BBC Whitewashes Saudi Support for AQ

The BBC interviewed a Saudi official who provided them with a quote. The official inadvertently revealed that his government was providing arms to AQ in Syria, so the BBC completely changed his original statement in order to hide that fact. That is an obvious whitewashing, and it was done in order to protect a UK ally who purchases large amounts of arms from the British arms industry. What about this is confusing?

 

As if we didn't already know:

 

Who exactly is David Cohen and what evidence does he have to back up his claim?

- - - Updated - - -

Saudi official? He's anonymous as usual.

 

Everyone informs knows that. But powers that be keep covering up numerous Saudi crimes and their outright support for terror networks across the globe. Another example how BBC is distorting reality in order to conceal Saudi (and our own dirty deeds).

Invisible War Crimes – The Corporate Media On Yemen
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/...-war-crimes-the-corporate-media-on-yemen.html

'Turning The Living Into The Dead'

 

Yemen is home to many rebel factions and Islamic terrorists.. Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, al Houthis, ISIS, al Shaabab, and assorted Somali pirates. The Saudis have no choice but to defend their southern border and keep the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al Mendab open to traffic.

Are the critics stupid? Saudi Arabia has propped Yemen up for decades building universities and hospitals... providing them with food, medicine and gasoline.

Hypocrites...

 

the Saudi govt. lent a blind eye as Al Qaeda raised millions of dollars from Saudi citizens.

and now, the Saudi govt. funds Islamists in Syria and Iraq.

 

That ended with the fall of the Soviets in Afghanistan... Both the US and Arabia didn't want a communists in Afghanistan.

 

no, it got better AFTER 9-11 and we exposed how the Saudis were lending a blind eye to terrorist fund raising.

 

Well, prove it to me.. Rumors and gossip and legit support of Saudi students doing post graduate work in the US is NOT support for terrorists.

Show me..

 

the 9-11 Commission stated it.

are you calling them liars?

 

No they did not.. Show me.

 

sure they did

i have posted it many times

 

Well, post it for me.

 

Saudi ambivilence to terrorist fundraising:

The 9/11 Commission, Aug. 21, 2004: Fund-raisers and facilitators throughout Saudi Arabia and the Gulf raised money for al Qaeda from witting and unwitting donors and diverted funds from Islamic charities and mosques. The Commission staff found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or as individual senior officials knowingly support or supported al Qaeda; however, a lack of awareness of the problem and a failure to conduct oversight over institutions created an environment in which such activity has flourished.

The 9/11 Commission, Aug. 21, 2004: The U.S. government approached the Saudis on some narrow issues, such as locating Bin Ladin’s supposed personal wealth and gaining access to a senior al Qaeda financial figure in Saudi custody, with mixed results. The Saudis generally resisted cooperating more broadly against al Qaeda financing, although the U.S. government did not make this issue a priority in its bilateral relations with the Saudis or provide the Saudis with actionable intelligence about al Qaeda fundraising in the Kingdom. Other issues, such as Iraq, the Middle East peace process, economic arrangements, the oil supply, and cutting off Saudi support for the Taliban, took primacy on the U.S.-Saudi agenda.

Bob Graham, chairman at the time of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called for the release of the 28 pages on the day the report was made public, Dec. 11, 2002, and still holds that position.
Graham told ABC News last month that the U.S. government’s refusal to release the 28 pages is an effort to protect Saudi Arabia, which he said is “the most responsible for that network of support.”
“The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier,” Graham told ABC News.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/saudi-arabia-and-the-911-terrorist-attacks/

 

What evidence is there that the BBC decided to change the direct quote?
Perhaps they corrected a misquote that was their fault, or had the details corrected by other Saudi officials?