The Real Deal ?

[Emil Miller]

To my mind, LitNet has become rather lacklustre in recent times so I have posted a subject that is of great importance should its premise be realised.
Those members who are YouTube watchers may look askance at the video when noting that it is an Info Wars production, as innuendo and hyperbole are pretty much the staple fare of Info Wars, but this subject has the capability to cause a lot of trouble in the USA and beyond if the US government is forced to comply. This time it looks like the real deal.

https://youtu.be/ISHJelsgVbU

[YesNo]

I didn't even know about those 28 classified pages on 9-11, but I don't know much about politics. I do think they should be released.

[Emil Miller]

I didn't even know about those 28 classified pages on 9-11, but I don't know much about politics. I do think they should be released.

I imagine that a lot of people don't know about them and that's why it pays to watch YouTube and other alternative media outlets. It's surprising that, given that politics are central to peoples' lives, they allow their representatives to get away with outrageous behaviour.
If it is subsequently proven that Bush and Cheney were involved in the alleged Saudi backed attack, there will be a lot of very angry people to answer to.

[Lokasenna]

I usually try to stay away from conspiracy theories - you start looking at some innocuous webpages, and before you know it you've half convinced yourself that the Titanic was sunk by Mossad, JFK was shot by Elvis, and Mrs Clinton is a lizard-person in a human skin. The insane ramblings of our dear old banned friend Musicology serve, if nothing else, as a warning against immersing oneself in the detritus of the internet.

That said, I've long found the US and UK's relationship with Saudi Arabia problematic. At what point do our moral principles have to give way to a certain pragmatism on the international stage?

[Hawkman]

For "pragmatism," read, "moral bankruptcy." Modern politics appear to lack principles. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, unregulated free market greed has infected every level of society, given academic legitimacy by Fukuyama's "The end of History and the Last Man." The uncontested rise of the right without any counterbalance from the left, and the total demonisation of any form of socialism, even that of the great reformers of the Nineteenth century, which sought merely to implement justice and compassion for those less advantaged, is the gateway to a new fascism which seems to be sweeping the globe.

[Emil Miller]

I usually try to stay away from conspiracy theories - you start looking at some innocuous webpages, and before you know it you've half convinced yourself that the Titanic was sunk by Mossad, JFK was shot by Elvis, and Mrs Clinton is a lizard-person in a human skin. The insane ramblings of our dear old banned friend Musicology serve, if nothing else, as a warning against immersing oneself in the detritus of the internet.

That said, I've long found the US and UK's relationship with Saudi Arabia problematic. At what point do our moral principles have to give way to a certain pragmatism on the international stage?

A large proportion of YouTube videos are indeed asinine but there are some serious subjects covered that warrant attention, such as the one I have posted.
The question of Saudi Arabia is at the heart of a geopolitical problem that applies, not only to the Middle East, but as terror attacks in Europe, the USA, Russia and elsewhere have shown, is the nettle that will eventually have to be grasped regardless of the economic consequences.

[YesNo]

If it is subsequently proven that Bush and Cheney were involved in the alleged Saudi backed attack, there will be a lot of very angry people to answer to.

That could cause a lot of hostility. I am trying to think what would motivate them to be involved.

[bounty]

"infowars" is conspiracy theory central...

[bounty]

ah...never mind...

[Emil Miller]

That could cause a lot of hostility. I am trying to think what would motivate them to be involved.

It's been widely touted that certain members of the US government of the day wanted an excuse to attack Iraq as part of a plan to take over the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is a Sunni ruled country that hates Shia countries such as Iraq. Although the Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11, the so-called Neo Conservatives in the White House would blame Iraq for the attack, thus allowing them to retaliate and get control of the country while Saudi Arabia would see one of its enemies destroyed.

[Dreamwoven]

I have to say I agree with Emil. The whole Middle East and North Africa are aflame with wars, creating almost unimaginable numbers of refugees. Its not just Afghanistan, the war there that the USSR started but that the USA has taken over after the USSR collapsed, and that the USA continues to be involved in. Iraq likewise. Libya likewise. Syria likewise.

[Emil Miller]

I have to say I agree with Emil. The whole Middle East and North Africa are aflame with wars, creating almost unimaginable numbers of refugees. Its not just Afghanistan, the war there that the USSR started but that the USA has taken over after the USSR collapsed, and that the USA continues to be involved in. Iraq likewise. Libya likewise. Syria likewise.

It seems as though the Middle East has taken a similar role to that of the Balkans prior to World War 1. The major powers, in this case America and Russia, are vying for supremacy in the region after the Russian exit from Afghanistan emboldened the US to move into the vacuum. The invasion of Iraq, the western military intervention for the takeover of Libya and an attempt to overthrow the Syrian government by US backed rebels has led Russia to return to the fray.

[YesNo]

It's been widely touted that certain members of the US government of the day wanted an excuse to attack Iraq as part of a plan to take over the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is a Sunni ruled country that hates Shia countries such as Iraq. Although the Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11, the so-called Neo Conservatives in the White House would blame Iraq for the attack, thus allowing them to retaliate and get control of the country while Saudi Arabia would see one of its enemies destroyed.

I can see why the 9/11 attacks were used as an excuse to invade Iraq since both the US and Saudi Arabia would want to find some excuse. I can also see how they would be willing to fabricate excuses such as the weapons of mass destruction charge which was shown to be false based on UN inspectors not finding any such weapons. I can see how any excuse would be used or fabricated to justify such a war.

My only concern is whether the destruction of the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon were planned in any way by the US and Saudi Arabia to generate a sufficiently powerful excuse to invade Iraq. Or to put it more simply: Did the US and Saudi Arabia know about those attacks in advance?

[Danik 2016]

Just a reminder.
It´s good to bear in mind that LitNet is an internationally open forum. Any one outside the forum can read this discussion.

[Emil Miller]

Just a reminder.
It´s good to bear in mind that LitNet is an internationally open forum. Any one outside the forum can read this discussion.

What difference does it make?

[Emil Miller]

I can see why the 9/11 attacks were used as an excuse to invade Iraq since both the US and Saudi Arabia would want to find some excuse. I can also see how they would be willing to fabricate excuses such as the weapons of mass destruction charge which was shown to be false based on UN inspectors not finding any such weapons. I can see how any excuse would be used or fabricated to justify such a war.

My only concern is whether the destruction of the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon were planned in any way by the US and Saudi Arabia to generate a sufficiently powerful excuse to invade Iraq. Or to put it more simply: Did the US and Saudi Arabia know about those attacks in advance?

The implication is that the US and Saudi Arabia were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

[YesNo]

The implication is that the US and Saudi Arabia were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Yes. That's what it sounds like.

The video mentioned that Trump would release those 28 pages if he were elected. I've got my first and so far only reason to vote for Trump. I don't have any reason so far to vote for Clinton. That means it's 1 to 0, Trump vs Clinton. Interestingly I hear these are the most disliked candidates in polling history which fits my apolitical perspective of them: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/clinton-and-trump-would-b_b_9721128.html

[Iain Sparrow]

Yes. That's what it sounds like.

The video mentioned that Trump would release those 28 pages if he were elected. I've got my first and so far only reason to vote for Trump. I don't have any reason so far to vote for Clinton. That means it's 1 to 0, Trump vs Clinton. Interestingly I hear these are the most disliked candidates in polling history which fits my apolitical perspective of them: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/clinton-and-trump-would-b_b_9721128.html


Seriously, you'd vote for a man that plans on walling off our southern border with Mexico, deporting ten million illegals, banning all muslims from immigrating to America, putting women in prison for having an abortion, and all the other nutty promises... because you believe in a conspiracy theory you watched on YouTube?!

You sir, are part of a mob of morons following a lunatic.

[Emil Miller]

Seriously, you'd vote for a man that plans on walling off our southern border with Mexico, deporting ten million illegals, banning all muslims from immigrating to America, putting women in prison for having an abortion, and all the other nutty promises... because you believe in a conspiracy theory you watched on YouTube?!

You sir, are part of a mob of morons following a lunatic.

YesNo is entitled to his opinion, as is yourself, but unfortunately this has strayed into the realm of present-day politics which I was hoping to avoid by keeping it within the historical context of 9/11.

[YesNo]

You sir, are part of a mob of morons following a lunatic.

I sometimes think that myself.

However, now that I've heard about the existence of those 28 pages, I would like to know what is in them. I don't care who releases them. I'd also like to know about the Apollo missions.

[Emil Miller]

I sometimes think that myself.

However, now that I've heard about the existence of those 28 pages, I would like to know what is in them. I don't care who releases them. I'd also like to know about the Apollo missions.

The problem with the redacted 28 pages is that Obama has said that he would be prepared to release them on condition that it didn't compromise national security.
National security is a catch-all phrase that can cover a multitude of sins. If, for example, release of the unedited documents was considered likely to lead to civil unrest, then the national security card could, and probably would, be played so that only the most innocuous passages were made public.

[YesNo]

As I see it there are four possibilities:

1) There is nothing to suggest either the Saudis or the US knew about the attacks in advance. No one needs to be protected by the secrecy of the document.

2) Those pages claim the Saudis knew to some extent what was going to happen but no one else did. Keeping the documents secret is to protect the Saudis.

3) Those pages claim even Bush and company knew something was going to happen but they did not know what was going to happen.

4) Those pages claim that Bush and company knew all the details.

I suspect 2 or 3 might be the case. However, I do recall the intensity of the arguments to show that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq even when the UN inspectors could not find evidence of WMD. So maybe the truth is closer to 4. However, if it is 4, I am surprised the secret has not been leaked by now. Maybe it has, but I am too politically naive to have seen it.

[Emil Miller]

As I see it there are four possibilities:

1) There is nothing to suggest either the Saudis or the US knew about the attacks in advance. No one needs to be protected by the secrecy of the document.

2) Those pages claim the Saudis knew to some extent what was going to happen but no one else did. Keeping the documents secret is to protect the Saudis.

3) Those pages claim even Bush and company knew something was going to happen but they did not know what was going to happen.

4) Those pages claim that Bush and company knew all the details.

I suspect 2 or 3 might be the case. However, I do recall the intensity of the arguments to show that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq even when the UN inspectors could not find evidence of WMD. So maybe the truth is closer to 4. However, if it is 4, I am surprised the secret has not been leaked by now. Maybe it has, but I am too politically naive to have seen it.

Yes, the WMD excuse and the search for Bin Laden casts doubt on the blame being directed at Iraq but there can be little doubt that 9/11 gave the US government carte blanche to attack any Muslim country without worrying too much about public disapproval.

[YesNo]

Bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian. That made me wonder why we were pointing the finger at Iraq.

The problem with secrets is they justify anything my imagination might come up with. I wonder what really happened now that I know there is a mystery. But I am only curious. The Saudis will be punished enough when the price of oil finally tanks.

[Dreamwoven]

Yes, this cold war move by Obama also hits other countries than Russia, Norway is one as well. The Saudi Dictatorship is another.