Video - 9/11: The day that never ended

OPINION: Spotlight Still on Saudi Arabia 20 Years After 9/11

By DANIEL R. DEPETRIS

Twenty years after the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history, there is still a lot we don't know about the months leading up to that painful day. One of the outstanding questions is whether the Saudi government, or at the very least officials within the Saudi government, supported, financed, or enabled the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and Shanksville, Pa. in any way. Since 2002, families of the 9/11 victims have devoted their lives to finding answers. Riyadh has been the target of numerous lawsuits in an attempt to force more information into the public domain.

As far as we know, the Saudi government as a whole didn't aid the 9/11 hijackers. The 9/11 Commission examined the issue and concluded that while Al-Qaeda often tapped wealthy Saudis for donations, they "found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization." The Saudi royal family, after all, kicked Osama bin Laden out of the kingdom in the early 1990s and froze his assets. Riyadh also reached out to the Taliban after the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, hoping it could convince the movement to extricate Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan.

Yet it's indisputable that some Saudis had connections with some Al-Qaeda terrorists who turned four commercial airliners into fully-fueled missiles. Omar al-Bayoumi, whom FBI agents believed was a Saudi intelligence agent, assisted Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi with finding an apartment when the two hijackers settled in San Diego a year before the attacks. Mohamed Atta, Ziad Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi, three more 9/11 hijackers, were frequent visitors to the Florida home of Abdulaziz and Anoud al-Hiji, the son-in-law and daughter of a former consultant to the Saudi royal family. According to the joint congressional inquiry looking into 9/11, the wife of Osama Bassnan, another Saudi national and a close associate of al-Bayoumi, received funds from the wife of Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. at the time. And when Al-Qaeda associate Abu Zubaydah was captured in Pakistan, discovered in his possession was a book of phone numbers, one of which was an unlisted company managed by Prince Bandar's estate.

The Saudi government dismissed these findings as a series of coincidences. However, the fact that some Saudi citizens were running in the same circles as the 9/11 perpetrators—and that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals—was more than enough to strain relations between Washington and Riyadh immediately after the attacks.

After 9/11, the Saudi government understood it had a horrible perception problem on its hands. Riyadh also knew it needed to do a far better job at taming extremism. But those efforts didn't come to fruition until the kingdom itself was the target of terrorist attacks. On May 12, 2003, Al-Qaeda suicide bombers killed 35 people in three Riyadh housing units (Americans were among the dead). Saudi security forces engaged in frequent shootouts with Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Mecca, Riyadh and southern Jizan province in the same year. In April 2004, a bomb destroyed a five-story building in the Saudi capital, killing four people. Americans and other Westerners were frequent targets for terrorist attacks in the kingdom; one particularly brazen attack on May 29-30, 2004 resulted in the deaths of 30 people after gunmen took hostages at the Oasis residential building in Khobar.

It was these attacks that prompted the Saudi government to take Al-Qaeda seriously. Under the stewardship of Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef (MBN), who was the deputy interior minister at the time, Saudi Arabia developed a highly effective internal counterterrorism capability that managed to wipe out Al-Qaeda fighters in the kingdom and dismantle numerous cells throughout the country. Former CIA Director George Tenet considered MBN to be a highly valuable counterterrorism partner for the United States (MBN, who would rise to become crown prince, is now living in pain under a form of house arrest courtesy of his younger cousin, current Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman). That high distinction was illustrated in 2010, when a Saudi intelligence tip helped foil an Al-Qaeda bombing of UPS and FedEx cargo aircraft that were set to land in Chicago.

The Saudis, however, are hardly fool-proof U.S. partners. While the kingdom has gotten better at interdicting money before it gets into the hands of charities, companies and individuals associated with terrorism, it took prodding from the Financial Action Task Force for Riyadh to adequately implement U.N. Security Council terrorism sanctions. In a 2009 State Department memo, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." Saudis also made up a big proportion of foreign terrorist fighters in both the Islamic State and its predecessor organization, Al-Qaeda in Iraq. And in December 2019, a Saudi air force cadet training with the U.S. military in Pensacola, Fla. killed three people, purportedly at the encouragement of Al-Qaeda (a month later, the Trump administration expelled 21 Saudi cadets over possession of jihadist material).

These examples, of course, don't mean that Saudis themselves are somehow predisposed to engaging in acts of terrorism. Many Saudis are terrific people who pride themselves on their history and warm hospitality.

But let's face it: two decades after 9/11, Saudi Arabia's political leadership has a long way to go in cracking down on the sources of terrorism funding. At the same time Washington maintains a constructive, mutually beneficial security relationship with Saudi Arabia when necessary, it shouldn't shy away from reprimanding Riyadh when it doesn't live up to high standards. While the Saudi royal family may be fortunate enough to sit on about a quarter of the world's crude oil reserves, they aren't infallible.

https://www.newsweek.com/spotlight-still-saudi-arabia-20-years-after-9-11-opinion-1627581

From Chine: Commentary: The hypocrisy of Western politicians' concern over Hong Kong

 The recent preposterous accusations by a bunch of Western politicians against the Hong Kong police's law-based arrests of some members of a notorious anti-China group have once again revealed their hypocrisy on issues related to the Chinese city.

Hong Kong is a society under the rule of law. No organization or individual has any privilege above the law. The Hong Kong police's operations are in line with the national security law, and have defended the sanctity of the rule of law.

A year after the implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong, the city has returned from chaos to stability and tranquility. The law has deterred anti-China forces in Hong Kong and blocked the intervention of external forces.

However, as stability returns to Hong Kong, some Western politicians are getting increasingly agitated. The reason is that they want to continue intervening in Hong Kong affairs and stirring up chaos there so as to disrupt China's development.

Those Western politicians have been used to tap human rights, democracy or freedom of speech as excuses to justify unlawful groups and individuals in Hong Kong. Their remarks and actions have already exposed their sinister intention to sabotage the rule of law in Hong Kong, obstruct the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region's law-based governance, and undermine the city's long-term peace and stability.

The double standards held by those Western politicians have also been brought into the sunlight.

While those Western politicians attempt to justify the criminal actions that put Hong Kong's stability in jeopardy, Western governments have never been weak in cracking down on acts that challenge national security, unity and social stability in their own countries.

The United States itself has the world's strictest national security laws, which applies to every inch of its territory. Washington has been relentless in cracking down on national security crimes and even willfully abuses the pretext of national security to undermine the legitimate rights and interests of other countries.

With the implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong, the city has already built up a solid law-based fortress against anti-China and destabilizing forces. The people in Hong Kong can now continue to enjoy their basic rights and freedom in accordance with the law.

As for those ill-intentioned Western politicians, no matter how hard they will try in the future, their scheme of intervention will always be doomed to fail. 

http://en.people.cn/n3/2021/0910/c90000-9894525.html

Russia 'Keeps Powder Dry' in Connection With Situation in Afghanistan, Lavrov Says

Russia now sees no reason to believe that the situation in Afghanistan will "spillover" to neighboring countries, but "keeps the powder dry," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

"We heard ... that they [the Taliban*] have no [ill] intentions, they will not create problems for their neighbors, including the countries of Central Asia, they have no plans to invade their territory," the minister said at the All Russia-2021 forum of modern journalism. According to the stateman, Russia is working with Central Asian countries with respect to Afghanistan.

"But now we have no reason to see a real threat of these turbulent events spilling over into the territory of our allies. We are doing everything to be ready for such a situation," Lavrov said, adding that Russia "is keeping the powder dry."

Moscow had no intention of sending a delegation to Afghanistan for the inauguration of the Taliban’s interim government, Lavrov added. "We never intended, I will tell you frankly, to recommend to our leadership to be represented there at the inauguration by a delegation from Moscow," the minister said.

Moscow considers an ambassador a "good enough level" for the country’s representation at the inauguration. The Russian embassy in Kabul is still operating, providing "very useful information," Lavrov added.

On Wednesday, a Taliban source told Sputnik that the movement invited Russia, China, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran for the inauguration ceremony of the Afghan interim government headed by Mullah Hasan Akhund, a close ally of the Islamist militant group's founder, Mullah Omar. A day later, however, the Taliban officially said the ceremony had been canceled several days ago.

*A terrorist organization banned in Russia

tps://sputniknews.com/20210910/russia-keeps-powder-dry-in-connection-with-situation-in-afghanistan-lavrov-says-1088962883.html

Music Video - Chlöe - Have Mercy

Video - Jen Psaki Holds Press Briefing After White House Institutes Covid Vaccine Mandate

Video - President Biden and the First Lady Deliver Remarks on Keeping Students Safe in Classrooms

Video Report - 2021 National HBCU Week STEM Roundtable with Vice President Kamala Harris

Video Report - Biden and Xi speak on phone for first time in seven months

Video Report - Student who was mocked over masks has a response for his hecklers

Music Video - Main Sharabi | Rajeev Raja and Nizami Brothers | Dj Sheizwood | Ajay Jaswal

Video -:حکومت اور الیکشن کمیشن میں کھڑاک؛ کپتان کی جارحانہ فیلڈنگ کیوں، دباؤ کمیشن پر یا “ایمپائر” پر؟

Video - Chairman PPP Bilawal Bhutto Zardari addresses the Workers Convention in Rahim Yar Khan

Pakistan Is an Arsonist That Wants You to Think It’s a Firefighter

By C. Christine Fair

Washington has an endless appetite for Islamabad’s con games.

On Aug. 27, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham tweeted, “Any sustainable solution in Afghanistan must include Pakistan,” while also expressing his appreciation for the “efforts of the Pakistani government to assist with the evacuation of U.S. citizens, our allies, and other nations.” His comments reflect a familiar play: Pakistan has spent decades setting fires in South Asia—and then expected praise and renumeration for offering to put them out.

It’s astonishing that U.S. officials continue to peddle Pakistan’s own fictions—alongside such media outlets as the BBC, as I discovered recently when I was cut off in the middle of an interview for speaking about it. But with the Afghanistan debacle on policymakers’ minds, it’s a good time to think critically about Washington’s perpetual vulnerability to Pakistan’s rent-seeking ruses. Both political parties have long been responsible for coddling Pakistan in hopes that there is some mystical U.S. policy that could reform its supposed wayward ally. Even though Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan goes back some seven decades, the Washington elite continues to fall for Pakistan’s efforts to sell itself as the solution to the very problems it created.

Pakistani officials tell a heart-wrenching story. Pakistan was minding its business when, in 1979, the United States persuaded Pakistan to shoulder the burden of the struggle against communism in Soviet-controlled Afghanistan. Pakistani officials contend that they were a victim of American perfidy when the latter forgot Pakistan existed in the 1990s, leaving Islamabad to contend with the mess—while Washington had the effrontery to impose sanctions on a bamboozled ally because of its well-known efforts to secure a nuclear weapon. But Pakistan’s interests in Afghanistan have deep roots. As Husain Haqqani, Rizwan Hussain, and I have shown, Islamabad inherited the British conception of Afghanistan as a buffer state with Russia. From the point of view of the security managers of a newly minted Pakistan, Pakistan inherited the most turbulent threat frontier with a fraction of the British Raj’s resources.

Afghanistan made early fateful decisions that would lock the country in an unwinnable security competition with Pakistan. Afghanistan initially attempted to block Pakistan’s bid to join the United Nations. Beginning in September 1950, Afghanistan began military incursions into Pakistan’s tribal agencies and Baluchistan province. Afghanistan’s efforts to antagonize its much stronger neighbor continued well into the 1970s.

Pakistan, seeking to influence its obstinate western neighbor, began supporting the growth of the reformist Islamist organization Jamaat-e-Islami in Afghanistan, where it originally had little support. This development was propitious. The majority of the so-called mujahideen groups that would eventually be mobilized by Pakistan were rooted in Jamaat-e-Islami.

After Mohammed Daoud Khan came to power in Afghanistan in 1973 and established a one-party republic that embarked on an aggressive top-down social reform program and purged Islamists and communists alike, Pakistan saw an opportunity. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took the helm of a vivisected Pakistan, which lost half of its population when Bangladesh gained independence in a 1971 war. Bhutto resolved to lose nothing else.

In August 1973, Bhutto set up the Afghan working group within Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate. Despite a brief interregnum, Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq continued with this policy after he ousted Bhutto in a July 1977 coup. Fifty or so Afghan resistance groups were consolidated by the ISI into a smaller, more manageable number. The ISI was tasked with deepening the links between Pakistani and Afghan Islamist groups. These efforts resulted in seven major Sunni Afghan Islamist militant groups, as well as several Shiite groups. By the time the Soviets had crossed the Amu Darya river into Afghanistan, Zia-ul-Haq’s army and the ISI had already created the key Islamist groups that would become the cornerstone of the so-called anti-Soviet jihad.

As I wrote recently in Foreign Policy, that involvement continues today. The ISI nurtured, created, and supported the Taliban in their first incarnation; it returned to doing the same after the Taliban regime’s fall in late 2001. Pakistan has deployed its spin doctors to claim otherwise—using the same old strategy. Pakistan opines that it is the real victim of terrorism, that it is being unjustly maligned, and that if the West wants to fight terrorism, it needs to give Pakistan more money—and ignore its wrongdoings, which include sponsoring numerous Islamist terrorist groups as well as vertical and horizontal nuclear proliferation.

Ordinary Pakistanis are, indeed, the victims of terrorist monsters—monsters bred and trained by the military-intelligence establishment. As then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a gathering of Pakistanis in 2011, “You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors.” Yet Islamabad continues to do so—and to offer its snake-catching expertise when they escape.

Pakistan’s ability to convince Americans of its signal importance might seem baffling—but it represents a sophisticated and strategic diplomatic approach. First and foremost, Pakistan exploits information asymmetries. As Teresita and Howard Schaffer wrote in 2011, the United States is one of the most important portfolios for diplomatic, political, and military officials. They are required to know their briefs and recite them convincingly. Most often their American counterparts lack the most rudimentary knowledge of U.S.-Pakistan relations and tend to be persuaded by the narratives on offer. Even intelligence officials will have little operational familiarity with Pakistan, in part because substantive international contacts and travel pose problems for obtaining clearances. The easiest hires are young graduates with little international experience.

Islamabad understands the value of congressional delegations in shaping policymakers’ opinions. Unlike protocol-bound India, Pakistan dispenses with all diplomatic protocol on these occasions. Delegates meet the army chief, the ISI chief, and the prime minister, and they are often treated to military tourism opportunities.

In addition to having lavish budgets for legal lobbyists, Pakistan also has a history of cultivating shadowy figures who launder Islamabad’s dirty laundry and promote its pet projects to American policymakers and opinion-makers. It discourages criticism by denying visas, restricting access, or outright threatening violence to those who dare expose the dark side of Pakistan’s deep state. Conversely, Pakistan incentivizes apologists: It offers free trips where beneficiaries are treated to the famous Pakistani hospitality, which includes private meetings with important Pakistanis across the civilian and military spectrums, helicopter rides to places ordinarily forbidden to foreigners, and a cultivated practice of appearing open and affable. Such access is critical for people working in think tanks who eat from the grants they secure, which require such access to Pakistan’s corridors of power. The combination of these various measures results in a silenced coterie of critics and a sprawling ecosystem of those who happily promote Pakistan’s narratives in exchange for access.

With the U.S. Embassy in Kabul shuttered, the United States is very likely to do what it usually does: go back to the arsonist and sustain the pretense that it is in fact the fire brigade. The United States will likely find itself more dependent on Pakistan as it seeks a foothold to retain intelligence cooperation and likely drone basing for targeting the terrorist refuges in Pakistan, even while Pakistan continues to cultivate the same refuges. As in the past, whether it was the use of Pakistan territory for U-2 flights or for drones, Pakistan and the United States will likely establish yet another pay-to-play scheme. Pakistan will continue to provide the minimal results to justify the expenditures to a U.S. Congress that is always wary of Pakistan but not enough to do anything meaningful to curtail its myriad outrages. In the meantime, Pakistan’s militant assets cultivated for action in India will benefit enormously from the terrorist safe havens protected by the Taliban-led house of horrors that is the Afghan government.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/10/pakistan-us-relations-taliban-afghanistan-arsonist/

#Pakistan - Only #PPP can give Waseb Province- Chairman PPP Bilawal Bhutto Zardari

Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has said that Imran Khan is giving a lollipop in the name of a secretariat to the people of Waseb. If he has announced a secretariat then it means that he never wanted people of Waseb to have their own province. The PPP gave identity to the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and we will deliver the people of Waseb their own province. We passed a bill in this regard from the Senate with two third majority.

Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said this while addressing a workers’ convention at chowk Bahadurpur in Rahimyar Khan. He said that the PPP has always challenged tyrants whether it was General Yahya, General Zia and General Musharraf. The PPP always stood by the people of Pakistan. Today there is another tyrant Imran Khan is imposed on the people of Pakistan. This puppet prime minister has every poor in misery because he came to power with tall claims. Claims like 10 million jobs, 5 million houses and eradication of corruption in 90 days. All his promises proved to be false. Instead of providing jobs he has made millions unemployed, has snatched shelter from the people in the name of encroachment and the Transparency International says that corruption has increased during his last three years’ rule.

Chairman PPP said that there is a stark difference between PTI and PPP’s economic policies. When we were in government the entire world was experiencing the worst recession. We started BISP so poor women have some money to run their daily expenses. We increased 120 percent salaries and 100 percent pensions. We increased soldiers’ salaries up to 175 percent because they were fighting the terrorists. Today people of Pakistan cannot buy medicine for their elders. Today young people have been deprived of employment.Chairman Bilawal said that we had changed Imran’s majority into a minority when Yousuf Raza Gillani won a seat from Imran Khan’s constituency that is National Assembly. We still ask our friends in opposition to bring a no-confidence motion against puppet of a puppet, Usman Buzdar. He said our friends do not want to use their votes despite raising slogan of “vote ko izzat do”. We were preparing for long-march but our friends linked it with resignations. If they do not want to do this then they should resign as per their own strategy. Now we will chase this puppet prime minister with the help of Jiyalas. We have to get rid of this government so that people get relief from historic price-hike and unemployment. I can see that Jiyalas are ready to chase Imran Khan out and establish an Awami Raj so that we can fulfil the promises of Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto.

Earlier in the day, Chairman Pakistan Peoples Party Bilawal Bhutto Zardari spent a busy day during Rahim Yar Khan’s visit. He visited the homes of party leaders and offered condolences to them on the demise of their relatives. Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari also offered condolences to Sardar Muhammad Ranjha Khan Gopang, Sardar Darya Khan Faiz and Habib-ur-Rehman Gopang at Ranjha Khan Estate. Makhdoom Ahmad Mahmood, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, Haider Zaman Qureshi and others were also present on the occasion. Sardar Anwar Zaman Gopang, Sardar Mehboob Khan Gopang, Lal Bakhsh Khan Gopang, Ghulam Abbas Gopang, Anwar Khan Gopang, Younis Khan Gopang and Zahoor Ahmad Khan Gopang were also present at Ranjha Khan Estate on the arrival of Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. The Chairman PPP conveyed his condolences to the General Secretary of PPP Rahim Yar Khan Chaudhry Jahanzeb Rashid on the demise of his mother at his residence. The Chairman PPP also offered condolences to the family of Raees Muhammad Din Varand, General Secretary of PPP Rahim Yar Khan and Anwar Hashmi. The Chairman PPP also offered condolences to the family of Shahid Rahim Chauhan, former President of PPP Rahim Yar Khan and Sabir Bhola, Syed Taswar Hussain, Former General Secretary of PPP Liaquatpur and Master Sarwar Javed, Senior Vice President of Sadiqabad. Chairman PPP offered Fateha for the deceased.

https://www.ppp.org.pk/pr/25477/