Creative Speculation

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.