The Anglo-Saudi Terror Machine
Behind 9/11 Stands Fully Exposed
by Jeffrey Steinberg
May 26—Lyndon LaRouche issued a statement today that should resonate in Manhattan, on Capitol Hill, and around the world. He presented the essential truth about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, at a moment when global attention has been finally directed at the actual criminals behind the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history:
“A total injustice has been perpetuated from the beginning until now. The person who created the injustice has no right to contest anything now. The case is clear,” LaRouche declared.
The point is that the Saudis and the British both committed a major crime against the citizens of the United States. When a nation’s people has been betrayed by their own government on an issue built into the Constitution, an issue of Constitutional rights, such an issue is itself inherently a crime. The people of the nation have suffered a manifest crime against them. There’s no basis for any support for what these criminals did; they don’t have any standing. They’re claiming that they have a standing within the injury that they created.
LaRouche was referring to the efforts by paid representatives of the Saudi Royal Family to continue to block the full release of evidence of their involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Over the past weeks, as pressure has mounted for the release of the 28 page chapter from the original Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, and for passage of a clean JASTA (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act) bill, which would reinstate the Saudi Monarchy as defendants in a long-standing law suit by survivors and family members of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the Saudis have unleashed a flood of cash and an army of lobbyists to spread disinformation and kill the efforts at achieving some measure of justice 15 years after the attacks that killed 2,977 innocent people.
Their efforts, aimed at protecting both the Saudi and British Monarchies from the full weight of prosecution for their role in the 9/11 massacre, however, have met with significant backlash—even among a small number of Members of Congress who have at long last started to ask the right questions and draw the appropriate conclusions.
An Exceptional Hearing
On May 24, a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.), convened a hearing on the role of Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 attacks and other acts of jihadist terrorism. Three members of the panel, Reps. Brad Sherman (D-Cal.), Dana Rohrabacher (R-Cal.) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.), broke the longstanding public taboo and went directly at the combined roles of the British and Saudi Monarchies in orchestrating the attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.
 Those giving testimony at the May 24 House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing included (left to right): Tim Roemer, Simon Henderson, Karen Elliot House, and Daniel L. Byman.
|
In a tense question and answer exchange with witness Karen Elliot House, Rep. Perry pressed for an explanation for why the United States was not doing more to force the Saudis to abandon their support for terrorism, through their bankrolling of Wahhabi schools and mosques around the world that have become breeding grounds for terrorist indoctrination and recruitment. House noted that when the original Saudi King wanted to invade and conquer Iraq, the British opposed the move, and the King ultimately had to go to war with some of his own supporters to fulfill the British demands. House admitted that the United States could certainly exert such pressure on the Saudis, but did not.
 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
|
The mere mention of the historic British control over the Saudis in a public hearing on Capitol Hill was dramatic.
While Executive Intelligence Review has been in the forefront of documenting the Anglo-Saudi jihad machine, dating back to the scores of exposés of the role of “Londonistan” as the hub of world terrorism, where terrorists of all stripes have been given immunity and financial backing under the direct protection of the British Crown, the Anglo-Saudi relationship has been otherwise covered up and protected by a “bodyguard of lies.”
 Rep. Brad Sherman
|
Former Sen. Bob Graham, who chaired the original Joint Inquiry and has been a driving force behind the exposé of the Saudi Monarchy’s hand in 9/11, had to resort to a fictional account of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, in order to fully spell out the London-Riyadh connection, which he did spell out accurately in his novel, Keys to the Kingdom.
Al-Yamamah Revisited
At the heart of the modern British Crown control over the Saudi Wahhabi terror apparatus is the Al-Yamamah deal, which was personally negotiated in 1985 between Margaret Thatcher and Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, the son of the late Saudi Minister of Defense, who was for more than 20 years the Saudi Ambassador in Washington. Bandar and Thatcher used the cover of an oil-for-weapons barter deal to build up a string of offshore black funds that bankrolled the rise of Al-Qaeda, dating back to the final years of the Afghanistan War against the Soviet Union, and funded wars and coups all over the Third World for more than 30 years.
When the Guardian newspaper broke a corruption and kickback scandal around the Al-Yamamah deal in 2007, the British Serious Fraud Office opened an inquiry. The moment that the inquiry began to touch on the offshore secret accounts (in the initial instance, the Swiss accounts of Wafic Said, a top Al-Yamamah money launderer) at the real heart of Al-Yamamah, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair shut down the SFO investigation, invoking British national security.
In his own authorized biography, The Prince, Bandar boasted that the British and Saudi Monarchies had a special relationship, based on the ability of the two royal families to operate with absolute impunity—above the law.
Bandar’s “finders fee” for the creation of the Anglo-Saudi Al-Yamamah terror program was at minimum $2 billion. At the time that Bandar and his wife Princess Haifa were pouring money into the accounts of the Saudi intelligence officers working with the first two 9/11 terrorists to arrive in the United States, Al-Yamamah payoffs were being wired into their personal account at Riggs National Bank in Washington, originating in British Ministry of Defence accounts at the Bank of England.
The Saudi Royals Knew in Advance
Returning to the May 24 House hearings, Rohrabacher issued an impassioned opening statement, in which he asked: How many have to die before the truth about 9/11 comes out? This hearing, he declared, “is long overdue,” and we must stop intentionally ignoring who financed the attacks. It is clear, he declared, “that the Saudi Royals were up to their eyeballs,” warning that we will not recover from the consequences of 9/11 “unless we let the American people know.”
At one point, after four witnesses delivered their opening statements, Rohrabacher resumed his attacks. He reported that four months before the 9/11 attacks took place, he had received information personally from a top Taliban official whom he had known from the time of the Afghan mujahideen war against the Soviet Army, that a major attack on U.S. soil was coming. Rohrabacher told the hearing participants that he had passed that information along to the relevant Executive Branch agencies and later to the Joint Inquiry and 9/11 Commission staffs.
He then polled the panel of witnesses, asking them if they believed that the Saudi Royal Family had to have had advance knowledge of the pending 9/11 attacks. Two of the four witnesses, former Congressman, Ambassador and 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer (D-Ind.) and Saudi expert Simon Henderson both raised their hands (panelists Karen Elliot House and Daniel Byman did not).
Both Sherman and Rohrabacher pounded the witnesses about the Saudi sponsorship of madrasas and so-called charities that spread Wahhabism around the globe, in almost all instances, creating the recruitment pool for jihadist terrorist groups. At one point, Rohrabacher told the hearing that one estimate is that the Saudis have spent tens or hundreds of billions of dollars spreading Wahhabism around the world. Sherman added that it is “time to come clean.” You cannot say that “the Saudis don’t support terrorism.”
The FBI Protection Racket
In early May, Rep. Sherman, in an interview with The Hill, had also blasted the Federal Bureau of Investigation for playing a pivotal role in covering up the crimes of the Saudis. Sherman cited an incident in 2011, when FBI agents detained former Sen. Bob Graham and his wife at Dulles International Airport and warned him to back off from his investigation into 9/11.
 Former FBI Director Robert Mueller
|
Sherman was furious at the action, telling The Hill that the FBI “took a former senator, a former governor, grabbed him in an airport, hustled him into a room with armed force to try to intimidate him into taking different positions on issues of public policy and important national policy, and the fact that he wasn’t intimidated because he was calm doesn’t show that they weren’t trying to intimidate him.”
The FBI protection of the Anglo-Saudi terror machinery has been a constant, long before the incident with Sen. Graham and his wife. In Sarasota, Fla., the FBI withheld over 80,000 pages of vital evidence about a prominent Saudi businessman with strong ties to the Royal Family, who hosted three of the 9/11 hijackers, including ringleader Mohammed Atta, at his residence in a gated community.
 Former FBI Director Louis Freeh
|
In the case of the Prince Bandar-funded hijackers in San Diego, Cal., for months they lived in the home of an FBI informant. That information, too was suppressed by top FBI officials, including then-Director Robert Mueller. Mueller’s predecessor, Louis Freeh, retired from the Bureau and was hired to represent Prince Bandar—in the U.S. and British investigations into the Al-Yamamah deal.
The Saudi-British master criminals must be punished, but, more important, deprived of the power to ever again commit such atrocities. The U.S. government officials who have covered up for them must be purged and placed on trial.
