Thread by @MsEntropy

Just got a text asking me “why the fuck is Afghanistan supposed to pay 9/11 victims and not Saudi Arabia?”

So, quick thread on the legal logic behind Biden’s move to use frozen Afghan funds.

Note: this does NOT mean I agree with the logic.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1492108776350097409

Bin Laden sought refuge in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and while there - organized and launched the 9/11 attacks.

Mullah Omar had agreed to let him stay, provided Bin Laden refrain from foreign attacks.

Very few AQ operatives even knew about ‘the planes operation.’

Why wasn’t Bin Laden living in Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan when he planned 9/11?

Saudi Arabia (the state) hated him and vice versa — largely over his fury Saudi let US troops in for the Gulf War.

He was KSA (again, the state - not sympathetic royals) persona non grata.

Mullah Omar and the Taliban leadership were infuriated by the attacks, as Bin Laden betrayed the terms of their sanctuary agreement.

They knew the full force of US military might was coming — for them.

Why didn’t they “hand him over?” Well, complex and separate question.

Abridged:

Some Taliban leaders did want to hand Bin Laden over, but they were afraid of pissing off supporters.

To mitigate this, they asked the US to provide proof OBL was behind 9/11 (the US didn’t).

Also, tribal customary law about offering refuge / guests. Complex, etc.

The Saudi state itself is different from rich Saudi royals (tens of thousands) who sympathetically bankroll jihadi actors.

That’s one factor that matters.

Saudi has been a target for jihadis since 1979’s Siege of Mecca.

(I’d say more but it’d send me on a tangent)

A LOT of jihadis like the 9/11 attackers, as well as members of Al Qaeda and ISIS, are Saudi nationals.

Because there’s a LOT of jihadi sympathy in Saudi.

But the state itself has different interests, and is fighting these actors who detest the state.

Here’s a decent (imperfect, of course) analogy as far as the legal logic goes:

Say a man is running a money laundering operation and uses the funds to buy the house he shares with his innocent wife who knew nothing.

Their house will be seized and their joint assets.

The US was able to go after Afghanistan along the lines of “state sponsor” because the Taliban gave Bin Laden safe harbor there.

Thus, the logic goes, Afghans aided and abetted / enabled 9/11.

Even though they didn’t know or consent.

(See above example)

Then there’s the question of geopolitical alliances and strategic interests:

Like hell the US would alienate Saudi, a “special ally” since 1945 because of oil, and also because — Iran.

That’s on top of the Taliban harboring OBL issue.

I’ve written about this elsewhere, but that anger contributed to why the Taliban dynamited the Bamiyan Buddhas (not “Islamic iconoclasm”).

There were infuriated the international community wouldn’t offer famine relief — but would pay to save, as they put it, “rocks.”

What’s extremely gross about the way this legal logic operates is it punishes the Afghan people — already in dire straights economically as…

… victims of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the first place, now victimized again.

Think this’ll cure anti-American sentiment? My. Ass.

Anyway, that’s the answer to “why is it the Afghan burden — not Saudi — to pay 9/11 victims?”

Alliances and complex history is why. And that doesn’t mean it’s ethical, strategically wise, or that I agree. It means:

Geopolitical hegemony is a dirty game.

/end

Postscript:

For more on Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and the contemporary geopolitical chess game, read this classic text.

“Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror” (Mahmood Mamdani)

penguinrandomhouse.com/books/106769/g…

You should probably read the thread

(and the Tweet where I say I don’t agree with this move — the one you responded to)

https://twitter.com/TheRambler14/status/1492210213855891457

I’ll try and answer your questions later - lot of work on my to-do list today.