Okay consiparcy freaks, help me out with this one.
I have a friend that continues to claim that on 9/11, after all planes were grounded, one plane was allowed to leave US airspace. The plane departed for Saudi Arabia and contained non-other than the mother of Osama bin Laden.
Is there any proof or further information for this?
Those appear to have been the only flights allowed during the grounding. There doesn’t seem to be any public confirmation of Bin Laden’s mother being among the 140 family members and other Saudis evacuated in that operation, though.
ElvisL1ves ,
Thanks, great link. Do you have any idea when that flight left?
A well informed friend told me last week that it now appears to have been three or four planes. I’ll bug him for a cite, but I think it might have been a PBS documentary.
Why would a humane action be counted as a conspiracy?
There was a reasonable expectation that these people would have been targets for violence, in retaliation for something that they were not responsible for.
So quietly hustling them out of the US was and is the proper thing to do.
Something like the Iraqis, huh? Was the Bush effort to put the blame on them part of the program to protect the Saudis? If so, why?
Possibly that was part of it. But the real reasons, beyond what Clarke has confirmed publicly, remain secret - why would that be?
emacknight, sorry, that’s all there is in the public domain.
No, taking them into protective custody would have been the proper thing to do.
Are you seriously advocating that, after a crime has been committed, people who may have connections with/information on a potential suspect should be allowed (encouraged even) to go to somewhere outside the jurisdiction of those investigating the crime with no attempt whatsoever to find out whether they have any information that may prove useful?
Because of the extensive business and social connections between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens? Having the President of the United States be a close personal friend can be awfully convenient…
As opposed to all the other Middle Eastern folks in the United States, some of whom were targets of violence in the post-9/11 frenzy?
As Avenger points out, if safety was a concern, there were other ways – cheaper, faster, and easier to carry out – to keep the Bin Ladens safe and secure without letting them leave the country.
First;
Wow! Osama pulls off this attack while his MOTHER is inside the US!!
Second;
Wow! 12 year olds are picked off their bikes and hauled to some far away island for a two YEAR questioning.
But the MOTHER of the culprit, someone who might have actual information, is shuffled out of the country!!!
One of the few good responses to 9/11 the Bush people did was a high-profile effort in advertising that ordinary Muslims here in the US were not responsible for 9/11. They also did some pretty harsh prosecution of people who didn’t “get the message”.
So, yes, there was an effort to protect citizens from violence here in the US.
As for Osama’s mother, or members of the Saudi Royal family, why would you suppose that either were involved?
There’s no proof that the Saudis were involved in the attack (though they may have been involved with the Iraq War), and if Mother Osama did know anything, she wouldn’t have been left here in the first place.
Bin Laden probably left her here in the hopes we would do something. Whooping up on a little old lady would make great propaganda.
Questioning her or any other relatively wouldn’t have killed anybody, though. I really can’t see the downside of letting them leave the country after some actual interviews.
Very true. The reason being that there was no investigation permitted which might have uncovered such proof.
Greg Palast has been quite vocal on this:
One does have to consider the influence of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US, on his close friend Bush and family. This is a man who is so charming that he got Bush to show him the details of the Iraq invasion two days before *Powell * got to. It couldn’t have taken much for Bandar to convince Bush to go along with the evacuation plan.
Bosda, you might check this about Saudi government support, or at least toleration, of Al Qaeda. Granted, it isn’t proof, but the investigation has been either stonewalled or classified into that condition. A majority of the hijackers were, in fact, Saudis.
The Saudi government in no way supports al Qaeda. Al Qaeda’s raison d’etre is to overthrow corrupt Western-linked tyrannies in the Middle East and replace them with Islamist regimes. Since Saudi Arabia is especially corrupt, Western-linked and tyrannous, and occupies the traditional Muslim holy area of the Hijaz, they’re a prime target. Osama has made specifically anti-Saud pronouncements many times. Al Qaeda-linked groups are suspected of carrying out many terrorist activities in Saudi Arabia aimed at destablising the government.
Draw a line between the Sauds (the royal family) and Saudi government on one side, and the average Saudi subject on the other. The average subject might support Osama, and some do. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. However, the government is strongly against Osama, and Osama against them. There is no possible way they would ever work together under any circumstances.
Not directly, no, that’s true. But it isn’t inconceivable that the House of Saud could have tolerated AQ activity in the same way that they permit the Wahhabists to control their schools. That would be a way of temporizing, allowing their opponents some limited successes in order to delay their own overthrow.
And of course, if you were to grill a close personal friend of the President of the U.S. you might discover some awfully inconvenient facts.
What a wonderfully naive viewpoint. There are no less than 30,000 princes in the House of Saud. It’s a decrepit feudal tribe trying to run a modern nation. Many of those princes do support Al-Qaeda, and the Saudi royals ARE the government of Saudi Arabia.
Where the fuck do you think Al-Qaeda gets its millions? Those OTHER super-rich Saudi Arabians?
The House of Saud and Wahhabism are closely linked. You might say they have a symbiotic relationship - Wahhabism lends legitimacy to the state (as long as the leaders of the state are good Muslims) and the state gives Wahhabism ‘official’ status, as well as a lot of funds, favourable laws etc (as long as the Wahhabists keep backing the state). Arguably, it’s been like this ever since Saudi Arabia split away from the Ottoman Empire 250-ish years ago. Thus, they don’t allow the Wahhabists to control the schools under sufferance, but welcome them doing it.
One could not say that al Qaeda is exclusively Wahhabi in nature, even if one could apply a label to the amorphous ‘network’, or even ‘mindset’, that is AQ.
But Wahhabism, though it’s sometimes shaky in its loyalty, is a tool of governance for the Saud family. Tolerating AQ activity is tantamount to signing the regime’s death warrants - their interests are exactly opposite and their goals are mutually exclusive. There is no possible way that AQ is even tolerated by the Saudi government, let alone assisted.
At the time of 9-11, I was working as an urban planner in the small Florida town where one of OBL’s brothers lived, on a lakefront gated estate. The brother was there one day, and gone on 9-12.
As I have pointed out, for the Saudi government to support AQ would be like signing their own death warrants. I am talking about the government, those (princes etc) in power. I am sure that there are some princes who are powerless, but are relatives of those in power that are supporting AQ for their own ends, but they are not the government.
This is pit-worthy rhetoric, so be polite. al Qaeda doesn’t particularly need the huge amounts of money that a first-world nation’s army needs - they’re fairly low-tech. What money they do have does, in large part, come from a certain person who is an heir of those OTHER super-rich Saudi Arabians, the bin Laden family. Surely you knew this - don’t be facetious and disingenuous.