Y tho?
>>81317116
>almost certainly
what's almost about it
>why
remember there was a "drill" of the same thing going on at the same time. it was an inside job, the saudies were just helping because they're "allies"
>>81317116
Saudis are fucking scum and have a desire to advance the cause of radical Islam because they are fucking scum.
>>81317612
daily reminder the USA has the desire to advance radical islam as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5ff0EOj2WU
(also albania, bosnia, kosovo, parts of macedonia, arab spring, etc)
>>81318104
That is true, that's why they ally themselves with scum like the Saudis.
>>81317389
Inside job to kickstart the war in Iraq? I have no doubt the saudis were directly involved. I just can't see what they got out of it.
>>81318104
Holy shit. Clinton is capable of telling truth.
>>81319576
>>81318104
Note though, that video long predates ISIS. ISI is the pakistani intelligence guys that the US used to get arms to the mujaheddin in Afghan.
>>81317116
Yes and hilary is funded by them
Bill Clinton warned Bush about it
Neither of the previous 2 presidents did anything about it so the next one won't either
>>81319318
>allowed to have a monarchy, when the west champions democracy
>allowed to have sharia law, executing people with swards, killing gays, etc when the west condemns it (and religion in general)
>get western weapons
>get p sweet oil export deal
>get to fight your long hated religious enemy (shia islam, aka iran, parts of iraq, azerbaijan and others)
>get to fight in places like yemen, and the west looks the other way
>work with western scientists to set up universities, etc
>be allowed to spread your radical form of islam all over the world
and many other things
>>81319666
yes, but the point is they (and the british, and french) have consistently aided muslims (with the exception of crusading for the holy land and that one time you backstabbed the ottomans)
http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2016/07/16/11-septembre-pas-de-liens-entre-l-arabie-saoudite-et-les-attentats_4970445_3222.html
I thought they said there's no relation
>>81319944
>Bill Clinton warned Bush about it
Can you elaborate? Warned Bush what?
>>81320866
That an attack of the WTC was imminent
meaning he had outside sources such as Saudi's
>>81321050
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc
>>81320307
So by this logic the US asked the Saudis to do it? I can just about accept the US allowed it to happen. That the US decided to do it and the Saudis were along for the ride seems too much. I mean why don't the Saudis just come out now and say so?
>>81320362
Yeah, the BBC is pulling that one too. Pretty much directly contradicts the actual pages that were just released.
Anyone know anything about law? The report states repeatedly there is no conclusive proof of Saudi involvement. So a criminal court is out the question for now. How about a civil court case?
>>81321432
>So by this logic the US asked the Saudis to do it?
"the US" isn't one entity. it's multiple institutions and groups with power.
>That the US decided to do it and the Saudis were along for the ride seems too much.
seems perfectly reasonable to me.
there is another hypothesis, which is that basically it was an inside job, but the saudies were written in the report as a scape goat. a sort of a "get into saudy arabia for free" card. the saudies said they'd hurt the US dollar if the pages were released, and now that they have been, they said they've always called for the pages to be released. so they either didn't know what's in there, or the most damning things were redacted.
>why don't the Saudis just come out now and say so?
and lose all the benefits of being allied to the USA? what would they gain? how would they prove anything? the media would spin in into "it's your word against mine". they're cucked, just like all other US vassals
>I can just about accept the US allowed it to happen.
who else has a motive to do it? you could say israel, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an inside job
>>81321050
>That an attack of the WTC was imminent
This was known as far back as a year in advance?
>>81322580
>who else has a motive to do it?
That's what I'm trying to worn out man.
What options are there?
The US planned it, the saudis helped find people to do it, funded them and oversaw their training
The Saudis planned it, the US allowed it to happen to give them an excuse for war
Al-q planned it and tricked the saudis into funding them because al-q knew the US response would radicalise more muslims
Mossad tricked Al-q into it cause jews
Or
The US, Saudis, Al-q and Israel were all in on it together purely for profit.
Still feel like I'm missing something
>>81324711
>The US, Saudis, Al-q and Israel were all in on it together purely for profit.
i think this is closest to the truth
someone is always jewing someone, so it's not canon what everyone's true intentions were, also some things are simply favors and returning favors.
but deff many groups benefited from this.
from the oil companies, to the military industry, to shia haters, to people who want control in the region, people who want more radical musllims (both to join their ranks, and to use as an excuse- israel)
even the drug dealers benefited, in afghanistan they make tons of money from poppies. the people who want a bigger police state benefit (listening in on you, etc).
i think ultimately it's not all that important either way. the important thing is to live a good life. don't kill, don't steal, don't jew, etc.
the revolution has to be a cultural one, people who would disobey the orders from the terrorists in power.
>>81320362
Of course the USA neocons who are behind all the attacks of the past 26 years are never going to investigate themselves. They will throw everything at the public to maintain the perception that le royaume d’Arabie saoudite weren't involved. There's no proof.
