A 9/11 Lawsuit No One Is Talking About Reveals Deep Saudi Complicity
Added 2024-08-19 07:05:39 +0000 UTCOA1061
This week Matt shares a mostly under-the-radar story which has completely changed his understanding of the events of September 11, 2001.
As the 23rd anniversary of the attacks approaches, a mountain of information emerging from lawsuits filed by 9/11 families has revealed far more extensive ties between both al-Qaeda and at least two of the hijackers to the Saudi government than were ever previously known. Why has justice taken so long? How does the law even allow this suit to proceed, and why did Congress have to override Barack Obama’s veto to allow it to move forward? Why has some of the best journalism about this lawsuit been from Golf Digest? And has the time come for a second 9/11 commission to re-evaluate everything we thought we knew about the day that changed everything?
Complaint in Ashton v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (filed March 20, 2017)
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (filed 5/10/24)
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 5/7/24)
Blood, Oil and Golf: The emergence of LIV Golf highlights the Kingdom’s troubling influence Alan Shipnuck, Golf Digest (8/19/2022)
New 9/11 Evidence Points to Deep Saudi Complicity, Daniel Benjamin and Stephen Simon, The Atlantic (5/20/24)
60 Minutes excerpt which includes Omar Al Bayoumi’s 1999 video of the US Capitol (6/20/2024)
Comments
I donʼt see any links Matt promised to the analysis from the “brilliant” “friend of the show” Steve Vladeck. Could we have those posted here? Edit: A transcript I made to help me track down sources and understand the arguments: https://reboil.com/mediawiki/OA_1061 From this exercise, I learned that Matt is best understood at 0.75x speed. Let me know if you want me to take this down due to copyright or whatever, but there were so many moving parts I had to sit down with Wikipedia and ChatGPT to track down the various claims and references; I figure other people might find the citations useful.
Baltakatei
2024-09-20 07:36:25 +0000 UTCMore bloopers, please! Even if it's a patreon only perk :)
Jon C
2024-08-20 02:08:09 +0000 UTCI think it's pretty baked in how complicit the Saudi regime was, if not in actively facilitating the attacks then in creating the extremist conditions that created the attackers. Bronze lining being that SA supposedly took reducing if not eliminating Wahabi extremism pretty seriously after 9/11 (if not only out of pure self-preservation?) and might be able and willing to help with doing the same in Gaza? Progress? 🤷🏻♂️ I guess I just fall in the camp that our tangles with Al-Saud go all the way pre-WW1 and that isnt likely to end soon Tldr yes Matt's right but it won't change anything, sadly Edit removed accidental rant in surprise to the fact that any of this is new to people. Pretty much all of this information has been known but not codified in legal documents (due to the issues with suing a Sovereign state) for a long long time now. Like I have known a lot of this since college over 10 years ago I was and am mad and have been so angry about this and am legit surprised that people are just now realizing this. you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to accept a level of truth below "court document"
Alex Sloane
2024-08-19 22:37:42 +0000 UTCThe "Safari Club" members have been able to basically act with impunity due to US sugar daddy needing to launder through BCCI for decades. They all hide each other's complicity with the US war machine, but I think their connections with Israel may be their undoing.
bouteilles de vin et polystyrène
2024-08-19 20:02:59 +0000 UTCOne of the reasons Obama cited for the veto was the risk of lawsuits against the US (or individuals). Per CNN: Obama also said the move would open Americans abroad, especially those serving in the military, to prosecutions by foreign countries, since this would remove the reciprocal agreements that now protect both sides from such lawsuits. There's certainly room for discussion over whether the US should be more accountable for our actions abroad, but I can see how a bill that makes no effort to address such retaliatory action could be problematic. I do recall after it passed there were some threats of lawsuits, with McConnell trying to blame Obama, but I don't recall any follow-up coverage of whether lawsuits against the US (or laws allowing such lawsuits) actually went beyond threats.
Why do podcasters say moron that later
2024-08-19 20:02:32 +0000 UTCIt's not that the House of Saud (for the most part) specifically wants to hurt the U.S., which has been a staunch ally to it. Rather, it's that there's no good reason for average Saudi citizens to refrain from ripping those family members limb from limb but for the backing of Wahabist zealots. So the Saudi government which is reliant on the U.S. goes along with whatever scheme the Wahabists (who hate pretty much everything) demand.
Gmork
2024-08-19 14:27:37 +0000 UTCLitigating this has to be incredibly expensive. Do we know how the families are able to afford it?
Alfhild
2024-08-19 14:27:19 +0000 UTCHey gang, come see my band "Deep Complicity" playing downtown tonight.
Jon C
2024-08-19 13:12:27 +0000 UTCI'm sure someone's already messaged elsewhere, but if you want a comedy about inept terrorists, Four Lions already exists!
Ben Abbott
2024-08-19 11:46:13 +0000 UTCOh. My. God. That was a great episode.
Maria Kladaki
2024-08-19 11:38:30 +0000 UTC
