William Kelly Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 (edited) Anthony Summers, in an inerview with Charlie Rose, says that three Saudi Princes whose names a terrorist had given up, all died mysteriously within a week of each other, which he considers suspicious. Does anyone else? "...Abu Zubaydah was being questioned, he was intensely questioned over weeks, that at one point he was conned into thinking he was being transferred to Saudi custody, with the idea that he would be terrified to tell what he knew because the Saudis are famous for torture and worse - killing prisoners and so on. And far from that, he instead said, well, let me give you the name and a phone number, which he knew from memory, of a Saudi Prince, not one of the senior ministers, and said he'll know, and he said tell him I'm here and he'll know what do to. And he subsequently named two other Saudi princes. All three of those Saudi Princes,and this is a fact, all died within a week of each other shortly thereafter. There is the thought, and of course all things can be explained by chance, but it is extremely interesting and full of implications that all three of them died by chance within a week of each other, and the thought is that maybe it was time to shut them up." CR: The book is called The Eleventh Day, the True Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, written by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. http://www.charliero...interview/11800 with Anthony Summers in Current Affairs, Books, History Wednesday, July 20, 2011 Billsbooksblog Charlie Rose: This fall marks the tenth anniversary of the9/11 attacks. The recent killing of Osama Bin Laden marked the defining momentin the fight against al Qaeda. Conspiracy theories still linger about theevents of September 11th. A new book by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan explores someof the questions. An excerpt exploring the connection between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 hijackers, appears inthis months Vanity Fair Magazine. The Kingdom and the Towers Here's the book's co-author Anthony Summers. I'm pleased tohave you back. He's an old friend from a long time ago, welcome. Robby is your coauthorand your wife. AS: Both. For twenty years wife. CR: And five years working together on this project. You beganto realize all these conspiracy theories had to do with 9/11, and so you wantedto what? AS: When I came to see my publisher at Random House in NewYork, I found my own publisher, a very senior publisher herself, didn't believeall the conspiracy theories but felt that in some way the public has been cheated,and there was some secret there. CR: So your publisher put you on the trail as you say, "thereis a lingering sense the nation and the world had been let down." AS: And the other tenant of the conspiracy theories - the Skepticsas they prefer to be called, thought in some way the Bush administration had eitherhad some warning or knew something was coming but allowed it to happen tofurther their plans to invade the Middle East – as it turned out in Iraq. Or atthe extreme ends of conspiracy theories in which they actually provoked theattacks themselves. Here and now it seems daft, but there were enough straws inthe wind to say - go look at this. CR: So now you have a book. So what is it you think happenedthat we don't know? AS: I hope to successfully dispatch, for a sane America,most of the conspiracy theory ideas. CR: Send them away. AS: Exactly, but I think what happened is those ideas andthe lingering thoughts about them have distorted the facts and blurred thethings that one should really be concerned about, and there are a lot of thingsone should still be concerned about this puzzle… CR: And they are? AS: The first of them I think is what US Intelligence actuallyknew and what it did about it in advance. The first two terrorists who arrivedon US soil hadbeen identified by the CIA, they knew that theywere al Qaeda, they knew their names, they knew they had US visas, and in oncecase they learned quite quickly one had arrived in the United States, and yet they did not tell the FBI. CR: What do you believe was the relationship between theSaudi government or the leading figures in Saudi Arabia and the men who were on those planeson 9/11? AS: There are two areas. The first of the areas, in theperiod - in the years leading up to 9/11 there is good evidence - and we name twoof the princes involved in the book Prince Naef, who had been for a long timethe head of the interior, the internal intelligence, and Prince Sultan, who wasthe defense chief in Saudi Arabia, and is now second highest to the throne, itis said - as recorded in the Wall Street Journal, that they raised a lot ofmoney over the years to pay off Bin Laden not to attack Saudi Arabia. He wasoutside he was in Afghanistan- not to attack Saudi Arabia.In this country if you and I were talking about the Mafia, we would call itprotection money. That is one area, and the people who investigated 9/11 andearlier at the CIA, concluded that theSaudis had been paid protection money for a long time. The second area that I think is especially interesting, thatboth the joint inquires – and 9/11 Commission delved into it. When the men onthe ground in California arrived,they arrived, and the evidence suggests than an Imam, the religious man at theSaudi consulate first gave them a tour of the area in Los Angeles. And that then after that the two of themconnected with another Saudi, who was paid from official sources but apparentlynot for doing any known work, and had been thought of for a long time as aSaudi agent, they connected with him in a meeting that was odd. He said he heardArabic being talked in a restaurant and the meeting was by pure chance, itdoesn't sound like it. In fact it sounds like a vary bad spy novel; it doesn'tsound like pure chance. He then dropped a newspaper and talked to them as theypicked it up. He then gave them help….They didn't speak English, they were prettymuch lost in California, and theywere pioneers if you will of the 9/11operation, the guys who arrived first. Therewere other Saudis who helped them one way or another, - all either left immediatelyon 9/11 or had left two or three weeks before. CR: We have the distinguished investigative reporter from Ireland, who I used to know from the BBC, what isit did he discover that ought to draw our attention, and what should be theconsequences of that discovery is what I'm asking? AS: Back to the beginning of our conversation and you askedme why I was doing the book and I said I wanted to look at the conspiracystuff, which certainly had elements of it that convinced huge numbers ofAmericans and equally important huge numbers of people around the world. Thelast poll I saw suggests that 46% of people abroad, which is what the poll wasmostly referring to - people in the middle east, believe that someone otherthan al Qaeda were responsible. Rubbish, of course al Qaeda was behind it. I wanted to deal with the conspiracy theoriesbut get as close as possible to that elusive thing we call the truth and then…… CR: Of all those conspiracies, which one do you think hasmerit? AS: If you are referring to conspiracy theories, I don't think any of them havemerit. CR: Okay, so none of the conspiracy theories have any merit,good. AS: No. I don't think so. At the same time, I think that withthis book we hope to get closer to clarity to the issues that do seem tomatter, and one of the big ones is - were elements of a foreign government involved?And I think we are closer to the idea that elements of the Saudi government wereinvolved. CR: And the nature of their involvement was what? AS: Collaboration with Bin Lade through protection money. CR: (Did they have) knowledge of what Bin Laden was doing? AS: Well, we do have first confirmation, from a former servingCIA officer who was involved in the captureof a bin Laden aide called Abu Zubaydah. And he says that he learned afterwardsthat when Abu Zubaydah was being questioned, he was intensely questioned overweeks, that at one point he was conned into thinking he was being transferredto Saudi custody, with the idea that he would be terrified to tell what he knewbecause the Saudis are famous for torture and worse - killing prisoners and soon. And far from that, he instead said, well,let me give you the name and a phone number, which he knew from memory, of aSaudi Prince, not one of the senior ministers, and said he'll know, and he saidtell him I'm here and he'll know what do to. And he subsequently named twoother Saudi princes. All three of those Saudi Princes, and this is a fact, alldied within a week of each other shortly thereafter. There is the thought, and ofcourse all things can be explained by chance, but it is extremely interestingand full of implications that all three of them died by chance within a week ofeach other, and the thought is that maybe it was time to shut them up. CR: The book is called The Eleventh Day, the True Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, written byAnthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. Edited August 9, 2011 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted August 27, 2011 Author Share Posted August 27, 2011 Doesn't anybody think that the possible assassination of three Saudi princes related to 9/11 is worth looking into? quote name='William Kelly' date='09 August 2011 - 08:09 AM' timestamp='1312870163' post='232594'] Anthony Summers, in an inerview with Charlie Rose, says that three Saudi Princes whose names a terrorist had given up, all died mysteriously within a week of each other, which he considers suspicious. Does anyone else? "...Abu Zubaydah was being questioned, he was intensely questioned over weeks, that at one point he was conned into thinking he was being transferred to Saudi custody, with the idea that he would be terrified to tell what he knew because the Saudis are famous for torture and worse - killing prisoners and so on. And far from that, he instead said, well, let me give you the name and a phone number, which he knew from memory, of a Saudi Prince, not one of the senior ministers, and said he'll know, and he said tell him I'm here and he'll know what do to. And he subsequently named two other Saudi princes. All three of those Saudi Princes,and this is a fact, all died within a week of each other shortly thereafter. There is the thought, and of course all things can be explained by chance, but it is extremely interesting and full of implications that all three of them died by chance within a week of each other, and the thought is that maybe it was time to shut them up." CR: The book is called The Eleventh Day, the True Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, written by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. http://www.charliero...interview/11800 with Anthony Summers in Current Affairs, Books, History Wednesday, July 20, 2011 Billsbooksblog Charlie Rose: This fall marks the tenth anniversary of the9/11 attacks. The recent killing of Osama Bin Laden marked the defining momentin the fight against al Qaeda. Conspiracy theories still linger about theevents of September 11th. A new book by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan explores someof the questions. An excerpt exploring the connection between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 hijackers, appears inthis months Vanity Fair Magazine. The Kingdom and the Towers Here's the book's co-author Anthony Summers. I'm pleased tohave you back. He's an old friend from a long time ago, welcome. Robby is your coauthorand your wife. AS: Both. For twenty years wife. CR: And five years working together on this project. You beganto realize all these conspiracy theories had to do with 9/11, and so you wantedto what? AS: When I came to see my publisher at Random House in NewYork, I found my own publisher, a very senior publisher herself, didn't believeall the conspiracy theories but felt that in some way the public has been cheated,and there was some secret there. CR: So your publisher put you on the trail as you say, "thereis a lingering sense the nation and the world had been let down." AS: And the other tenant of the conspiracy theories - the Skepticsas they prefer to be called, thought in some way the Bush administration had eitherhad some warning or knew something was coming but allowed it to happen tofurther their plans to invade the Middle East – as it turned out in Iraq. Or atthe extreme ends of conspiracy theories in which they actually provoked theattacks themselves. Here and now it seems daft, but there were enough straws inthe wind to say - go look at this. CR: So now you have a book. So what is it you think happenedthat we don't know? AS: I hope to successfully dispatch, for a sane America,most of the conspiracy theory ideas. CR: Send them away. AS: Exactly, but I think what happened is those ideas andthe lingering thoughts about them have distorted the facts and blurred thethings that one should really be concerned about, and there are a lot of thingsone should still be concerned about this puzzle… CR: And they are? AS: The first of them I think is what US Intelligence actuallyknew and what it did about it in advance. The first two terrorists who arrivedon US soil hadbeen identified by the CIA, they knew that theywere al Qaeda, they knew their names, they knew they had US visas, and in oncecase they learned quite quickly one had arrived in the United States, and yet they did not tell the FBI. CR: What do you believe was the relationship between theSaudi government or the leading figures in Saudi Arabia and the men who were on those planeson 9/11? AS: There are two areas. The first of the areas, in theperiod - in the years leading up to 9/11 there is good evidence - and we name twoof the princes involved in the book Prince Naef, who had been for a long timethe head of the interior, the internal intelligence, and Prince Sultan, who wasthe defense chief in Saudi Arabia, and is now second highest to the throne, itis said - as recorded in the Wall Street Journal, that they raised a lot ofmoney over the years to pay off Bin Laden not to attack Saudi Arabia. He wasoutside he was in Afghanistan- not to attack Saudi Arabia.In this country if you and I were talking about the Mafia, we would call itprotection money. That is one area, and the people who investigated 9/11 andearlier at the CIA, concluded that theSaudis had been paid protection money for a long time. The second area that I think is especially interesting, thatboth the joint inquires – and 9/11 Commission delved into it. When the men onthe ground in California arrived,they arrived, and the evidence suggests than an Imam, the religious man at theSaudi consulate first gave them a tour of the area in Los Angeles. And that then after that the two of themconnected with another Saudi, who was paid from official sources but apparentlynot for doing any known work, and had been thought of for a long time as aSaudi agent, they connected with him in a meeting that was odd. He said he heardArabic being talked in a restaurant and the meeting was by pure chance, itdoesn't sound like it. In fact it sounds like a vary bad spy novel; it doesn'tsound like pure chance. He then dropped a newspaper and talked to them as theypicked it up. He then gave them help….They didn't speak English, they were prettymuch lost in California, and theywere pioneers if you will of the 9/11operation, the guys who arrived first. Therewere other Saudis who helped them one way or another, - all either left immediatelyon 9/11 or had left two or three weeks before. CR: We have the distinguished investigative reporter from Ireland, who I used to know from the BBC, what isit did he discover that ought to draw our attention, and what should be theconsequences of that discovery is what I'm asking? AS: Back to the beginning of our conversation and you askedme why I was doing the book and I said I wanted to look at the conspiracystuff, which certainly had elements of it that convinced huge numbers ofAmericans and equally important huge numbers of people around the world. Thelast poll I saw suggests that 46% of people abroad, which is what the poll wasmostly referring to - people in the middle east, believe that someone otherthan al Qaeda were responsible. Rubbish, of course al Qaeda was behind it. I wanted to deal with the conspiracy theoriesbut get as close as possible to that elusive thing we call the truth and then…… CR: Of all those conspiracies, which one do you think hasmerit? AS: If you are referring to conspiracy theories, I don't think any of them havemerit. CR: Okay, so none of the conspiracy theories have any merit,good. AS: No. I don't think so. At the same time, I think that withthis book we hope to get closer to clarity to the issues that do seem tomatter, and one of the big ones is - were elements of a foreign government involved?And I think we are closer to the idea that elements of the Saudi government wereinvolved. CR: And the nature of their involvement was what? AS: Collaboration with Bin Lade through protection money. CR: (Did they have) knowledge of what Bin Laden was doing? AS: Well, we do have first confirmation, from a former servingCIA officer who was involved in the captureof a bin Laden aide called Abu Zubaydah. And he says that he learned afterwardsthat when Abu Zubaydah was being questioned, he was intensely questioned overweeks, that at one point he was conned into thinking he was being transferredto Saudi custody, with the idea that he would be terrified to tell what he knewbecause the Saudis are famous for torture and worse - killing prisoners and soon. And far from that, he instead said, well,let me give you the name and a phone number, which he knew from memory, of aSaudi Prince, not one of the senior ministers, and said he'll know, and he saidtell him I'm here and he'll know what do to. And he subsequently named twoother Saudi princes. All three of those Saudi Princes, and this is a fact, alldied within a week of each other shortly thereafter. There is the thought, and ofcourse all things can be explained by chance, but it is extremely interestingand full of implications that all three of them died by chance within a week ofeach other, and the thought is that maybe it was time to shut them up. CR: The book is called The Eleventh Day, the True Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, written byAnthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted August 27, 2011 Author Share Posted August 27, 2011 Doesn't anybody think that the possible assassination of three Saudi princes related to 9/11 is worth looking into? quote name='William Kelly' date='09 August 2011 - 08:09 AM' timestamp='1312870163' post='232594'] Anthony Summers, in an inerview with Charlie Rose, says that three Saudi Princes whose names a terrorist had given up, all died mysteriously within a week of each other, which he considers suspicious. Does anyone else? "...Abu Zubaydah was being questioned, he was intensely questioned over weeks, that at one point he was conned into thinking he was being transferred to Saudi custody, with the idea that he would be terrified to tell what he knew because the Saudis are famous for torture and worse - killing prisoners and so on. And far from that, he instead said, well, let me give you the name and a phone number, which he knew from memory, of a Saudi Prince, not one of the senior ministers, and said he'll know, and he said tell him I'm here and he'll know what do to. And he subsequently named two other Saudi princes. All three of those Saudi Princes,and this is a fact, all died within a week of each other shortly thereafter. There is the thought, and of course all things can be explained by chance, but it is extremely interesting and full of implications that all three of them died by chance within a week of each other, and the thought is that maybe it was time to shut them up." CR: The book is called The Eleventh Day, the True Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, written by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. http://www.charliero...interview/11800 with Anthony Summers in Current Affairs, Books, History Wednesday, July 20, 2011 Billsbooksblog Charlie Rose: This fall marks the tenth anniversary of the9/11 attacks. The recent killing of Osama Bin Laden marked the defining momentin the fight against al Qaeda. Conspiracy theories still linger about theevents of September 11th. A new book by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan explores someof the questions. An excerpt exploring the connection between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 hijackers, appears inthis months Vanity Fair Magazine. The Kingdom and the Towers Here's the book's co-author Anthony Summers. I'm pleased tohave you back. He's an old friend from a long time ago, welcome. Robby is your coauthorand your wife. AS: Both. For twenty years wife. CR: And five years working together on this project. You beganto realize all these conspiracy theories had to do with 9/11, and so you wantedto what? AS: When I came to see my publisher at Random House in NewYork, I found my own publisher, a very senior publisher herself, didn't believeall the conspiracy theories but felt that in some way the public has been cheated,and there was some secret there. CR: So your publisher put you on the trail as you say, "thereis a lingering sense the nation and the world had been let down." AS: And the other tenant of the conspiracy theories - the Skepticsas they prefer to be called, thought in some way the Bush administration had eitherhad some warning or knew something was coming but allowed it to happen tofurther their plans to invade the Middle East – as it turned out in Iraq. Or atthe extreme ends of conspiracy theories in which they actually provoked theattacks themselves. Here and now it seems daft, but there were enough straws inthe wind to say - go look at this. CR: So now you have a book. So what is it you think happenedthat we don't know? AS: I hope to successfully dispatch, for a sane America,most of the conspiracy theory ideas. CR: Send them away. AS: Exactly, but I think what happened is those ideas andthe lingering thoughts about them have distorted the facts and blurred thethings that one should really be concerned about, and there are a lot of thingsone should still be concerned about this puzzle… CR: And they are? AS: The first of them I think is what US Intelligence actuallyknew and what it did about it in advance. The first two terrorists who arrivedon US soil hadbeen identified by the CIA, they knew that theywere al Qaeda, they knew their names, they knew they had US visas, and in oncecase they learned quite quickly one had arrived in the United States, and yet they did not tell the FBI. CR: What do you believe was the relationship between theSaudi government or the leading figures in Saudi Arabia and the men who were on those planeson 9/11? AS: There are two areas. The first of the areas, in theperiod - in the years leading up to 9/11 there is good evidence - and we name twoof the princes involved in the book Prince Naef, who had been for a long timethe head of the interior, the internal intelligence, and Prince Sultan, who wasthe defense chief in Saudi Arabia, and is now second highest to the throne, itis said - as recorded in the Wall Street Journal, that they raised a lot ofmoney over the years to pay off Bin Laden not to attack Saudi Arabia. He wasoutside he was in Afghanistan- not to attack Saudi Arabia.In this country if you and I were talking about the Mafia, we would call itprotection money. That is one area, and the people who investigated 9/11 andearlier at the CIA, concluded that theSaudis had been paid protection money for a long time. The second area that I think is especially interesting, thatboth the joint inquires – and 9/11 Commission delved into it. When the men onthe ground in California arrived,they arrived, and the evidence suggests than an Imam, the religious man at theSaudi consulate first gave them a tour of the area in Los Angeles. And that then after that the two of themconnected with another Saudi, who was paid from official sources but apparentlynot for doing any known work, and had been thought of for a long time as aSaudi agent, they connected with him in a meeting that was odd. He said he heardArabic being talked in a restaurant and the meeting was by pure chance, itdoesn't sound like it. In fact it sounds like a vary bad spy novel; it doesn'tsound like pure chance. He then dropped a newspaper and talked to them as theypicked it up. He then gave them help….They didn't speak English, they were prettymuch lost in California, and theywere pioneers if you will of the 9/11operation, the guys who arrived first. Therewere other Saudis who helped them one way or another, - all either left immediatelyon 9/11 or had left two or three weeks before. CR: We have the distinguished investigative reporter from Ireland, who I used to know from the BBC, what isit did he discover that ought to draw our attention, and what should be theconsequences of that discovery is what I'm asking? AS: Back to the beginning of our conversation and you askedme why I was doing the book and I said I wanted to look at the conspiracystuff, which certainly had elements of it that convinced huge numbers ofAmericans and equally important huge numbers of people around the world. Thelast poll I saw suggests that 46% of people abroad, which is what the poll wasmostly referring to - people in the middle east, believe that someone otherthan al Qaeda were responsible. Rubbish, of course al Qaeda was behind it. I wanted to deal with the conspiracy theoriesbut get as close as possible to that elusive thing we call the truth and then…… CR: Of all those conspiracies, which one do you think hasmerit? AS: If you are referring to conspiracy theories, I don't think any of them havemerit. CR: Okay, so none of the conspiracy theories have any merit,good. AS: No. I don't think so. At the same time, I think that withthis book we hope to get closer to clarity to the issues that do seem tomatter, and one of the big ones is - were elements of a foreign government involved?And I think we are closer to the idea that elements of the Saudi government wereinvolved. CR: And the nature of their involvement was what? AS: Collaboration with Bin Lade through protection money. CR: (Did they have) knowledge of what Bin Laden was doing? AS: Well, we do have first confirmation, from a former servingCIA officer who was involved in the captureof a bin Laden aide called Abu Zubaydah. And he says that he learned afterwardsthat when Abu Zubaydah was being questioned, he was intensely questioned overweeks, that at one point he was conned into thinking he was being transferredto Saudi custody, with the idea that he would be terrified to tell what he knewbecause the Saudis are famous for torture and worse - killing prisoners and soon. And far from that, he instead said, well,let me give you the name and a phone number, which he knew from memory, of aSaudi Prince, not one of the senior ministers, and said he'll know, and he saidtell him I'm here and he'll know what do to. And he subsequently named twoother Saudi princes. All three of those Saudi Princes, and this is a fact, alldied within a week of each other shortly thereafter. There is the thought, and ofcourse all things can be explained by chance, but it is extremely interestingand full of implications that all three of them died by chance within a week ofeach other, and the thought is that maybe it was time to shut them up. CR: The book is called The Eleventh Day, the True Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, written byAnthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Who were the princes who died? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted August 28, 2011 Author Share Posted August 28, 2011 Who were the princes who died? Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz - horseman - heart attack following abdominal surgery - 43 years old Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki bin Abdullah al Saud - nephew of king (car accident) Prince bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir - cousin of king "died of thirst." All died in July 2002 shortly after they were named as contacts by senior OBL aid Abu Zubaydah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) Who were the princes who died? Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz - horseman - heart attack following abdominal surgery - 43 years old Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki bin Abdullah al Saud - nephew of king (car accident) Prince bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir - cousin of king "died of thirst." All died in July 2002 shortly after they were named as contacts by senior OBL aid Abu Zubaydah Interestingly this story seems to have originated with a certain Gerald Posner who I don't think Kelly or Summers normally consider a reliable source. It seems that the 1st and 3rd prince died in July 2002 as claimed but that Prince Faisal bin Turki bin Abdullah Al Saud was still alive in 2008*. Let's not forget that there are probablly hundreds of Saudi princes. That said it would NOT surprise me if the Americans and/or Saudis bumped off people who helped AQ. * http://www.hajinformation.com/display_news.php?id=994 Edited August 28, 2011 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share Posted August 29, 2011 Who were the princes who died? Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz - horseman - heart attack following abdominal surgery - 43 years old Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki bin Abdullah al Saud - nephew of king (car accident) Prince bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir - cousin of king "died of thirst." All died in July 2002 shortly after they were named as contacts by senior OBL aid Abu Zubaydah Interestingly this story seems to have originated with a certain Gerald Posner who I don't think Kelly or Summers normally consider a reliable source. It seems that the 1st and 3rd prince died in July 2002 as claimed but that Prince Faisal bin Turki bin Abdullah Al Saud was still alive in 2008*. Let's not forget that there are probablly hundreds of Saudi princes. That said it would NOT surprise me if the Americans and/or Saudis bumped off people who helped AQ. * http://www.hajinform...news.php?id=994 Thanks for your interest Len. It's hard to believe that any original research would originate with such a serial plagiarist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Thanks for your interest Len. It's hard to believe that any original research would originate with such a serial plagiarist. You're welcome Bill. Posner claimed 3 princes died in July 2002 but seems to have counted one who was still alive years later.According to one expert on Saudi Arabia there are “more than one hundred grandsons of the kingdom's founder” and “approximately 6,000 (other) princes of the larger al-Saud family”. According to some sources the country’s crude death rate in 2002 was 5.86 per 1000 so we would expect about 36 princes to have died that year or an average of 3 a month, but of course some months more would die and others less. Thus as far as can be determined the number of prices who died was less than the statistical average or if one would argue that the death rate for young adult/middle-aged princes should be lower than that of the general population, July 2002 was par or slightly above ‘par for the course’. But who had recently been questioned over their ties to AQ dying the same month would he highly suspicious, but what evidence did Summers cite? Did he merely cite Posner? http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2526 http://www.faqs.org/docs/factbook/print/sa.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted August 31, 2011 Author Share Posted August 31, 2011 Thanks for your interest Len. It's hard to believe that any original research would originate with such a serial plagiarist. You're welcome Bill. Posner claimed 3 princes died in July 2002 but seems to have counted one who was still alive years later.According to one expert on Saudi Arabia there are "more than one hundred grandsons of the kingdom's founder" and "approximately 6,000 (other) princes of the larger al-Saud family". According to some sources the country's crude death rate in 2002 was 5.86 per 1000 so we would expect about 36 princes to have died that year or an average of 3 a month, but of course some months more would die and others less. Thus as far as can be determined the number of prices who died was less than the statistical average or if one would argue that the death rate for young adult/middle-aged princes should be lower than that of the general population, July 2002 was par or slightly above 'par for the course'. But who had recently been questioned over their ties to AQ dying the same month would he highly suspicious, but what evidence did Summers cite? Did he merely cite Posner? http://www.washingto...05.php?CID=2526 http://www.faqs.org/...k/print/sa.html ' Somers interviewed the CIA agent who helped capture a top al Qaeda operative who when when told he was to be transferred to the Saudis, offered the names and phone numbers from memory of three Saudi Princes, all of whom died within a short period of time. The implication is that the three mentioned by the terrorist died suspiciously, and may have been assassinated. I don't know how Posner got involved, and he isn't listed as source in Summers' book as far as I recall. They cite a CIA source. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Posner wrote about this a few years ago, so I assume Sommers owes him a hat tip. Kudos to Summers though for interviewing the CIA agent presumably the same one "Case Closed" spoke to but all men's credibility is seriously dented by reporting that a prince who was still alive died in July 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Bill,-9 Why does it matter if three princes were killed by state actors as a result of information of no relevant actionable intelligence was "drawn" out of a brain damaged, low value, prisoner? How well do you think a book asking why former PRESIDENT Cheney is free to do a book signing tour, in the wake of his admitted torture scheme, among a litany of his crimes against humanity and counter to Senate ratified U.S. treaty commitments, formerly regarded under U.S. law, AS LAW, and Obama is complicit through his failure to investigate, the wanton torture of Abu Zubadayah, approved by the former president Bush, would sell, compared to the theme fo mysterious intrigue "AS" and his publisher are shilling? Our own DOJ admitted in court that Abu Zubadayah is a nobody, yet he has been held more than 9-1/2 years without being charged with any crime. He cannot be charged or tried because he was an inconsequential, brain damaged man, literally mentally and physically destroyed on the approval of the Bush Cheney white house. But that is a story with no market for a book publisher. The last administration kidnapped, rendered, and tortured people, Bill. The current administration seems to have no problem with those crimes. Could you have imagined you'd live in a country that would tortured and hold a man nearly a decade without so much as filing even a single charge against him? Did you anticipate that one president would order people tortured and his successor would mouth words of reason, rule of law and accountability, with no intention of actually practicing such law enforcement and restoration of sanity and legality? That scenario does not sell books.... http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/01/obama/index.htmlSep 1, 2011 13:02 ET Top CIA official: Obama "changed virtually nothing" PBS's Frontline is airing an examination of "Top Secret America" on September 6. The show includes a rare and lengthy interview with 34-year-CIA-veteran John Rizzo, who is described as "the most influential lawyer in CIA history." PBS is promoting that interview this way: ... With a notable exception of the enhanced interrogation program, the incoming Obama administration changed virtually nothing with respect to existing CIA programs and operations. Things continued. Authorities were continued that were originally granted by President Bush beginning shortly after 9/11. Those were all picked up, reviewed and endorsed by the Obama administration. Frontline adds that while candidate Obama "promised a sweeping overhaul of the Bush administration’s war on terror" and "a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our abilities to confront them," Rizzo explains that, in fact, Obama officials during the transition made clear to the CIA that they intended almost complete continuity. .... .....Obviously -- other than the important added detail that this was all planned even before the inauguration -- none of this is new to anyone paying even minimal attention (see Update II). ... ....Jack Goldsmith in The New Republic in May, 2009, made the insightful point that not only was Obama continuing these core Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, but was actually strengthening them by, among other things, converting them from right-wing dogma into bipartisan consensus. So none of this is new, to put it mildly. Still -- given how much Democrats once opportunistically pretended to find these policies so deeply offensive and intolerable -- the more this realization spreads, the better. Rizzo's comments and Frontline's program ought to accomplish that. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/government-walks-back-hyp_n_520007.htmlGovernment Walks Back Hyped-Up Claims About Abu Zubaydah In Declassified Filing First Posted: 03-31-10 11:02 AM | Updated: 05-31-10 Back in February, I had the opportunity to speak to Brent Mickum of Hollingsworth LLP, who is serving as part of the defense team for Gitmo detainee and suspected terrorist Zayn Al Abidin Muhammed Husayn, also known as Abu Zubaydah. At the time, Mickum told the Huffington Post that the government had responded to his discovery motion with a filing that did not include "claims that Abu Zubaydah was a member of al Qaeda." He went on to qualify that, saying, "I am not saying that there are not extant claims in the government's case that require a defense." That government motion is now declassified, and it basically bears this out. The basic case the government is making is summed up on pages 35 and 36 of the filing: Evidence indicating that Petitioner [Zubaydah] is not a member of al-Qaida or had ideological differences with al-Qaida is not inconsistent with the factual allegations made in the Government's factual return, because the Government has not contended in this proceeding that Petitioner was a member of al-Qaida or otherwise formally identified with al-Qaida. Instead, the Government's detention of Petitioner is based on Petitioner's actions as an affiliate of al-Qaida.... The truth about Abu Zubaydah - guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/mar/30/guantanamo-abu-zubaydah-torture Mar 30, 2009 – Brent Mickum: The Bush administration's false claim that my client was a top al-Qaida official has led to his imprisonment and torture..... FBI, CIA Debate Significance of Terror Suspect Agencies Also Disagree On Interrogation Methods http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121702151_pf.html By Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, December 18, 2007 Al-Qaeda captive Abu Zubaida, whose interrogation videotapes were destroyed by the CIA, remains the subject of a dispute between FBI and CIA officials over his significance as a terrorism suspect and whether his most important revelations came from traditional interrogations or from torture. While CIA officials have described him as an important insider whose disclosures under intense pressure saved lives, some FBI agents and analysts say he is largely a loudmouthed and mentally troubled hotelier whose credibility dropped as the CIA subjected him to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding and to other "enhanced interrogation" measures. The question of whether Abu Zubaida -- whose real name is Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein -- was an unstable source who provided limited intelligence under gentle questioning, or a hardened terrorist who cracked under extremely harsh measures, goes to the heart of the current Washington debate over coercive interrogations and torture. ...Former CIA director George J. Tenet, in his book recounting his tenure at the agency, also said claims that Abu Zubaida's importance was overstated were "baloney." Tenet wrote: "Abu Zubaydah had been at the crossroads of many al-Qaida operations and was in position to -- and did -- share critical information with his interrogators." But FBI officials, including agents who questioned him after his capture or reviewed documents seized from his home, have concluded that even though he knew some al-Qaeda players, he provided interrogators with increasingly dubious information as the CIA's harsh treatment intensified in late 2002. In legal papers prepared for a military hearing, Abu Zubaida himself has asserted that he told his interrogators whatever they wanted to hear to make the treatment stop. Retired FBI agent Daniel Coleman, who led an examination of documents after Abu Zubaida's capture in early 2002 and worked on the case, said the CIA's harsh tactics cast doubt on the credibility of Abu Zubaida's information. "I don't have confidence in anything he says, because once you go down that road, everything you say is tainted," Coleman said, referring to the harsh measures. "He was talking before they did that to him, but they didn't believe him. The problem is they didn't realize he didn't know all that much."... ...Other officials, including Bush, have said that during those early weeks -- before the interrogation turned harsh -- Abu Zubaida confirmed that Mohammed's role as the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. A rift nonetheless swiftly developed between FBI agents, who were largely pleased with the progress of the questioning, and CIA officers, who felt Abu Zubaida was holding out on them and providing disinformation. Tensions came to a head after FBI agents witnessed the use of some harsh tactics on Abu Zubaida, including keeping him naked in his cell, subjecting him to extreme cold and bombarding him with loud rock music. "They said, 'You've got to be kidding me,' " said Coleman, recalling accounts from FBI employees who were there. " 'This guy's a Muslim. That's not going to win his confidence. Are you trying to get information out of him or just belittle him?' " Coleman helped lead the bureau's efforts against Osama bin Laden for a decade, ending in 2004. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III eventually ordered the FBI team to withdraw from the interrogation, largely because bureau procedures prohibit agents from being involved in such techniques, according to several officials familiar with the episode.... ..Coleman, a 31-year FBI veteran, joined other former law enforcement colleagues in expressing skepticism about Abu Zubaida's importance. Abu Zubaida, he said in an interview, was a "safehouse keeper" with mental problems who claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did. Abu Zubaida's diary, which Coleman said he examined at length, was written in three distinct personalities -- one younger, one older and one the same age as Abu Zubaida. The book was full of flowery and philosophical meanderings, and made little mention of terrorism or al-Qaeda, Coleman said. Looking at other evidence, including a serious head injury that Abu Zubaida had suffered years earlier, Coleman and others at the FBI believed that he had severe mental problems that called his credibility into question. "They all knew he was crazy, and they knew he was always on the damn phone," Coleman said, referring to al-Qaeda operatives. "You think they're going to tell him anything?" Tenet disagreed, writing in his book that CIA psychiatrists concluded that Abu Zubaida "was using a sophisticated literary device to express himself" in the diary, which was "hundreds of pages" long. Coleman said reports of Abu Zubaida's statements during his early, traditional interrogation were "consistent with who he was and what he would possibly know." He and other officials said that materials seized from Abu Zubaida's house and other locations, including names, telephone numbers and computer laptops, provided crucial information about al-Qaeda and its network. But, Coleman and other law enforcement officials said, CIA officials concluded to the contrary that Abu Zubaida was a major player, and they saw any lack of information as evidence that he was resisting interrogation. Much of the threat information provided by Abu Zubaida, Coleman said, "was crap." "There's an agency mind-set that there was always some sort of golden apple out there, but there just isn't, especially with guys like him," Coleman said. Abu Zubadayah could have influenced officials in the Bush administarion to order or pressure anyone to kill anybody, but what does it matter who as killed because of what was "learned" from Abu Zubadayah, now that the U.S. government lawyers have sworn in a federal court that Abu Zubadayah was nobody and was not involved in the 9/11 plot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now