# Give me your 9/11 conspiracy theories! And/or their debunking **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041 "2009-05-20T03:24:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 60
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1181 "2009-07-28T05:00:08Z")
Oh, and: > [@](#): > > It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governments may have con=tained al Qaeda sympathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda’s fund-raising activities.121 Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi govern=ment as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organ=ization. (This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda.)122 > > Still, al Qaeda found fertile fund-raising ground in Saudi Arabia, where extreme religious views are common and charitable giving was both essential to the culture and subject to very limited oversight.123 Al Qaeda also sought money from wealthy donors in other Gulf states. And Turki? No. He was an outspoken opponent of AQ and IIRC won a libel suit against someone who claimed he was involved in financing the attacks. > [@](#): > > Prince Turki followed up in meetings during the summer with Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders. Apparently employing a mixture of possible incentives and threats,Turki received a commitment that Bin Ladin would be expelled, but Mullah Omar did not make good on this promise.35 > […] > Yet in September 1998, when the Saudi emissary, Prince Turki, asked Mul- ah Omar whether he would keep his earlier promise to expel Bin Ladin, the Taliban leader said no. Both sides shouted at each other, with Mullah Omar denouncing the Saudi government.Riyadh then suspended its diplomatic rela- tions with the Taliban regime. (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates were the only countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.) Crown Prince Abdullah told President Clinton and Vice President Gore about this when he visited Washington in late Sep-tember. His account confirmed reports that the U.S. government had received independently.65 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1182 "2009-07-28T06:36:07Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Off the top of my head, in another thread I read Prince Turki al Faisal (sp?)- something like the head of the information ministry- was identified as one government-associated wealthy Saudi who gave money to AQ. This [Turki al Faisal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turki_bin_Faisal_Al_Saud#Tenure_as_head_of_Saudi_intelligence)? I’m not sure that his hstory makes the case you’d like it to make. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1183 "2009-07-28T12:27:28Z")
**FinnAgain** , thanks for the cites regarding the Taliban/AQ link pre-9/11. Personally I do not think they establish that “AQ was an official part of the Afghan government” rather they support the contention that there were close links between the two groups and that AQ received direct support from the Taliban government in Afganistan (and that the Taliban received financial support from AQ). Anyway, it is mainly a matter of definition and interpretation and has no real baring on **Try2B** ’s argument. Actually I am pretty confused as to what **Try2B** is arguing! I think he is trying to construct an case that the REAL motivation for American (plus British, Australian, Dutch, Canadian, … ) action in Afganistan post 9/11 was the replacement of the Taliban with a friendly government that would allow the construction of an oil (or possibly gas) pipeline from the central Asian fields to the Indian Ocean and that Al Qaeda was just a convenient excuse. In support of this I think he is positing: 1. Al Qaeda did not have training camps in Afganistan 2. The American led campaign in late 2001/early 2002 attacked the Taliban, not AQ, in bid to control the country. **Try2B** - is this right? Please correct me if I have misunderstood your points. On (1) I don’t see how there can be any dicussion of this. I don’t think either the Taliban or AQ have ever disputed it. On (2) I think we keep running up against **Try2B** ’s lack of knowledge of military realities. Yes, the action in Afganistan was aimed at removing the Taliban from power, not directly at the AQ bases but that was the clear means of achieving the objective of the mission - eliminating AQ and preventing Afganistan from being used as a safe haven in the future. Until the Taliban were removed it is difficult to see how the first part could be achieved and their removal was certainly required for the second part. I am not sure how the discussion of Saudi money comes into the consideration of the US government’s post 9/11 actions. There does not seem to be any agrument that money from Saudi Arabia was partly funding AQ and little that Saudi money was also reaching the Taliban but where does that lead in terms of US action? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1184 "2009-07-28T14:25:17Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This [Turki al Faisal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turki_bin_Faisal_Al_Saud#Tenure_as_head_of_Saudi_intelligence)? > > I’m not sure that his hstory makes the case you’d like it to make. Yes that one. Here’s one [cite](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html?_r=2). It describes a transaction in which Prince Turki al Faisal hands a check for a billion Saudi dollars to a top Taliban leader. Other members of the royal family are implicated in funding AQ and other groups, though some of it is money to charities which fund militants. More later. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1185 "2009-07-28T15:01:15Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Yes that one. > > Here’s one [cite](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html?_r=2). It describes a transaction in which Prince Turki al Faisal hands a check for a billion Saudi dollars to a top Taliban leader. Considering that you’ve been arguing throughout this thread that you’re unconvinced that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were working together, I find it amusing that your ‘proof’ of Saudi funding of Al-Qaeda involves a payment to the Taliban. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1186 "2009-07-28T16:26:26Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > **FinnAgain** , thanks for the cites regarding the Taliban/AQ link pre-9/11. Personally I do not think they establish that “AQ was an official part of the Afghan government” rather they support the contention that there were close links between the two groups and that AQ received direct support from the Taliban government in Afganistan (and that the Taliban received financial support from AQ). Fair enough, but yah, I’d think that being able to put official “ministry of defense” license plates on your car would mark you as officially a member of the ministry of defense. I can accept that there’d be disagreement on that point, though… > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Here’s one [cite]([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast) > /24saudi.html?\_r=2). It describes a transaction in which Prince Turki al Faisal hands a check for a billion Saudi dollars to a top Taliban leader. Bait and switch. Your claim was that he gave money to AQ, not to the Taliban. That SA, as a nation, supported the Taliban is common and public knowledge. That it supported AQ is simply unproven. And as pointed out, if you’re arguing that there wasn’t a powerful link between AQ and the Taliban, why are you now using a payment to the Taliban to argue that it was support for AQ? ---
**Author:** ![silvermist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@silvermist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silvermist)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1187 "2009-07-28T21:27:03Z")
When Bush announced that we had to go to war in Iraq, because of 9/11, my gut feeling was that our own govt had engineered it. That’s all I have to go on, it may or may not be true. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1188 "2009-07-28T21:44:34Z")
> [@silvermist](#): > > When Bush announced that we had to go to war in Iraq, because of 9/11… When did he announce that? I seem to recall his justification for invading Iraq having more to do with WMD, and their being a terrorism supporter against Israel. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1189 "2009-07-28T23:52:31Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Yes that one. > > Here’s one [cite](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html?_r=2). It describes a transaction in which Prince Turki al Faisal hands a check for a billion Saudi dollars to a top Taliban leader. Hmmm > [@](#): > > Another witness in Afghanistan said in a sworn statement that in 1998 he had witnessed an emissary for a leading Saudi prince, Turki al-Faisal, hand a check for one billion Saudi riyals (now worth about $267 million) to a top Taliban leader. So an anonymous source claims that at least three years prior to the WTC/Pentagon attack, an “emissary”–purportedly from al Faisal–gave a lot of money to the _de facto_ government of Afghanistan which has close religious ties to the variant of Islam prevalent in Saudi Arabia. There is no name, no follow up, and no indication that the Taliban passed that money on to al Qaida. It looks, to me, like a bit of “friend of my friend, enemy of my enemy” background business without any serious connection to al Qaida or terrorism. Given his known actiities at other times in regards to bin Laden, this event–if it even occurred–seems to have no relevance. (Look into which governments supported the Marxists and which the oil companies in Angola some time.) ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1190 "2009-07-29T01:11:21Z")
> [@silvermist](#): > > When Bush announced that we had to go to war in Iraq, because of 9/11, my gut feeling was that our own govt had engineered it. That’s all I have to go on, it may or may not be true. Given all the evidence against, I’m going to go with ‘not true’. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1191 "2009-07-29T02:07:14Z")
> [@silvermist](#): > > When Bush announced that we had to go to war in Iraq, because of 9/11, my gut feeling was that our own govt had engineered it. That’s all I have to go on, it may or may not be true. Try the Pepto. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1192 "2009-07-29T03:03:17Z")
> [@silvermist](#): > > When Bush announced that we had to go to war in Iraq, because of 9/11, my gut feeling was that our own govt had engineered it. That’s all I have to go on, it may or may not be true. If the point of ‘engineering’ 9/11 was to justify going to war with Iraq, wouldn’t it have made sense to engineer things so some of the hijackers would be Iraqis? Instead, they engineered a scenario that pretty much required us to go to war with Afghanistan first and push back the war with Iraq by two years. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1193 "2009-07-29T03:05:20Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > [Five Sudanese Islamists were convicted for the killings of John Granville and his driver.](http://www.usaid.gov/press/frontlines/fl_jul09/p3_insights070907.html) [Al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Niles (i.e.: Al-Qaeda in Sudan) reportedly took credit for their deaths.](http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/B547467.htm) Back in February, Osama’s #2 guy urged his Sudanese bretheren to continue their jihad. All right, one thing at a time. Thanks for the posts about Al Qaeda in Sudan, Lute Skywatcher. I’m going to pick apart the articles a little bit next, but don’t take that personally. I think they add to the context nonetheless. Ok, so here’s what we got- An Al Qaeda group in Sudan > [@](#): > > The United States said on Saturday a group called “Al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Niles” has threatened its citizens and allies in Sudan My first question is what, if any, link this group has to Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. I’m just asking! Because later in the article, the name of the group is cropped: > [@](#): > > An embassy spokeswoman said she could not comment on whether the Ozone warning was linked to the Al Qaeda threat. Which might cause confusion, depending on what point you’re trying to make. > [@](#): > > The group said its “jihad and fight against the United States of America and its allies of crusaders and apostates will continue,” obviously they aren’t our friends > [@](#): > > Five men are currently appearing in court in Khartoum charged with the murder of John Granville and his driver Abdelrahman Abbas Rahama 1. > > Prosecutors said the group that killed Granville and his driver targeted Americans it thought were trying to “Cristianise” the predominantly Muslim nation. Bush isn’t the only guy in the world with reprehensible motives for killing people. And- John Granville sounded like way cool guy. > [@](#): > > Earlier this year, al Qaeda graffiti also started appearing on walls in the capital. Ok, there are the 5 guys on trial for murder and probably also conspiracy to commit murder, and apparently other people spray painting ‘Al Qaeda’ on walls. So maybe there are yet more terrorists, or maybe there are some kids who conflate Al Qaeda with Metallica. I think this is more a description of gang violence than international terrorism. Yes, they killed a very cool American and so have become our problem, but to confuse this with the Al Qaeda of the 911 attacks would be a big mistake. I should probably expand on my point about terrorists relocating from Sudan to Afghanistan. Let’s say there are two competing pictures. In one, OBL is riding the lead camel in a train of international terrorists, a unified group of loyalists fighting for a cause by, in this particular moment, following their leader across the desert to a new homeland. The other picture involves OBL shutting off the nozzle of Saudi money and placing it in his pocket. Once he arrives in Afghanistan, he produces the Saudi money nozzle and begins attracting a new crowd of fanatical recruits. The key difference between the two versions is that one is centered on OBL as the key driver of the whole situation. In the other version OBL is more of an agent, wielding someone else’s power. The articles paint a picture of Al Qaeda terrorists in Sudan, but they don’t depict terrorists following OBL from Sudan to Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1194 "2009-07-29T03:11:10Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Way too far. > > Don’t do this again. > He is sticking to this single thread, so he is not harming the board. If he bothers you, stop opening the thread. > [/Modding] Yer right, **Tom**. If I ignore the BS I’m a happier person. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1195 "2009-07-29T04:35:19Z")
> [@silvermist](#): > > When Bush announced that we had to go to war in Iraq, because of 9/11, my gut feeling was that our own govt had engineered it. That’s all I have to go on, it may or may not be true. This is a disturbingly common notion, and frankly it’s logic for the townspeople of a Monty Python skit. Did it ever occur to you at all that if our government engineered 9/11 in order to go to war with Iraq they might . . . you know . . . _frame Iraq_? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1196 "2009-07-29T04:50:20Z")
> [@silvermist](#): > > When Bush announced that we had to go to war in Iraq, because of 9/11, my gut feeling was that our own govt had engineered it. That’s all I have to go on, it may or may not be true. The logic issue has already been addressed a couple of times, but in the interest of the Straight Dope, I need to point out the historical error, as well: While Cheney repeatedly linked Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the WTC/Pentagon attacks, Bush was generally careful to avoid making a direct connection, relying more on the theme that the WTC/Pentagon attacks were a wake-up call, telling us to go forth and eliminate terrorism wherever we found it in the world, (unless the terrorists were our friends, of course, or even if the “bad guys” were not actually terrorists, as in the case of Hussein and Iraq). (There was at least one occasion when Bush declared that Iraq was “probably not” tied to the WTC/Pentagon attacks on Sunday while by Friday Cheney was repeating the lie that they were linked.) ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1197 "2009-07-29T15:26:21Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Ok, there are the 5 guys on trial for murder and probably also conspiracy to commit murder, and apparently other people spray painting ‘Al Qaeda’ on walls. So maybe there are yet more terrorists, or maybe there are some kids who conflate Al Qaeda with Metallica. > > I think this is more a description of gang violence than international terrorism. Yes, they killed a very cool American and so have become our problem, but to confuse this with the Al Qaeda of the 911 attacks would be a big mistake. The fact that these guys even exist are prompting people to [talk about al Qaeda’s presence in Sudan](http://blakerig.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/al-qaeda-in-sudan/). I had the month wrong but: > [@](#): > > [Al Jazeera](http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/03/2009324174137885253.html), 24 March 2009 > An audio statement purportedly by al-Qaeda’s deputy leader has called on the Sudanese to lead a guerrilla war against Western states in response to the indictment of the country’s president for alleged war crimes. > > The apparent statement by Ayman al-Zawahri on Tuesday comes days after Omar al-Bashir was charged by the International Criminal Court for abuses committed in his country’s Darfur region. > > “Make preparations by training, equipping, storing and organising for a long guerrilla war, because the modern-day Crusade [Westerners] has bared its fangs at you,” the statement, posted on several websites, said. > > “I tell our Muslim brothers in the Sudan: We are with you, and all mujahidin [fighters] and Muslims are with you, and we shall - with Allah’s help - do all that is in our power to help you, despite our knowledge that the Sudanese regime lies in wait for any mujahid it might discover in the Sudan,” he said. > While the 17-minute recording has not been fully authenticated as featuring the voice of al-Zawahri, it was posted by as-Sahab, al-Qaeda’s media wing. > The voice is similar to that featured on previous authenticated statements. Point is, the number of Sudanese that support al Qaeda is definitely not zero. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1198 "2009-07-30T02:14:11Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I hope a quick cite will suffice but perhaps I can dig up something more thorough. It’s hard to get the proper hits now as most of the top google results are about recent AQ-Taliban stuff. > > Anyways, AQ was a part of the Taliban’s Ministry of Defense both > [de facto](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/18/terrorism.afghanistan) > > and via official identification. Well, I have to agree with the other poster that Ministry of Defense license plates don’t necessarily make someone a member of the Ministry, but it is a far cry from living mostly as a fugitive as I have imagined. That one is news to me, thanks. The Observer article is right to the point too, good one, I have not seen any of that information until now. I will probably have to capitulate on the point that the Taliban was not a fair target. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1199 "2009-07-30T02:19:08Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > The Observer article is right to the point too, good one, I have not seen any of that information until now. I will probably have to capitulate on the point that the Taliban was not a fair target. Good for you, seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1200 "2009-07-30T02:58:25Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > Actually I am pretty confused as to what **Try2B** is arguing! I think he is trying to construct an case that the REAL motivation for American (plus British, Australian, Dutch, Canadian, … ) action in Afganistan post 9/11 was the replacement of the Taliban with a friendly government that would allow the construction of an oil (or possibly gas) pipeline from the central Asian fields to the Indian Ocean and that Al Qaeda was just a convenient excuse. In support of this I think he is positing: > > 1. Al Qaeda did not have training camps in Afganistan > > 2. The American led campaign in late 2001/early 2002 attacked the Taliban, not AQ, in bid to control the country. > > **Try2B** - is this right? Please correct me if I have misunderstood your points. Ok. My hangup about the location of the training camps isn’t to deny their existence. I don’t know where they are or how many there are, and the difficulty in finding this information made it seem like it is some kind of secret. My feeling was that there are not very many of them and that they are along the Pakistan border. No way to confuse them with the entire territory of Afghanistan. To go with this, I still can’t get an estimate of the number of AQ guys in Afghanistan. I suspect it could be a very low number, maybe just tens of guys. Taken together, AQ seems to me pretty easy to take out militarily- destroy the camps, kill everybody there, and then it is a matter of chasing down a few fugitives. It would probably involve peeving the Taliban mightily, but wouldn’t require an occupation. It could be over almost as soon as it started. Obviously that isn’t how it went down. You’re right about #2. If I could find a good set of maps of the first year or so of military action, I could compare it to the location of the camps and, I thought, be convinced that taking out the terrorists was a sideshow. I considered a pipeline as a motive, but that idea didn’t go anywhere- it was discussed probably a dozen pages ago. Depending on how responsible the Saudis really are for the Taliban/AQ, and considering the political near-impossibility of war with them, I thought it might be a way to break their toys while still doing business with them. Or maybe it had to do with the blank check a wartime president gets from Congress. W and Cheney were a rather suspicious pair, who knows what they could be trying to do? I looked into various things and learned some things, but I never had much certainty about the underlying motive. > [@](#): > > On (1) I don’t see how there can be any dicussion of this. I don’t think either the Taliban or AQ have ever disputed it. > > On (2) I think we keep running up against **Try2B** ’s lack of knowledge of military realities. Yes, the action in Afganistan was aimed at removing the Taliban from power, not directly at the AQ bases but that was the clear means of achieving the objective of the mission - eliminating AQ and preventing Afganistan from being used as a safe haven in the future. Until the Taliban were removed it is difficult to see how the first part could be achieved and their removal was certainly required for the second part. I always thought the camps could be destroyed and AQ eliminated without occupying the country. I thought would be at least worth a try. I saw AQ as operating pretty much independently of the Taliban, which made attacking the Taliban either a big mistake or some kind of exploit of people’s post-911 feelings. > [@](#): > > I am not sure how the discussion of Saudi money comes into the consideration of the US government’s post 9/11 actions. There does not seem to be any agrument that money from Saudi Arabia was partly funding AQ and little that Saudi money was also reaching the Taliban but where does that lead in terms of US action? It depends on how responsible the Saudis are for the Taliban and AQ. Since our relationship with the Saudis is so important, I don’t believe we would participate in a major conflict with them under almost any circumstances. Maybe for this reason their role was hidden? Talk about Saudi involvement was in fact omitted from the 911 commission report… Where does it lead in terms of US action? Who knows? If information about a major player in the terrorism picture is omitted, what is left might be portrayed or acted upon in a variety of ways. But it looks like FinnAgain has filled in some of the blanks for me. I wasn’t convinced the Taliban were cooperating actively with AQ. Now that I have reason to believe they probably were, well, the Saudi money issue might still be significant, maybe not. It is still something of a developing story, I’ll just keep an eye on it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=59) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=61)