The Saudi regime has come under severe criticism here at Liberty Blitzkrieg over the last couple of years for several reasons. First, more and more evidence has emerged concerning Saudi Arabia’s role in the attacks of 9/11. A role that both the Bush and Obama administrations have gone out of their way to conceal. In late 2013, I published a post titled, Two Congressmen Push for Release of 28-Page Document Showing Saudi Involvement in 9/11. Here are some excerpts:
But earlier this year, Reps. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., and Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., were given access to the 28 redacted pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry (JICI) of 9/11 issued in late 2002, which have been thought to hold some answers about the Saudi connection to the attack.
“I was absolutely shocked by what I read,” Jones told International Business Times. “What was so surprising was that those whom we thought we could trust really disappointed me. I cannot go into it any more than that. I had to sign an oath that what I read had to remain confidential. But the information I read disappointed me greatly.”
The public may soon also get to see these secret documents. Last week, Jones and Lynch introduced a resolution that urges President Obama to declassify the 28 pages, which were originally classified by President George W. Bush. It has never been fully explained why the pages were blacked out, but President Bush stated in 2003 that releasing the pages would violate national security.
While neither Jones nor Lynch would say just what is in the document, some of the information has leaked out over the years. A multitude of sources tell IBTimes, and numerous press reports over the years in Newsweek, the New York Times, CBS News and other media confirm, that the 28 pages in fact clearly portray that the Saudi government had at the very least an indirect role in supporting the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attack. In addition, these classified pages clarify somewhat the links between the hijackers and at least one Saudi government worker living in San Diego.
Considering we have given up so many civil liberties in response to that horrible tragedy, you’d think it might be appropriate to declassify documents showing one of America’s closest allies had ties to the attacks. You’d think that, but you’d be wrong.
As if ties to the worst terrorist attack on American soil isn’t bad enough, the close alliance with such an autocratic, feudal, and oppressive monarchy makes American claims to care about democracy and human rights a complete and total undeniable fraud.
Murtaza Hussain at the Intercept had some choice words about this incredible hypocrisy:
After nearly 20 years as de facto ruler of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah ibn-Abdulaziz al-Saud died last night at the age of 90. Abdullah, who took power after his predecessor King Fahd suffered a stroke in 1995, ruled as absolute monarch of a country which protected American interests but also sowed strife and extremism throughout the Middle East and the world.
In a statement last night Senator John McCain eulogized Abdullah as “a vocal advocate for peace, speaking out against violence in the Middle East”. John Kerry described the late monarch as “a brave partner in fighting violent extremism” and “a proponent of peace”. Not to be outdone, Vice President Joe Biden released a statement mourning Abdullah and announced that he would be personally leading a presidential delegation to offer condolences on his passing.
It’s not often that the unelected leader of a country which publicly flogs dissidents and beheads people for sorcery wins such glowing praise from American officials. Even more perplexing, perhaps, have been the fawning obituaries in the mainstream press which have faithfully echoed this characterization of Abdullah as a benign and well-intentioned man of peace.
Above all, he was not a leader who shied away from both calling for and engineering more conflict in the Middle East.
In contrast to Senator McCain’s description of Abdullah as “a vocal advocate of peace”, a State Department diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks revealed him in fact directly advocating for the United States to start more wars in the region.
Personally, I’m so moved by this cruel man’s death, I want to do my part to pay tribute. I will do this by providing links demonstrating what is considered routine behavior in the House of Saud. Bear in mind, this list is by no means comprehensive, it just comprises of several heinous events I have covered.
Saudi Arabia Sentences 3 Lawyers to Jail for Tweets
Record Beheadings and the Mass Arrest of Christians – Is it ISIS? No it’s Saudi Arabia
Saudi Man Receives 3 Year Prison Sentence and 450 Lashes for Being Gay
Saudi Arabia Passes New Law that Declares Atheists “Terrorists”
Meet the U.S. Allies – Saudi Arabia Passes Draconian, Medieval Laws to Crush Dissent
Saudi Religious Police Chief Goes on the Attack…Against Twitter
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
[dfads params=’groups=5364&limit=1&ad_html=p&return_javascript=1′]
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
Not only the western leader but all their devotees mindlessly follow their whiney fake sympathy for these baby raping murderers!
Saudi arabia leads the world in “BEHEADINGS” Now that is a stat obama would hope for!
What do you expect from Washington, DC, the Bushes, Clintons, Obama when it has been our government policy to transfer real wealth to the Saudi royals and their OPEC partners with the establishment of the petrodollar as set forth by the Rockefeller interests and drawn up by Prescott Bush, oil interest lawyer, senator and father of the Bush clan!
The fact that so many U.S. government “leaders” are tripping over one another to perform anilingus on the remaining tyrants in the House of Saud following the death of a despot, is proof positive that American foreign policy is disgustingly hypocritical.
the humorous and incredibly hypocritcal opinion you showcase here is that on one hand , michael, you regularly sing the praises of western neoliberal values that show tolerance for other cultures.
on the other hand you are incapable of showing respect for someone who was an important person in another culture.
you really cannot have it both ways. you either condemn much of passes for islamic governance and sunni culture, including supporting measures that very much caps the influence of sunni culture in america and limits islamic immigration to the united states. OR you stop pretending to be so against the house of saud.
you want to have it both ways, you want to be neoliberal, but you don’t want to be neocon—you cannot have it that way, neoliberal and neocon are part of the same coin .
you cannot preach the superiority of western tolerance , hilariously used as an excuse for invading other countries and spreading democracy, and also condemn the OTHER way of life at the same time.
yes , so the house of saud executed people, FAR MORE AMERICANS DIE WRONGFUL DEATHS BECAUSE THEY ARE IN JAIL FOR ABUSIVELY LONG PERIODS OF TIME.
it is funny how people like you are so quick to point out our own hypocrisy in the wake of charlie hebdo masacre. yes, western governments are not entirely supportive of free speech, it is true. but that is because the concept of free speech is not absolute. there is no such thing , and the embrace of such a childish notion in order to continuously harp on the hypocrisy of the western world gets tiresome, especially in light of the fact that you’re supposed western liberal values preach tolerance.
why is it so hard of you to tolerate some other countries’ culture? they have a way of life distinct from yours, one less tolerant and more strict, but it is NOT american culture and you don’t see the house of saud trying to impose this culture on america, now do you? OR DO YOU?
you can claim to limit you professed tolerance when it comes to the case of ‘intolerance’ , but this is just like germany outlawing nazi party and other hate parties. at some point, you realize ‘free speech’ and notions of ‘tolerance’ simply ARE NOT absolutes. they are balancing acts.
and you consistently balance your notions of tolerance in the direction of tyring to point out how entirely hypocritical the west is. well, EVERY COUNTRY is hypocritical and you know this. so maybe it’s time to take a rest. after all, is the house of saud impinging on your liberty?
While I often appreciate your comments on this site, the above is such nonsense it’s a total waste of my time to even respond, but given you are a regular reader and commentator, I will do so.
You claim: “You are incapable of showing respect for someone who was an important person in another culture.” Wrong, I am quite capable of this. However, I am not capable of showing respect for someone I do not respect. Just because someone is the leader of a foreign country and passes away in no way automatically commands a genuine person’s respect. I respect people who earn my respect, and King Abdullah isn’t one of them.
You claim “I preach the superiority of Western tolerance.” Again, no I do not and I have never put anything in such simplistic, jingoistic type terms. In fact, much of this blog is about how there isn’t much Western tolerance around anymore. I preach defending the values in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, yes. If you are claiming I cannot defend the values of the U.S. Constitution without being a neocon, you either consumed a lot of very powerful drugs when you wrote this, or have zero sense of logic.
You call what I do here “condemning another way of life,” but when the country in question (Saudi Arabia) is essentially an absolute monarchy where dissent isn’t permitted at all, you can’t actually call that their “culture.” You can call it a feudal tyranny in which a small group of people rule others and shape society as is advantageous to them. People do what they do at the point of a gun (sword) actually. If you honestly think that most women in Saudi Arabia like not being allowed to drive, or being beheaded for “sorcery” I think you are belittling their humanity and being extraordinarily prejudiced, not me.
You say “yes , so the house of saud executed people.” No, they do a lot more than that. Like not allow women to drive. Clearly not an issue you think is a human rights concern. You judgmentally think it is part of their “culture.” As far as Americans dying in jails, well yeah the overpopulation of America’s prisons with people convicted with non-crimes has been a key focus of this site and my writing. So you are preaching to the choir pal.
You claim “but this is just like germany outlawing nazi party and other hate parties.” Have you lost your mind? How much glue did you sniff before you wrote this? My position on Saudi Arabia should be clear for anyone possessing more than 3 brain cells is clear.
1) I think what the absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia engages in is destructive to humanity, immoral and evil (much like much of what the U.S. government does, which I also write about. I do not think it is the culture, I think it is a small group of people oppressing another group of people. There is nothing inconsistent about me harshly criticizing this with anything else I write or have said.
2) While the leaders of many countries engage in horrible actions, I focus on Saudi Arabia because it so clearly demonstrates the dishonest line from U.S. politicians that we care about human rights and democracy. People in the U.S. need to the total lie our leaders tell us before we can evolve. Saudi Arabia perfectly demonstrates this hypocrisy. Furthermore, increased evidence of powerful Saudis in the 9/11 attacks means the Saudi issue has come home to roost. Considering I was there when the attacks happened and had to evacuate my work office never to return on that day, yeah you could say the poisonousness of Saudi leadership has VERY MUCH impinged on my liberty since the Patriot Act and many other things counter to liberty have occurred as a result of that attack.
How all of this was not completely clear from my writing and easy for you to grasp is beyond me.
And now Obama is going to go personally kiss Saudi ass. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/24/middleeast/saudi-arabia-royals-obama/
mike,
countries deal with other countries. the u.s. does a lot of things that are reprehensible in its past 70 years as dominant empire of the planet. and yet, other countries have to tolerate the u.s. because it’s important, so they play ball and leaders engage in the adult game of diplomacy which is about APPEARANCES over substance.
what i am pointing out is that you failing to realize that this is how things work, and that it is acceptable , are somewhat tiresome.
if you truly think the u.s. can just tell saudi arabia to go fuck itself, after ALL the investment the u.s. has made in global dollar petrogarchy, then you clearly don’t understand the u.s. strategy.
i understand you may value women’s rights globally ( as opposed to simply those rights as you see them being protected in western countries) , but you are using this as proxy for trying to condemn western leaders for the game they must play .
however, when those same leaders condemn north korean human rights abuses , not because they give 2 shits about human rights, but becuase they are , again, playing the game of global geopolitics. ——you jump on them for playing the game of oligarchy.
in the case of saudi and religious right wing culture, specifically, orthodox strict islam, you are accepting of islam in the united states but condemning its practice in the natural setting of saudi arabia. i am not even going to mention the hypocrisy of claiming women’s lack of ability to drive in saudi arabia is so much more important, than the 200k+ american women in jails most for pettyish victimless crime.
i’m not going to say islam as practiced in the the arabian peninsula is commendable , but i’m just saying 1) look in your own backyard first 2) try and take global geo-politics for WHAT IT IS, and not for what it isn’t. you are trying to smear the great game with your visions of hypocrisy. the great game has hypocrisy and lies as part of the core foundation of the playbook. to criticize this particularly in a scenario where it is more than reasonable that these kinds of hypocrisies are tolerated for the sake of saving face is , in many ways, just like trying to criticize a movie for not being a radio program. it just doesn’t make sense.
the way you inculcate your viewpoint as being ‘because of women’s rights’. is the argument of righteousness. many people say “say no to drugs for the children” “do x,y,z, for the children” .
the argument for righteousness is frequently abused , or implanted in those very same people that think they are helping but are not. how did the children of all these so called get hard on drugs types fare under the drug war? how many of those kids whose moms said ‘no to drugs’ wound up in jail or worse because of the resulting multidecade excuse to build jails and fill them with millions of prisoners.
your idea of women’s rights and how to protect them is clouding your judgement. do you expect presidents and global leaders to SNUB an entire nations leadership that is part of the american oil relationship?
sometimes , your criticisms are misplaced. usually not though.
This is the last response I will have to this thread, which has become tiresome and a waste of my time.
You have every right to think my criticisms are misplaced, but that doesn’t mean they are misplaced. Your thought process is all over the place and isn’t even logical.
In your initial comments you were defending the Medieval and autocratic nature of Saudi Arabia as part of their “culture.” This seems to be a key point of disagreement. You consider the way a handful of tyrants oppress a much larger group of people as “culture,” whereas I call it what it is, which is one small group of people opposing a larger group of people. That’s disagreement number one.
In the above response, you try to make everything about women’s rights as if that is the only way the Saudi leadership are ruthless, tyrants. All you have to do is read the many links attached to the bottom of the original post to see the many ways in which they are a bunch of Dark Age oppressors of humanity.
In the above, you claim that I fail to realize how things work. Sorry pal, but if after reading this site you really think I don’t understand the global game of geo-politics, just stop reading the site. If you think that, then essentially nothing I write should be interesting at all to you. This isn’t the first time you have invented something about me which was false, so I guess it’s a habit you have.
Of course I understand the “game” you reference. I would just point out two things.
1) Just because I understand how things work, doesn’t mean I have to like the way things work. Slavery was rampant throughout all human societies until the last couple hundred years. You would’ve been one of those who said “well, it’s just the way the world works” as an abolitionist tried to tell you it’s wrong.
2) I do understand that the game of global diplomacy in a world in which the nastiest types get control of nation-states is not a clean affair for those that have to engage in it, even when those people are moral and decent. One of my primary points on this site is that the leadership of the country in which I reside and am a citizen are not moral or decent. As such, their playing of this “game” is near-term and long-term damaging to the Republic. Trying to do something as stupid as invading countries based on human rights abuses while being so close to Saudi Arabia is a great example of how completely stupid and clueless U.S. leadership is.
You seem to condone their behavior and hypocrisy as part of the “game.” Goebbels would have agreed, as would anyone else who thinks dumbing down issues to the point of them being propaganda for war is a good strategy. I will not accept that my species has to behave in such a manner, and I do not accept the evils my own government is doing as “the cost of doing business.”
Finally, you once again mention people in U.S. jails for no reason. That has been a key theme of mine on this site. Are you suggesting I can’t comment on that while also commenting on how dangerous and evil our close alliance with the Saudis is? Are we such infants we can’t talk about two separate evils separately.
Moreover, you write “the hypocrisy of claiming women’s lack of ability to drive in saudi arabia is so much more important, than the 200k+ american women in jails most for pettyish victimless crime.”
Please, please show me where I claimed that women’s lack of ability to drive is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than Americans in jail for non-crimes? I never wrote or said such a thing. You are making it up. Again, you have a habit of making stuff up. Stop it.
You also mention looking in my own backyard. Yeah pal, about 90% of my articles are about looking in my own back yard. Again, how much glue are you sniffing.
If you can’t see this and accept what I am saying, rather than making things up and commenting in an illogical manner, I have nothing else to say to you.
perhaps i am playing devils’ advocate. there is a famous saying; may god grant me the wisdom to change those things i can change, and to accept those which I cannot.
so much of the tension of the movements for justice throughout history is the debate between people about what is POSSIBLE TO CHANGE and what is not.
in my mind, it’s clear I don’t think it’s possible that any public shame will be able to change the applause and diplomatic gestures that western leaders will obviously show to any oil dictator, whether nigerian, sultan of brunei, king abdullah.
though , i keep coming back to your site because from time to time you’re pretty spot on about issues that seemingly can be changed , or at least are a priority on the list of those things.
just as the executive branch is alloted almost all power in affairs of internatoinal negotiation, it seems that juxtaposed to the government in dc, the people of the u.s. are naturally most powerful in their own domestic sphere , rather than in those vaunted spheres of international relations.
as one who believes that it is important to prioritize one’s criticisms, i think it’s key to identify when one risks spewing a lot of hot air about something that simply cannot be changed and is no where near the priority list.
for example, i brought up the women in jail thing, as a look in your backyard , in the sense that prioritizing one issue (womens rights in the u.s.) at the expense of another ( womens rights in the saudi kingdom), as an argument for allowing the diplomatic praise of the dictator to go without criticism. it is of course, not necessarily mutually exclusive. the arguments of priority never are. they are relativistic arguments not absolute ones. shades of gray…..
so when i look at modern politics and such and look at positions , i try to take a view of not being critical of everything, because essentially, everything in our system is now tainted with hypocrisy and corruption. call that a decadent society, or a ‘mature’ one or whatever you want…..
but don’t call me late for dinner : )
anyways, i’m not trying to be personally attacking you, we just have disagreements about what should be and what shouldnt’ be considered priority.
so long as you don’t wind up all nakedcapitalism yvesse smith on this blog, blogging all over the place, i’ll keep coming back.
If I had a blog in 1790, I would still blog about slavery being evil. Sure it wouldn’t be solved for another 75 years in the U.S., but I would still talk about it, and there’s no reason why I shouldn’t.
Me criticizing the U.S.-Saudi relationship has been a key theme of this site. Furthermore, it is not all over the place, since I have a very clear strategic rationale for focusing on it, which I have made clear on the site and now here in the comment section.
If you don’t think this should be a priority, that’s fine, but say that from the get go. The comment you just left is the comment you should’ve started with. So think through comments a little more in the future, particularly if you accuse someone of hypocrisy.
If you don’t want someone to take things as a personal attack, don’t start off with personal attacks.
Let’s move on now.