SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Conflicts -- Current & Future > Other, By Region > Middle East

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-22-2016   #81
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,225
Default

The cited "CIA guy" is a Duane Clarridge, who appears in stand-alone posts on SWC awhile back and left the CIA in 1991 "under a cloud" over the Iran-Contra episode. He then ran a private intelligence group. See Wiki for some background:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Clarridge
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016   #82
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 1,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
Leaving aside the details (as per map), the timing and method one must wonder at the impact within several Western nations, Israel, even Iran and in the USA. Perhaps officialdom knew and just forgot to tell the public?
'Connect the dots', David - and here's the timing (as posted by Outlaw in Syria-thread):

Did Russia Just Threaten Turkey With Nuclear Weapons?

'Executive Summary': a source close to Putler said to investigative journo Robert Parry that Russia warned Erdogan that it is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons to defend its forces in Syria from Turkish attack.

Why is this important?

Because with one third of the NATO consisting of Islamo- and all other sorts of Xenophobes, one third of presidents and chancelors (or at least members of governments) on Gazprom's and similar paylists, and Oblaba's admin going de-facto pro-PKK/anti-Turkey, it's obvious Erdo is feeling under a threat.

What a better moment but to pull out a big stick - in form of Saudi nukes?

Now the Russians can threat as much as they like, but they have to take into account: Turkey has a sort of 'nuclear umbrella' - with or without shaky NATO.
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016   #83
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,225
Default The Russian threat to Turkey?

Crowbat,

A quick note. The original, online story by Robert Parry was published on the 18th February 2016 and the relevant passage is:
Quote:
A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.
The author's very slim byline at the end says:
Quote:
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
Link:https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/1...-for-al-qaeda/

Now, isn't that a really interesting coincidence given the past of Duane Clarridge?

The long article touches upon many aspects of the Syrian civil war and USG policy. Needless to say the author is a critic of President Obama.

So one whispered 'source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me' and the media circus spins. Makes you wonder, well it does here.
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2016   #84
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 1,481
Default

My point is this: it appears that sometimes early this month (or earlier?) Russians threatened Turkey with deployment of tactical nuclear weapons 'in defence' of their contingent in Syria.

All the mumbo-jumbo by side (then the more of his stuff on Syria I'm reading, the more I'm starting to realize that Parry's 'insights' into that conflict are of similar quality like those of Kinzer), and perhaps my 'general order of appearance' (or 'official protocol'?) is not perfect, but to me this situation appears to have developed as follows:

- For years, i.e. nearly as long as there is a war in Syria, the West is de-facto signalling to its allies in the Middle East: 'we don't want to get involved there, but if you want, please do so';

- allies in question then got involved in a kind of 'minimalistic' fashion (through provision of aid to insurgents), but the West said, 'OK, but under our control, and don't you dare doing something we don't like';

(BTW, and ironically, while attempting to exercise this control the West curbed all sorts of Saudi and Turkish support for 'other insurgents' but left Qatar support JAN - even the Daesh, at least early on - as much as it likes...)

- through late 2013 and into early 2014, Syrian Sunni Arab insurgents were THE FIRST party to fight the Daesh; they were also the THE FIRST to defeat the Daesh and force it out of seven provinces in Syria; but, this is completely ignored by the West - even more so since the West launched its anti-Daesh 'war' in autumn 2014;

- since autumn 2014, the West is signalling: 'we want your participation in our war against the Daesh (and/or al-Qaida) in Syria' (Iraq is out of question since pro-Iranian regime there is refusing such an option);

- since spring 2015, GCC-allies are involved in Yemen - in an action supported by the USA;

- because of their ops in Yemen, around the same time GCC-allies minimalized their participation in war against Daesh in Syria (which is no surprise, given this was limited to support of Kurds, and entirely ignored needs of Syrian Sunni Arabs);

- this 'minimalisation' in turn prompted critique from the West - as if Western allies in the Middle East 'must' fight the West's war against the Daesh, although neither Syrian nor Iraqi governments want them to do so (this is so ridiculous, I must laugh while typing this);

- then, in autumn 2015, the US switched its support in Syria to de-facto 'Kurds only', while at the same time US officials bitterly complained about lack of support from GCC-allies for its war against the Daesh;

- in early 2016, Turkey and Saudi Arabia announced they're ready to send troops to fight Daesh in Syria; but now - and 'all of a sudden' - the West is not the least delighted about this idea?

- Instead, the West is now exercising pressure upon Saudi Arabia and Turkey to ignore their own interests in Syria (i.e. to stick to Western policy of acting against these interests),

- while Russians threat Turkey with deployment of nuclear weapons.

- What a 'surprise' then, the Saudis reply with 'outing' about their nukes (arguably: in fashion that might appear 'unusual' to us in the West, then people here seem to kind of expect this king Salman to appear on the TV and say, 'yes, we can, i.e. have nukes'),

- and this is 'supported' by similar outings of people in the USA who 'are in position to say' or 'should know' if Saudis have nukes (even if the same people obviously have no trace of clue what's going on in Syria, which is no surprise nor anything diminishing their potential authoritativeness in regards of Saudi nukes).

Last edited by CrowBat; 02-23-2016 at 09:06 AM.
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016   #85
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,225
Default Will Pakistan draw closer to Saudi Arabia to balance Iran?

A timely article, hat tip to WoTR, on this developing relationship and the author's very slim bio:
Quote:
Sameer Lalwani is Deputy Director of the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center. Previously, he was a Stanton Nuclear Security Postdoctoral Fellow at the RAND Corporation.
Link:http://warontherocks.com/2016/02/wil...-balance-iran/

I found it odd no mention is made of the widespread opposition in Pakistan, including in parliament, to joining the anti-Houthi coalition led by KSA, in late 2015.
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2016   #86
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,225
Default KSA needs the West and the West needs KSA

I do wonder about The Daily Telegraph sometimes, it has some excellent columnists, but when I read Con Coughlin I often end up spluttering.

Here is his latest entitled:
Quote:
Lessons the West must learn from the Gulf War, 25 years on
It starts with:
Quote:
At a time when Western politicians are struggling to devise a coherent strategy to defeat the fanatics of Islamic State (Isil), the 25th anniversary of the First Gulf War... is a timely reminder of what can be achieved when the West forms an effective partnership with its Arab allies.

(It ends with) If the West is serious about finding effective regional partners to help defeat Isil, why not form a new coalition with the Saudis and their allies? If it worked so well in 1991, then why not now?
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-years-on.html

At least he does not advocate entering into an alliance with another ally in 1991, the Syrian official regime.

Then for reasons lost on me, the Saudi Ambassador in London, has a column too and what a title:
Quote:
Saudi Arabia is bombing in Yemen to bring peace and stability
Referring to a recent critical UN report he writes:
Quote:
And it should also be noted that the UN Report itself is based solely on satellite imagery and eyewitness testimony, which have proven to be highly unreliable in the past.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...stability.html
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2016   #87
Granite_State
Council Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Green Mountains
Posts: 356
Default Why the Saudis are going solar

In an article in the Atlantic I was reading the other day, a crazy statistic caught my eye:

Quote:
The Saudis burn about a quarter of the oil they produce—and their domestic consumption has been rising at an alarming 7 percent a year, nearly three times the rate of population growth. According to a widely read December 2011 report by Chatham House, a British think tank, if this trend continues, domestic consumption could eat into Saudi oil exports by 2021 and render the kingdom a net oil importer by 2038.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...energy/395315/
Granite_State is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2016   #88
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,225
Default Saudi Arabia goes to war: an Israeli analyst's view

Via the Australian website of the Lowy Institute, a short pithy article by a ret'd Israeli Air Force officer:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...s-to-war.aspx?

A few passages:
Quote:
Tanks, combat aircraft and missiles are only as powerful as the people operating, maintaining and supporting them. And in this domain, Saudi Arabia has a very long way to go. Not much is known about the proficiency of Saudi Arabia's military as a fighting force. The only real war the Saudis have taken part in was Operation Desert Storm in 1991; and most of the fighting there was done by the US. More recently Saudi Arabia has been fighting in Yemen, but unsuccessfully so far. Foreign advisers speak about the difficulties in bringing Saudi Arabian soldiers to the desired combat readiness and proficiency.

(Concluding passage) Let me finish with a comment on 'Northern Thunder'. Exercises as large as 'Northern Thunder' take a very long time to plan and coordinate, and it also takes many months to gather the units together in one place. Yet, 'Northern Thunder' appeared in the media out of nowhere. (and nothing is known about it since it was announced). Where do you hide 350,000 troops? Are they really there?
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2016   #89
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 1,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
Via the Australian website of the Lowy Institute, a short pithy article by a ret'd Israeli Air Force officer:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...s-to-war.aspx?

A few passages:
"The only real war the Saudis have taken part in was Operation Desert Storm in 1991..."

Sounds like the author never heard of Yemen Wars...

************

Anyway, something that's a sort of a public secret ever since 2001, at least 2002, is now about to 'explode' into a major international affair.

Namely, in reaction to demands from the US Congress to publish full details about involvement of Saudi government in 9/11, Saudis are making their next dumb move:

Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill
Quote:
Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill’s passage, according to administration officials and congressional aides from both parties, and the Saudi threats have been the subject of intense discussions in recent weeks between lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation.

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.

Several outside economists are skeptical that the Saudis will follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom’s economy. But the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The administration, which argues that the legislation would put Americans at legal risk overseas, has been lobbying so intently against the bill that some lawmakers and families of Sept. 11 victims are infuriated. In their view, the Obama administration has consistently sided with the kingdom and has thwarted their efforts to learn what they believe to be the truth about the role some Saudi officials played in the terrorist plot.
...
Of course, 'royals' in Riyad are not the only ones to blame: in essence, all of this is actually known since more than a decade. The issue is only that of the US government officially announcing this as a fact (in turn probably causing a mass of legal cases with demands for payment of damage against Saudi Arabia, just for example).

The actual reason for this issue being so 'sensitive' right now is that there were two US administrations (Qusay Bush & Oblabla) that did their best to prevent this from happening - and instead cheerfully continued upping Sauds, selling arms worth hundreds of billions to them etc: had they made this known right from the start, nobody would have said a single word.

So, the question is rather: why all of that, was it worth it, and why now...?
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2016   #90
OUTLAW 09
Council Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 35,749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
"The only real war the Saudis have taken part in was Operation Desert Storm in 1991..."

Sounds like the author never heard of Yemen Wars...

************

Anyway, something that's a sort of a public secret ever since 2001, at least 2002, is now about to 'explode' into a major international affair.

Namely, in reaction to demands from the US Congress to publish full details about involvement of Saudi government in 9/11, Saudis are making their next dumb move:

Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill


Of course, 'royals' in Riyad are not the only ones to blame: in essence, all of this is actually known since more than a decade. The issue is only that of the US government officially announcing this as a fact (in turn probably causing a mass of legal cases with demands for payment of damage against Saudi Arabia, just for example).

The actual reason for this issue being so 'sensitive' right now is that there were two US administrations (Qusay Bush & Oblabla) that did their best to prevent this from happening - and instead cheerfully continued upping Sauds, selling arms worth hundreds of billions to them etc: had they made this known right from the start, nobody would have said a single word.

So, the question is rather: why all of that, was it worth it, and why now...?
There was a book written in German that involved deep research into the Hamburg AQ cell that was the core driver of 9/11. BTW that book is now extremely hard to find even on the used book side of the house.

While several were Saudi.....the German researcher and he was actually for his time extremely thorough.... stated he found no direct link to anyone in the Saudi government, intel services and or any funding funneled to Hamburg from KSA....all instructions, personnel and funding flowed from AQ central as it was an AQ central operation from start to end and part and parcel of AQ central OPEC.

AQ central had a deep distrust for anything Saudi so I cannot fathom AQ central "getting into bed with the Saudi security services".

WHY not instead truly and definitively look at the total failure of the US intel community and FBI mistakes where the "dots" were all there to be seen and connected BUT where not...then why not as AQ central was suppose to be on everyone's radar screen.......

THEN let's look at the alleged NSA intercepts that picked up on at least two of the 9/11 cells in the US BUT somehow did not connect them to AQ central...if true then why not should be the question.

WHAT is missing often from US articles about 9/11 is the serious "near miss" by a AQ sleeper cell in Us that darn near knocked down the Twin Towers with truck bomb...they barely missed seriously damaging one of the key supports that would have in fact caused the eventual crash of the Tower.

So with this fore warning JUST why did the US think another attack was not coming and against the same target set???

Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 04-16-2016 at 11:09 AM.
OUTLAW 09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2016   #91
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 1,481
Default

There are also books - like Baer's 'In Bed with the Devil' - that are directly linking at least the 'wife of Saudi ambassador to the DC' with 9/11....

...and, to make sure: I perfectly understand there are three cliques within the Saud family, with sometimes diametrally opposite standpoints... including one that is kind of 'pro-al-Qaida' (or at least leaning in that direction, if for no other reason then because it would like to grow in importance), but simply 'irrelevant' and so far away from places where any of important decisions are taken, that it simply 'doesn't matter'.

Whatever, few things are sure:
- a) if Saudis - one of (officially) 'major non-NATO-allies' of the USA in the Middle East - were not involved, there should be no reason for such like Obama to censure the publication of the full report;

- b) versa-vice: if Saudis were not involved, there should be no reason for them to express threats like the one mentioned above.

Bottom line: what's all the fuz about?
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2016   #92
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,225
Default

Crowbat,

I have seen several US media reports and blog columns on the "missing pages" from the 9/11 inquiry in recent days, but refrained from posting them here. Presumably our many Americans readers have seen them too.

For the Saudis (KSA) now to increase the diplomatic and financial pressure to prevent a bill becoming law, which is stuck in Congress comes as no surprise.

It also makes the recent deal between Egypt and KSA over the two islands in the Straits of Tiran even more interesting. Notably will the KSA really allow a US-manned MFO outpost to remain on now sovereign KSA territory? See this young, thin thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=23819
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2016   #93
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,225
Default The author never heard of Yemen Wars: alas all too true

Cited in part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
"The only real war the Saudis have taken part in was Operation Desert Storm in 1991..."

Sounds like the author never heard of Yemen Wars...
I agree, but somehow I expect very few people who were involved in the decision-making, let alone actual "boots on the ground" are now involved, let alone being listened to. Something in my memory tells me Egypt came to regard their "brotherly" intervention as their own Vietnam. The KSA did commit some troops, but it was mainly gold they contributed.

As Wiki reminded me this war was from 1962-1970. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yemen_Civil_War

Just found via Google a 21 pg paper:http://www.alexthorn.com/writings/Th...ptsVietnam.pdf

Once again your example reminds us that history has a habit of fading away, only to return and "bite" hard. Those who remind the decision-makers are all too often seen as "troublesome"; which seems to account for much of SWJ's infamy.
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2016   #94
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 1,481
Default

Hm... still not getting it: half the US defence sector is living from all the billions they're making with sales to Saudi Arabia. Little surprise then if the admin is curious to keep 'unpleasant' details of 9/11 investigation 'swept under the carpet'...

Would all the hundreds of thousands working for companies in question like to become jobless...?

I'm not 'defending' or 'taking sides' of anybody there. It's just that conclusion is on hand: the situation is like that with Israeli (and/or, since early this year: Saudi) nukes. 'No comment' is considered 'better solution under given circumstances'.
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2016   #95
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 1,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
Cited in part:

I agree, but somehow I expect very few people who were involved in the decision-making, let alone actual "boots on the ground" are now involved, let alone being listened to. Something in my memory tells me Egypt came to regard their "brotherly" intervention as their own Vietnam. The KSA did commit some troops, but it was mainly gold they contributed.

As Wiki reminded me this war was from 1962-1970. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yemen_Civil_War

Just found via Google a 21 pg paper:http://www.alexthorn.com/writings/Th...ptsVietnam.pdf

Once again your example reminds us that history has a habit of fading away, only to return and "bite" hard. Those who remind the decision-makers are all too often seen as "troublesome"; which seems to account for much of SWJ's infamy.
Ah, you mean the Yemen War of 1962-1970: Saudis were 'only financing' that affair back then, they never became directly involved. That is: the British convinced them to sponsor arms purchases for 'Royalists'; then, with help of that Saudi money, British were purchasing arms from Israel, Jordan, Iran etc., and providin these to Royalists (BTW, majority of Royalists were the Zaidis - including Houthis - whom the Saudis are now fighting against).

(Note: strongly-recommended reading in this regards is The War That Never Was; Mind how shortsighted the British policy was, back then; they were de-facto supporting a Wahhabist regime against a laicist government in Egypt that was attempting to establish a laicist government in North Yemen...)

What I had in my mind when pointing out at that sentence is the Yemen War of 2009-2010. That was the actual Saudi 'military academy' - i.e. the 'crucial war-fighting experience' for their military.

...and this much more so than 'any' 1991: namely, what Saudis (i.e. the Saudi-led coalition) is (or was, considering the latest cease-fire) doing in Yemen since 24 March 2015, is exactly 'lessons learned from 2009-2010'.

Which in turn results in my POV that anybody gauging Saudi military performance in Yemen 2015-2016 by its (perceived or real) performance of 1991 simply has no clue what is he/she talking about.
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2016   #96
OUTLAW 09
Council Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 35,749
Default

If you really think about it...the KSA response has feet and shoes and can walk for a number of reasons at least from their POV.

Any US law and or US court decision against the KSA and or KSA individual can easily be used to attach any kind of KSA assets much as is being done now in the Russian Kudos court decision being used against Russian assets in say France to the tune of 1B USD.

By eliminating say the 850B USDs they are no longer attachable within the US.

Secondly, there has always been a witch hunt in US media against alleged KSA 9/11 involvement since 9/11.

Saudi Arabia's king ran state charity that 9/11 victims say funded and armed al Qaeda
http://www.floridabulldog.org/2016/04/12513/

Lastly, this is another stone in a drumbeat against the KSA which actually parallels the Obama Goldberg interview comments concerning KSA.

After those comments I am surprised that Obama is going to the GCC meeting.

It is general knowledge of the "divided loyalities" within the KSA ruling elite...just look at the bin Laden family and that many in the US never did understand why the Bush Administration allowed bin Laden family members to leave the US just after 9/11 AND the RUIMNT that has been spun out of that move by Bush..or even look at the relationship of the first Bush to the KSA royal family.........

Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 04-16-2016 at 07:42 PM.
OUTLAW 09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2016   #97
OUTLAW 09
Council Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 35,749
Default

Worth reading the Senate's initial submission and then the "marked up" Bill and one can see exactly what is the KSA "heartburn"....and along the way notice the US is precluded from the Bill...as one could construct something out of the Bill that actually fits the US.......notice the language....excludes any agent of the US working under the "color" of the US government.....meaning what happens if a Us CIA agent is working for an "opposition group" that goes rogue such as say the Kurdish YPG and attacks civilians in Turkey...is then the US government a "sponsor of terrorism" as well.....????

Under the Senate Bill...no...but the KSA is....?????

Here it is:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...nate-bill/2040
There is the full bill and a summary on this page.
OUTLAW 09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2016   #98
Bill Moore
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,989
Default

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minut...t-steve-kroft/

The link above is to the 60 minutes video and transcript on the missing 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report not released to the public.

Quote:
Roemer and others who have actually read the 28 pages, describe them as a working draft similar to a grand jury or police report that includes provocative evidence -- some verified, and some not. They lay out the possibility of official Saudi assistance for two of the hijackers who settled in Southern California. That information from the 28-pages was turned over to the 9/11 Commission for further investigation. Some of the questions raised were answered in the commission's final report. Others were not.

Steve Kroft: Is there information in the 28 pages that, if they were declassified, would surprise people?

Tim Roemer: Sure, you're gonna be surprised by it. And, you're going to be surprised by some of the answers that are sitting there today in the 9/11 Commission report about what happened in San Diego, and what happened in Los Angeles. And what was the Saudi involvement.
The increased focus on potential Saudi officials supporting the 9/11 mass murderers and the increasing political pressure to declassify these 28 pages is driving a wider wedge between Saudi and the U.S. Saudi is threatening economic nuclear option if the papers are declassified.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...ongress-passes

Saudi Arabia Threatens To Liquidate Its Treasury Holdings If Congress Probes Its Role In Sept 11 Attacks

Quote:
Back in January, when the market was watching in shocked silence as oil prices were crashing to decade lows and as concerns emerged that Saudi Arabia may need to commence selling its vast, if unquantified, USD reserves, we wrote a post titled "Attention Finally Turns To Saudi Arabia's "Secret" US Treasury Holdings" where we noted something very surprising: whereas we do know that Saudi Arabia is the owner of the world's third largest USD reserves...... their actual composition remains as a secret, because while the US discloses the explicit Treasury holdings of all other nations, Saudi Arabia's holdings, for some unknown reason, are not officially disclosed.
"It’s a secret of the vast U.S. Treasury market, a holdover from an age of oil shortages and mighty petrodollars," Bloomberg wrote of Saudi Arabia’s US Treasury holdings.
Quote:
By way of background, the Senate bill is intended to make clear that the immunity given to foreign nations under the law should not apply in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil. If the bill were to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president, it could clear a path for the role of the Saudi government to be examined in the Sept. 11 lawsuits.

Suddenly Saudi Arabia is panicking: its response - if the US does pass this bill it would liquidate hundreds of billion in U.S. denominated assets, and perhaps as much as $750 billion in US Treasurys (the NYT's estimate of Saudi Treasury holdings).

Quote:
Secretary of State John Kerry told a Senate panel in February that the bill, in its current form, would “expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent.”

In a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill on March 4, Anne W. Patterson, an assistant secretary of state, and Andrew Exum, a top Pentagon official on Middle East policy, told staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that American troops and civilians could be in legal jeopardy if other nations decide to retaliate and strip Americans of immunity abroad. They also discussed the Saudi threats specifically, laying out the impacts if Saudi Arabia made good on its economic threats.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...11_report.html

Your Guide to the 28 Classified Pages About Saudi Arabia and 9/11 That Obama Might Release

Quote:
What do they say, allegedly? 60 Minutes—based on the statements of people who’ve read them—says the pages amount to “a working draft similar to a grand jury or police report that includes provocative evidence—some verified, and some not” about assistance that Saudi nationals with government connections provided to some of the 9/11 hijackers while those hijackers were in the United States. More than one outlet has reported that some of the allegations involve Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi national who’s known to have done favors (a small loan, help renting an apartment) for two of the hijackers after meeting them at a Los Angeles restaurant on the same day that he also met with someone at L.A.’s Saudi consulate. (Al-Bayoumi has claimed that he didn’t know anything about the future hijackers and just happened to have struck up a friendship with them after randomly meeting them at the restaurant.)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...lassified.html

Why are 28 pages of the Joint Congressional Investigation into 9/11 still classified?

Quote:
If I were a family member of a 9/11 casualty, I wouldn't care about the geopolitical considerations. I'd want the information released and the guilty parties brought to justice. So perhaps we should take our cue from those who lost the most on 9/11 and get the information before the American people and let the chips fall where they may.
We all can read between the lines and see where our biases take us. Still, assuming the Saudi officials are innocent, keeping this secret has simply made it worse. And if some of the officials are guilty, then they need to be held responsible. Beyond this sad story is an even larger story of a potentially fraying alliance and Saudi's readiness to employ economic power on the world stage to coerce. Not the first time, but this may indicate the U.S. doesn't have the level of power and influence it had previously to shape events globally now.
Bill Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2016   #99
OUTLAW 09
Council Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 35,749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minut...t-steve-kroft/

The link above is to the 60 minutes video and transcript on the missing 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report not released to the public.



The increased focus on potential Saudi officials supporting the 9/11 mass murderers and the increasing political pressure to declassify these 28 pages is driving a wider wedge between Saudi and the U.S. Saudi is threatening economic nuclear option if the papers are declassified.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...ongress-passes

Saudi Arabia Threatens To Liquidate Its Treasury Holdings If Congress Probes Its Role In Sept 11 Attacks








http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...11_report.html

Your Guide to the 28 Classified Pages About Saudi Arabia and 9/11 That Obama Might Release



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...lassified.html

Why are 28 pages of the Joint Congressional Investigation into 9/11 still classified?



We all can read between the lines and see where our biases take us. Still, assuming the Saudi officials are innocent, keeping this secret has simply made it worse. And if some of the officials are guilty, then they need to be held responsible. Beyond this sad story is an even larger story of a potentially fraying alliance and Saudi's readiness to employ economic power on the world stage to coerce. Not the first time, but this may indicate the U.S. doesn't have the level of power and influence it had previously to shape events globally now.
Bill..you bring up an interesting use of the word economic nuclear option....if one looks closely at the current oil debate the Saudi's have been using oil pricing as their nuclear option and if we see their stand yesterday at Doha....then they are driving against three targets...1) US shale oil, 2) Russia and 3) Iran and they are willing to drive the price down to the 10-15 USD ranges to achieve their goals...

Obama's comment of a "cold peace" may haunt him in the coming years as of this moment there will never be a "cold peace" between KSA and Iran and we are yet to see if KSA takes the step and enters Syria which some including myself say is not a question of "if"...but "when" and that "when" is not far away if Assad keeps up his terror civilian bombing campaign in the middle of this so called cessation of hostilities....

That they must now get bank loans to fill their budget does not seem to bother them...depicts just how serious they are and you are right the US has absolutely no influence and I am surprised that Obama is even going to the coming GCC meeting especially after this Goldberg interview.

BTW...Kerry also has no further creditability in the ME after his two statements that Iran is pulling their mercenaries and troops out of Syria... a DoS should always state facts...not "his wishes" especially in the ME....

BTW....reference the 28 pages...I would rather have a far more detailed analysis of the 9/11 investigation that did not dig into exactly what did the NSA truly know and yet did not pass on to other federal agencies......many have alluded to the fact that the NSA did in fact monitor a number of the participants and yet we have heard nothing about that and it was not part of the 9/11 investigation as NSA "classified it at the TS/SCI SIGINT levels.

Yet the 9/11 panel let it pass.

That analysis is actually far more important as it points to some current recent failures within the US IC.

Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 04-18-2016 at 05:48 AM.
OUTLAW 09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2016   #100
OUTLAW 09
Council Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 35,749
Default

BTW.....instead of this Saudi debate we need urgently a debate on just why the Obama WH has looked the other way with Iran and Hezbollah that are since 1979 1) a terror sponsoring country and 2) Hezbollah a terror organization--and elements of IRGC as well.......as they have also a large number of US personnel "blood on their hands".......

Commander of #IRGC ground forces saying they sent their forces to #Syria for training, and #USA is their main enemy.
OUTLAW 09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
arab spring, china, democracy, internal security, iran, islam, israel, missiles, saudi arabia, suadi arabia, yemen

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diplomatic security after terrorists kill US Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya Peter Dow Government Agencies & Officials 48 01-19-2014 07:11 PM
Winning the War in Afghanistan William F. Owen OEF - Afghanistan 1119 01-20-2012 01:53 AM
UK National Security Strategy Red Rat Europe 2 10-18-2010 10:47 PM
Toward Sustainable Security in Iraq and the Endgame Rob Thornton US Policy, Interest, and Endgame 26 06-30-2008 01:24 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation