HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » The protection money theo...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:19 PM

The protection money theory

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)

I think this belongs in the forum because it is a creative theory.

The theory suggests that Saudi royals made a deal with Bin Laden. They would pay him millions of dollars so long as he did not attack inside Saudi Arabia. For some reason we are supposed to believe that Bin Laden had all the leverage. Former Senator Bob Graham and the authors of The Eleventh Day (Summers and Swan) support this explanation. Yet it is important to remember that some powerful Saudis were also supporters of Bin Laden. So evidently they both feared and supported him.

Why didn't the Saudis simply kill Bin Laden? They could have blamed Israel or the US to avoid upsetting Bin Laden supporters and in the process saved millions of dollars. Was it because the supporters wanted him to attack outside Saudi Arabia? If so then we should be talking about a murderer for hire. A terrorist hitman.

10 replies, 1764 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply The protection money theory (Original post)
noise Dec 2011 OP
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #1
noise Jan 2012 #2
BeFree Jan 2012 #3
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #4
JDPriestly Jan 2012 #5
noise Jan 2012 #7
JDPriestly Jan 2012 #8
noise Jan 2012 #9
lostnote12 Jan 2012 #10
deconstruct911 Jan 2012 #6

Response to noise (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:48 AM

1. interesting idea

I think it's a great subject for a thread here, one of the best since DU3 kicked off.

I'm probably missing something, but I don't see why you call it the "hush money theory." It seems somewhere between a protection money theory and a paid killer theory.

I haven't read either Graham's book or The Eleventh Day, so I'm not clear about what you're saying in the second paragraph. Are you saying that these authors agree that bin Laden had all the leverage, so the Saudis had to pay him not to attack them -- but in your view, the Saudis positively wanted him to attack as long as he didn't attack them (i.e., presumably, as long as he attacked the United States and/or Israel)? Not that they positively hired him to do so, but they were happy to expect that he would?

What part of this do you think is supported by evidence, and which part do you construe as speculative? That isn't a trick question -- I have no problem with speculation beyond the evidence.

Would Osama bin Laden have to be paid not to attack inside Saudi Arabia? I can see that a U.S. military base there would be an attractive target, if feasible, but I can also see the point in favoring (1) easier and (2) more visible targets.

I don't immediately see how the Saudis could be sure that blaming Israel or the US would be sure to avoid upsetting bin Laden supporters. If I were a Saudi royal, I'm not sure I would want to have that conversation with bin Laden family members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:08 PM

2. I fixed the title. It is a protection money theory.

The authors presumably believe Bin Laden was in a position to threaten the royal family because they evidently paid him millions in protection money.

I don't know what the Saudi royals really wanted. My guess is that the protection money theory is a cover story to disguise royal family support of Bin Laden (at least by some members of the royal family). I would like to know the real dealings between Bin Laden, the royal family and US factions.

Bin Laden was definitely on US radar by '96. The Clinton administration tried to kill him in '98 and several other times according to Michael Scheuer (1st chief of Alec Station). So a Saudi murder of Bin Laden blamed on the US or Israel (since Israel was a stated enemy of Bin Laden) would have been expected. Should we believe that the Saudis are unfamiliar with covert operations? That the only way they could kill Bin Laden would have been by openly admitting sponsorship? Of course not.

Most of the discussions about 9/11 related topics are speculative because there is so much secrecy. I would love to know what Prince Bandar discussed with Tenet two days before the attacks or what he discussed with President Bush before and after the attacks. I would like to know the true nature of the dealings between some royal family members and the hijackers. I would like to know why the CIA and FBI UBLU withheld information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar from the Cole investigators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:53 PM

3. Royal Saudis are the real winners of 9/11

They have been in peace ever since.

And * kissed several of the royals besides letting them fly out of the US before the FBI could question them about 9/11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 06:16 PM

4. OK

I didn't suggest that the Saudis didn't have any covert ops capability; I'm not so sure they could have pinned an assassination on the U.S. or Israel, as plausible as that might have been in the abstract. That said, they surely would have alternatives to merely giving OBL whatever he asked for. So, it's reasonable to wonder to what extent any deal with OBL reflected actual support, at least for attacks outside the country.

I think it's genuinely odd that questions like yours don't attract more attention than interminable arguments about 9/11 physics. I suppose it is because people have some sense that they can clearly see the physics, whereas it is harder to convince ourselves that we know the answers to your questions. It's harder actually to speculate than just to pound the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 9, 2012, 10:17 PM

5. I think that you are on to something.

In the book, Price of Loyalty, there is a description of a party that Prince Bandar gave not too long after 9/11. The First Lady attended, I believe. I'm not sure that story is relevant to your idea, but somehow it came to mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 02:37 AM

7. Two key issues

1) Many leading advocates of the "push the envelope" counterterrorism policies after 9/11 were some of the very same people who refused to explain the Saudi connection and their role in it.

2) Proponents of the protection money theory do not make a connection between the pre-9/11 conduct of US intelligence and the Saudi connection. Thus Sen. Graham talks of sharing failures instead of honing in on a more likely explanation--US intelligence was ordered to back off. I have speculated that there may have been look the other way deniability. Thus some high level officials could block al Qaeda investigations on a general basis so as not to make the Saudi royals look bad. After 9/11 these officials could pretend that they had no idea that something bad would happen when al Qaeda investigations were obstructed.

There are other theories. I would use the example of a branch chart. We don't have good enough information to complete the chart so we are left to speculate the correct progression of the branches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:29 AM

8. The exit of the Bin Laden relatives after 9/11 raises further questions.

I found the report about their leaving during the no-flight moratorium in what I believe was a St. Petersburg, Fla. newspaper. That the Bin Ladens were allowed to leave while other flights in the US were grounded was refuted by some, but I am still inclined to think it was true because of the date on the report I read. There is also a great deal of controversy about whether the Bin Laden family members were adequately interviewed before they left the country. I wonder whether any of those family members who left the US returned here and if so, when and under what circumstances. They probably had nothing to do with 9/11, but they might have had very useful information for a serious investigation. That they were allowed to leave so quickly suggests that there was no need for any information that they might have provided -- that the US government already had all the information that the Bin Laden family members might have provided.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 12:35 AM

9. The explanations were weak

As best I remember there was some back and forth between the White House, Richard Clarke and Dale Watson (head of the FBI CT Division at the time). The basic story was that everyone was vetted before being given approval to depart. Contrast this kid gloves sort of cursory investigation with the indefinite detention and torture of suspected al Qaeda operatives. What sort of bizarre investigation was actually being conducted in regard to finding 9/11 perpetrators? Advocates of torture buy the notion that the super patriots in the Bush administration were so anxious to protect America from more terrorist attacks that they were willing to push the envelope. This argument doesn't ring true when contrasted with the refusal to properly investigate royal family connections to the attacks. Or when contrasted with the failure of the CIA and FBI to explain why their agents obstructed al Qaeda investigations. Or when the efficacy of the torture program is judged on its stated purpose of getting actionable intelligence. By all appearances the torture program was designed with ulterior intentions. One to taint evidence to avoid civilian courts. Two to attain false information intended to support a foreign policy agenda (i.e. invade Iraq). Three for political advantage--"tough on terror" resonated with much of the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 02:42 AM

10. Fasig-Tipton Fall Horse Sales(Lex.Ky)...

.....I believe this is the location of the flights destination to remove chosen Saudi family members......also remember the deaths of two Royal family members around 9-11.....one (derby winner owner if I recall) of a heart attack and the other a young member found alone in the desert within a week or two of 9-11........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 01:31 AM

6. CBC "The Saudi Connection" (2003)...Pretty old theory


"Now what happened later on, in the ‘90s, is the Saudis, who certainly had good intelligence on bin Laden, were not telling us that bin Laden had chosen a new enemy and that was the United States. Turki was not coming to us and saying: alright, listen, we got a problem with bin Laden. He’s coming after you. And also through the ‘90s, right up until 2001 and after 2001, Saudi Arabia was subsidizing the Taliban, indirectly subsidizing bin Laden. In one case I know about through the World Islamic League, the Saudi government sent money to bin Laden."


IT IS SAID THAT FROM MID-80S TO MID-90S, PRINCE TURKI MET PERSONALLY WITH BIN LADEN ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS – MOST RECENTLY ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE KOBAR TOWERS BOMBING. AND IT AGAIN HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT AT THAT MEETING, TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE GIVEN TO OSAMA BIN LADEN, EFFECTIVELY NOT TO ATTACK SAUDI INTERESTS.

I believe that, but I cannot confirm independently that that’s true. I mean I think you have to look at it from the Saudis’ point of view. They are buying protection money. And the fact is, they have not been victims of bin Laden. We have. We in the west.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/baer.pdf

I don't really trust Robert Baer but if you're a LIHOP dig in.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

I'm more compelled to believe the money laundering is a money trail worth pursuing with 9/11.

1988-92
"The BCCI scandal breaks. The bank is exposed as a massive criminal enterprise, having catered, during it's history, to some of the most notorious villains of the 20th century, including Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, terrorist leaders Abu Nidal, and the Medellin drug cartel, as well as for being involved in money laundering and the Iran contra scandal and for pilfering investors' cash. Following BCCI's seizure in 1991, Khalid Bin Mahfouz (see above) was indicted in New York State on the grounds that he had withdrawn sizable investments in the bank just before it was seized. In the end, all the charges and claims were dropped after he made payments of $225 million into a Federal Reserve settlement account mainly for the benefit of depositors and creditors who had suffered losses and $245 million to BCCI's court-appointed Liquidators also for the benefit of depositors and creditors."




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread