FBI accidentally reveals Saudi official suspected of supporting 9/11 hijackers
news.yahoo.com
news.yahoo.com
The US is in ideological wars with China (CCP) and Islam. Those may not be wars the US chose, but it is what it is, because there is no common ground in disparate ideologies.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) relies on the US to buy oil and act as military mercenaries when threatened by local countries.
In the short term, KSA is an ally of the US, but in the long term, there are too many ideological and religious differences.
So at some level, KSA did cause 9/11, although likely in a circuitous way (some funding here, some operational support there, etc.) It's unlikely there was formal military support in any way, because that's counter-productive to the ruling family's goals, but KSA has strong internal security and they know what's happening.
Iraq is a different story, or rather, their leader, Hussein. He invaded Kuwait, threatened to invade KSA, etc.
The US govt. was paid to defend KSA. Bush 2 felt he owed Bush 1 the removal of Hussein. And German and French ambassadors massaging arms sales told Hussein he was untouchable by the US. The US sent an envoy to negotiate a peaceful standdown, but was perceived as belligerent. So war it was.
The "fig leaves" for invading Iraq were that a man who wanted to become the Iraqi President said bad things about Hussein, and that "aluminum tubes" were found in Iraq, supposedly useful in building a nuclear bomb. So the Whitehouse pretended those were adequate justifications, and that Hussein was tied to 9/11, despite knowing immediately that most of the participants were on Saudi passports.
Ironically, Hussein was the only leader capable of uniting Iraq, despite being from a minority ethnic group. Even better, he was a US ally long before the Iraq war.
Hussein's desire to become "the modern-day Suleiman" and rule all of the Middle East led to a large part of its destruction.
But the US could have been more on top of the situation there - maintaining better relations with Hussein, having better intelligence, training and equipping the Kuwaiti armed forces better, etc.
So there's a long backstory to the invasion of Iraq, and the US had reasons, but it wasn't what was told to the American people (I remember the absurd sound bites on TV at the time. I was like, "I can buy aluminum tubes down the street.")
Also, the other side of this is that KSA buys mountains of US and British made weapons, and sometimes "delivers" them to places like Yemen, but they are mostly to protect the ruling family against their own people.
A high court later ruled that stopping the investigation was illegal, but within 2 weeks the House of Lords (who are not popularly elected) overturned the courts ruling in a unanimous vote based on the "public interest".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal#Serious_F...
there is not much points going into your other arguments which are equally absurd, except of course for the obvious oil-vs-guns deals between US and KSA and the spurious arguments for the war which we all know were lies and it's just astonishing how little the US population holds its leaders to account for starting a war over faked evidence.
With a proof that Bush Jr. was officially informed that the justifications for the war are false some few days before invasion. (Probably someone from intelligence covering their ass, so the war wouldn't be blamed on them once bogus weapons of mass destruction were nowhere to be found).
I don't think it was absurd, nor paid respect. Maybe it did not focus on the things I would focus on, but it was coherent enough. I believe the historic reasoning for supporting the Saudi's was obvious (until the fracking "miracle"). Saudi Arabia effectively controlled OPEC and ensured that the USD was the standard for oil exchange. This was HUGE for the global US Hegemony and power dynamic. Even Russia was forced to deal in USD at times.
> There is no 'ideological war with Islam'.
There are a number of countries, with religious leaders who are all Islamic, that are actively anti-USA in both violent and non violent action. This is an oversimplification of history, but the root cause is still there. Religion has been responsible for more deaths than any other force and this continues into modern times.
> The conflict with China <is due to another set of issues>
That interpretation is valid, but the effect is the same. The US combats freedom of expression with media and China flat-out persecutes it mercilessly out of fear of destabilization (the ruling "oligarchy" is very well educated) with a penchant for cleansing populations along regional and racial divides. This is particularly distasteful (other than Trump's initiatives to "punish" states?) to the US population.
> there is not much points going into your other arguments which are equally absurd
He didn't make arguments. He gave reasons for his interpretation of events.
There's an awful lot I feel you have wrong, but let me just ask this one question - what "minority ethnic group" are you claiming Sadd Hussein was from?
There are no secrets in Washington, D.C., at least none that can last for years. All of this info leaked many years ago. The goal in formally censoring the details is simply to prevent legal action, and apparently officials across three administrations are convinced it would create too many diplomatic headaches. Without the official reports, these details are largely inadmissible hearsay in court, even if the whole world "knows".
At this point I'd be surprised if the FBI had any information not already publicly available. Though, the lawyers leading the civil lawsuit are probably some of the few people with an intimate knowledge of all the details, notwithstanding that the details are contingent on some unknowns.