Saudi royals getting sued for funding 9/11
Rice for President Yahoo GroupQuote AllGov:Tuesday, September 13, 2011Prince Salman Bin Abdul-Aziz Al SaudLeaders of Saudi Arabia are being sued by Lloyd’s insurance for playing a key role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.Lloyd’s has paid more than $215 million in claims filed by families of those killed in the attacks, and wants Saudi leaders to reimburse the company.As far as the insurer is concerned, 9/11 never would have happened without “the sponsorship” of Saudi Arabia, which provided al-Qaeda with the means “to conceive, plan and execute the September 11th Attacks,” says the Lloyd’s lawsuit.In addition to the Saudi government, defendants in the case are the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia & Herzegovina, the Saudi Joint Relief Committee for Kosovo and Chechnya (SJRC), the Saudi Red Crescent Society, National Commercial Bank, Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Company, Prince Salman Bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, Suleiman Abdel Aziz Al Rajhi (CEO of al Rajhi Bank), and Yassin Al Qadi (an employee of al Rajhi Bank and founder of the Muwaffaq Foundation). Salman Bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud is currently the Governor of Riyadh Province.The SJRC is included because, according to Lloyd’s, the organization between 1998 and 2000 diverted more than $74 million to al-Qaeda members and loyalists. At that time the committee “was under the supervision and control of Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz.”http://www.allgov.com/US_and_the_World/ViewNews/Lloyds_Sues_Members_of_Saudi_Royal_Family_for_Funding_Al_Qaeda_in_911_Attacks_110913The Arms of Lloyd'sNow wouldn't it be refreshing to see Western leaders squaring up to the Saudi royals with that kind of backbone instead of grovelling down to make arms deals with them?I posted the above in the US Message board and here is a part of the debate there.Quote "High_Gravity"Hmm I wonder how far this will really go, those Saudis have A LOT of oil money and could probably pay a pretty outrageous price to settle this out of court.
Yes you are right because if the Saudis admit liability and pay what is small change for them to settle this Lloyd's claim in court then everyone else with a claim of loss following 9/11 - so that is not just losses suffered on 9/11 but arguably all those who lost loved-ones in Afghanistan, which was a war on terror consequential after 9/11 (possibly the Iraq war too) - also will find it much easier to prove their claim against the Saudis.Add up the entire US and allied military and diplomatic service costs for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, compensation for those serving there who were killed and injured, so that's life time support for all the families of the killed, plus compensation for loss of earnings and quality of life losses for all those injured ..That adds up into the trillions of dollars, serious money which amounts to quite a boost to the western economies in fact.Hence why I suspect you are right that the Saudis will want to settle this out of court with no admission of liability.It occurs to me that Lloyds of London insurers are not as well resourced as say the CIA and MI6 intelligence services. It seems to me that our intelligence services should have got around to blaming the Saudis for funding this before Lloyd's did.If they did, if they informed US presidents Bush and Obama, why is it business as usual with the Saudis?Just yesterday another arms deal between the US and Saudi Arabia was announced, 50 thousand American jobs saved apparently. Presumably this is why US presidents are making nice with the backstabbing Saudi royals, to keep the business deals coming?It just looks wrong when US presidents make nice with our enemies.The then US President George W. Bush (L) and Saudi Arabia's Prince Salman Bin Abdul Aziz, brother of King Abdullah, watch a traditional celebration dance outside the Al Murabba Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, January 15, 2008.I think the west should stop turning the other cheek and instead man-up and confiscate the Saudi oil fields to pay our war costs for the war they started by funding Al Qaeda!Quote: High_GravityThe Saudis have $10 trillion in US Banks and own numerous properties and businesses here, its because of this that our government is very leery to stop doing business with them. Like you said in previous posts though, in reality though the Saudis are no friends to the us. The textbooks that preach firey Anti American and Anti Western hatred in the madrassas in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia and elsewhere are all printed out in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia produced the most foreign fighters to fight against our troops in Iraq not to mention most of the 9/11 hijackers were from the Kingdom. I personally would like to see the US start doing less and less business with the Saudis and the other Middle Eastern countries, but I don't know how to even begin that process when we have so many ties and agreements with them.
Well a good start would be confiscating that $10 trillion to distribute to compensate US 9/11 victims and war on terror casualties.The UK and other countries who have incurred jihadi terrorism or war on terror costs should do the same. (Actually I am a republican so I always need to add that the UK should be overthrown and British republics do whatever it is that the UK should be doing)Now I haven't really worked out the figures as to whether $10 trillion would cover all American costs.If it does, if UK costs are covered by what we can confiscate of what the Saudis have invested in Britain and other countries get compensated this way, then fine, especially if the Saudis stop funding new jihadi terrorism, maybe that will be that, though I still think we should support a republican democratic revolution in Saudi Arabia.Now supposing $10 trillion of Saudi assets invested in the US doesn't compensate sufficiently. Supposing the fair compensation figure is more like $100 trillion all told.Then the US, with allied backing, presents the Saudis with an ultimatum - you pay us X% (where "X" is maybe 50%, 75% or 90% depending on how much of a hurry we are in to get compensated) of all the taxes you collect from the Arabian oil industry in Saudi Arabia until such time as you have paid off your debt, or else.The "or else" could be a Western military invasion of Saudi Arabia to seize the Arabian oil fields.Such a war would not be easy as the Iraq war demonstrated and the war aims could be thwarted initially because the Saudis would probably sabotage the oil wells, like Saddam did, by the time our military took the oil fields but eventually the fires would be put out and the oil wells restored to working order and at that later time we'd start getting 100% of all the taxes and the percentage of that we gave to the Arabs would not go through the Saudi state - we'd fund Arabian democrats and republicans instead - so the Saudi kingdom would be bankrupt and finished as a viable entity. The Saudi royal family would be finished as a ruling class apart from ruling their camels.At least this time there would be no argument about whether such an "or else" war would be a "war for oil" because it honestly would be.From the For Freedom Forums
Condi videos on YouTubeThe Condoleezza Rice forum in the For Freedom Forums