained so for decades.
I think there were a lot of competent people in government. But the Bush administration didn't want to hear what they knew. This was the administration who were building their own reality, after all.
posted by mumimor at 5:28 AM on August 8 [11 favorites]
mumimor, I feel for you. A lot of people believed the lies because they didn't want to believe organizations that they revered would so blatantly lie to them. We are still suffering the aftermath in terms of the growth in conspiracy theories, etc. through today. You are absolutely right about the way the administration, along with media cheerleaders, were openly operating in a post-reality mindset. They believed that they got to decide the history, and it traumatized us all - and definitely impacted some more than others.
I don't think many folks under the age of 45 or so fully realize just how much freedom we threw away in the pursuit of security theater, and how much global sympathy and support we threw away in pursuit of expeditionary military pursuits. It really was the ending of the post-cold-war peace dividend and a return to might-is-right diplomacy. Maybe that would have happened anyway, but to see it all happening in such a misdirected way.
I'm just glad that more folks are seeing through the gaslighting now.
posted by meinvt at 1:23 PM on August 8 [7 favorites]
I don't think many folks under the age of 45 or so fully realize just how much freedom we threw away in the pursuit of security theater, and how much global sympathy and support we threw away in pursuit of expeditionary military pursuits. It really was the ending of the post-cold-war peace dividend and a return to might-is-right diplomacy. Maybe that would have happened anyway, but to see it all happening in such a misdirected way.
I'm just glad that more folks are seeing through the gaslighting now.
posted by meinvt at 1:23 PM on August 8 [7 favorites]
I'm trying to find out why 9/11 was so traumatizing for me -- I'd moved back to Europe, it didn't directly affect my life, none of my friends were harmed. But it's like that day and the following years broke me.
It was a foreign attack on U.S. soil. That hasn't historically happened very much at all - it's unusual, it's violent, and it's scary. Plus, if you ever lived in New York, you have that personal connection to different places there, and seeing the places you have a personal connection to getting blown up just, like, doesn't compute. You're used to the disaster-stricken places being just images on a TV, but they're images of a place you've never seen; if you're seeing those disaster-stricken places and now they're places you recognize from OTHER contexts, it's confusing and disarming.
I'm just glad that more folks are seeing through the gaslighting now.
Yeah, I've had some very, very interesting conversations with my parents over the years. Not that they were ever all "'Murica, 9/11 Nevar Forget" types. But Dad once urged me to "shush" when I was getting a little animated while discussing the gaslighting around the War On Terror in a restaurant once. I held my tongue after that - but then when we went out to see Vice several years later, and my parents were marveling about the bullshit Dick Cheney had done in office, I got to be all "I told you so!"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:51 PM on August 8 [3 favorites]
It was a foreign attack on U.S. soil. That hasn't historically happened very much at all - it's unusual, it's violent, and it's scary. Plus, if you ever lived in New York, you have that personal connection to different places there, and seeing the places you have a personal connection to getting blown up just, like, doesn't compute. You're used to the disaster-stricken places being just images on a TV, but they're images of a place you've never seen; if you're seeing those disaster-stricken places and now they're places you recognize from OTHER contexts, it's confusing and disarming.
I'm just glad that more folks are seeing through the gaslighting now.
Yeah, I've had some very, very interesting conversations with my parents over the years. Not that they were ever all "'Murica, 9/11 Nevar Forget" types. But Dad once urged me to "shush" when I was getting a little animated while discussing the gaslighting around the War On Terror in a restaurant once. I held my tongue after that - but then when we went out to see Vice several years later, and my parents were marveling about the bullshit Dick Cheney had done in office, I got to be all "I told you so!"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:51 PM on August 8 [3 favorites]
...so, as best as I can grasp it, in macro terms, the last hundred plus years has been the age of oil: which ecologically has been a pronounced disaster, frankly. But there it is, the stuff is useful and many uses for it were found. Many, many, many uses. Right. And, it happens that one shit-ton of the stuff is/was in the Saudi peninsula - which the British recognised and set about putting their mits on ("Lawrence of Arabia" Style, helping found an a state which they knew was going to stir the shit, leaving them to fuck around in the background - "best time to buy real estate is when there's blood in the streets" etc) and during this time, of course a certain banking family from the US, Connecticut to be exact, got in on that good deal... which, because it was politically and financially expedient to a lot of people, turned into Sep 11 (a day I still can't believe happened, and the year afterwards which broke my shaky-faith in a certain experiment in democracy).
Now, though, we're starting to see the decline in a number of sectors (energy production and certain products) and the fervent search for alternatives to oil. Which might well be the turn of the screw that leads to shifts in power, possibly even big shifts in power. Only time will tell, but Spain and France and a bunch of other projects are gearing up to use hydrogen where previously oil was used.
As for the article, well, I hope it paid Mrs Benjamin and Simon well. I learned about the micro-steps a lawsuit is making towards some kind of acknowledgement that KSA was (as everybody fucking knows) behind the attacks ... which is a bit like Barry Manilow "coming out" - it never occurred to me that he was 'in.'
posted by From Bklyn at 1:03 AM on August 9 [1 favorite]
Now, though, we're starting to see the decline in a number of sectors (energy production and certain products) and the fervent search for alternatives to oil. Which might well be the turn of the screw that leads to shifts in power, possibly even big shifts in power. Only time will tell, but Spain and France and a bunch of other projects are gearing up to use hydrogen where previously oil was used.
As for the article, well, I hope it paid Mrs Benjamin and Simon well. I learned about the micro-steps a lawsuit is making towards some kind of acknowledgement that KSA was (as everybody fucking knows) behind the attacks ... which is a bit like Barry Manilow "coming out" - it never occurred to me that he was 'in.'
posted by From Bklyn at 1:03 AM on August 9 [1 favorite]
For all of their pure evil and ignorance, I don't think the Bush administration was in on the 9-11 plot. I just think they ignored the intelligence because it didn't fit into their view of KSA as an ally and friend. And I think there was a power-struggle in the Saud family where the terror attacks were one element.
In Pakistan, I believe there was a similar situation, where there were different fractions in the government/military who who were fighting little proxy battles in Afghanistan. And again the Bush administration was thinking "that can't be, they are our allies against the evil communists".
Of course, the invasion of Iraq was another thing, that's where the lying exploded, though it already started with Afghanistan.
I've always thought there is some sort of logic to it all that has to do with the long end stage of the oil era, just like the war in Ukraine now. Think of it like this: Bush only just got handed the presidency by the corrupt Supreme Court. If Al Gore had won, we would all have begun ending fossil fuels 23 years ago. But there were and are still strong forces who want to prevent that at all costs.
And then there's the thing that very powerful people are sometimes really ignorant of what is going on in the world because they only get the information they want to hear. Why did the Bush administration want to invade Iraq? I've always thought the idea that it had anything to do with personal stuff about Bush senior was stupid. I think they imagined they could change the power dynamics in the Middle East, so the US could eventually be less dependent on the KSA and Israel could be protected from Iran by a huge swath of land, and I think they believed they could install some form of "democracy", preferably a very corrupt form. They listened to Iraqis who confirmed that belief though tons of experts told them it was rubbish.
posted by mumimor at 4:54 AM on August 9 [3 favorites]
In Pakistan, I believe there was a similar situation, where there were different fractions in the government/military who who were fighting little proxy battles in Afghanistan. And again the Bush administration was thinking "that can't be, they are our allies against the evil communists".
Of course, the invasion of Iraq was another thing, that's where the lying exploded, though it already started with Afghanistan.
I've always thought there is some sort of logic to it all that has to do with the long end stage of the oil era, just like the war in Ukraine now. Think of it like this: Bush only just got handed the presidency by the corrupt Supreme Court. If Al Gore had won, we would all have begun ending fossil fuels 23 years ago. But there were and are still strong forces who want to prevent that at all costs.
And then there's the thing that very powerful people are sometimes really ignorant of what is going on in the world because they only get the information they want to hear. Why did the Bush administration want to invade Iraq? I've always thought the idea that it had anything to do with personal stuff about Bush senior was stupid. I think they imagined they could change the power dynamics in the Middle East, so the US could eventually be less dependent on the KSA and Israel could be protected from Iran by a huge swath of land, and I think they believed they could install some form of "democracy", preferably a very corrupt form. They listened to Iraqis who confirmed that belief though tons of experts told them it was rubbish.
posted by mumimor at 4:54 AM on August 9 [3 favorites]
>long end stage of the oil era
the oil angle was there, yes. For one, Saddam & Sons were beginning to be let out of their 1990s sanctions box, and weren't going to do a dime's worth of business with the US or UK going forward.
(Famously, they decided to start pricing their oil in euros the day before the 2000 election.)
The Baghdad regime owed a lot of money to the French, while China was interested in developing its oil industry and thanks to the years of wars and ongoing sanctions Iraq had a lot of opportunity for that kind of investment.
So putting in a client regime was a pretty nifty thing for big oil interests, the ol' United Fruit play (as detailed by General Smedley Butler), putting tax dollar money and US lives on the income statement. The Bush admin was of course chok-a-block of such bright industry minds, like the geniuses who came up with the FreedomCAR bullshit to greenwash domestic fossil fuels into hydrogen for fuel cells in cars (said initiative finally failing spectacularly now).
There was also the PNAC / neocon policy makers with their geopolitical purposes. Wolfowitz etc. The less said about them the better.
posted by torokunai at 6:08 AM on August 10 [4 favorites]
the oil angle was there, yes. For one, Saddam & Sons were beginning to be let out of their 1990s sanctions box, and weren't going to do a dime's worth of business with the US or UK going forward.
(Famously, they decided to start pricing their oil in euros the day before the 2000 election.)
The Baghdad regime owed a lot of money to the French, while China was interested in developing its oil industry and thanks to the years of wars and ongoing sanctions Iraq had a lot of opportunity for that kind of investment.
So putting in a client regime was a pretty nifty thing for big oil interests, the ol' United Fruit play (as detailed by General Smedley Butler), putting tax dollar money and US lives on the income statement. The Bush admin was of course chok-a-block of such bright industry minds, like the geniuses who came up with the FreedomCAR bullshit to greenwash domestic fossil fuels into hydrogen for fuel cells in cars (said initiative finally failing spectacularly now).
There was also the PNAC / neocon policy makers with their geopolitical purposes. Wolfowitz etc. The less said about them the better.
posted by torokunai at 6:08 AM on August 10 [4 favorites]
« Older White-tailed eagles spend a year caring for... | The End of an Era for Furaffinity Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
We know. We all fucking know. Just push the damn button already and end it.
posted by prismatic7 at 4:07 AM on August 7 [46 favorites]