What Condi could do about the Saudis funding 9/11
- In reply to my recent post on Rice for President Yahoo Group, a group member wroteSaturday, 31 December, 2011 12:41So, they are worse than the threat of Iran? And what has this to do with Condi?This is my reply.First let me tell you what I think.If as the evidence points to, the Saudis did fund Al Qaeda to do 9/11 and the Iranians didn't then maybe the Saudis are worse in some respects than the Iranians, though obviously neither the Bush nor Obama administrations were of that view as the many dealings the US government has had with the Saudis shows.At least with the Iranians we know they hate us; they are honest about hating us; we know where we stand with them - at daggers drawn.Whereas with the Saudis, they are liars telling us we are friends to our face yet back-stabbing us by funding terrorism behind our back and so many Americans and British don't see how unreliable our so-called Saudi "friends" are. With friends like these we don't need any enemies.Please watch this video of an American TV news storyIn many ways that is an excellent news story and well done to the American news TV team who produced it.Strangely though the reporter says "Saudi Arabia has dropped the ball"
"Dropped the ball"?
Eh no, the Saudi government have made a touch down for the terrorists.
"Dropping the ball" says to me that still the reporter is in denial that the Saudis are actually playing for the other side in the war on terror. The Saudis are playing for the terrorists' side.
So no, they haven't "dropped the ball". The US side has dropped the ball by not naming Saudi Arabia as a state-sponsor of terrorism and the Saudis have picked up the ball and thrown the ball long to Al Qaeda.
Of course since that video was made, Bin Laden was captured and killed and that should have provided even more evidence to follow all the way back to Saudi Arabia and to the other Islamic states who have been funding Al Qaeda.I just think it is a mistake for the West, the US, the UK and the rest of us to build up the Saudis as a counter to the Iranians. If we keep doing that sooner or later the Saudis will become more dangerous than the Iranians in all respects - including seeking nuclear weapons to threaten us with.I think we ought to name Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism.I think we should establish a political aim to to overthrow the Saudi kingdom as we once established an aim to overthrow Saddam.I think we need a democratic, republican Arabia, not an undemocratic, unreliable Saudi Arabian Kingdom.I think the USA & the UK need to resist the temptation of Saudi arms deals which tend to make our politicians turn a blind eye to the Saudis supporting and funding terrorism.It is almost like the Saudis are saying to us "We'll buy Western arms from those Western countries which turn a blind eye to us funding Al Qaeda to do 9/11 and the terrorism in Iraq".I think it is foolish for the West to say "yes your Saudi highnesses - OK - just give us the arms deals and we'll say no more about you funding Al Qaeda".I just think that is short-sighted and was what got us to 9/11 and it won't turn out well in the long run.This is the kind of issue which I am inviting group members and others to discuss in detail in the For Freedom Forums if you want to join.I think the For Freedom Forums is the best place to discuss and debate the details of this. I don't think Rice for President Yahoo Group is suitable for debating the details of this. This is a one-time group reply to you on this issue.Meantime, as Rice for President group owner I am attempting to provide Condoleezza Rice and her supporters in this group with, I hope, a carefully thought out policy option for Condi to decide upon when she comes to creating a policy platform to run for president.I see it as Condi's call what she does with her presidential campaign in due course but for now as group owner of Rice for President Yahoo Group I am giving her my best policy advice.What Condi does with my advice, what Rice for President Yahoo group members think of my advice, is your call.I respect friends and colleagues who disagree and who want to keep business as usual with the Saudis.Such tricky policy issues always take time to sort out.Meantime, we can all be loyal to Condi even if we disagree about that issue. Condi is all the time weighing these matters up and she will decide to take us in the right direction. There is no-one better to trust with our future than Condi.- Peter Dow, Group Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group
--- On Fri, 30/12/11, Peter Dow <peterdow@...> wrote:
From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Subject: Saudi royals getting sued for funding 9/11
Date: Friday, 30 December, 2011, 22:41
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.”The 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
http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=16Much of this mess would not exist if the US became energy independent and we could just pull our military out of the Gulf Sate fiasco. However, we should continue to support Israel as our only like thinking friend and ally in that part of the world. The US should put on a full court press to develop all our energy resources and strive to make the Americas energy independent.
MESSAGE EDITED by Group Owner Peter DowPeter Dow adds - Sorry to butt in to your message Jim but you did not mention Condoleezza Rice once.
I think it is great that good Condistas here, like Jim and Davyd in an earlier post, have things to say and ideas to offer about how the US and allies deal with important issues like this.
However if we start debating all these issues here in Rice for President Yahoo Group then pretty soon the group's message list will look like we are not focusing on discussing Condoleezza Rice, her news and what she has said and is saying on this issues.
I think it would be a pity if we lost focus on what this group is supposed to be all about.
I don't want to set a precident where people can join up and post along the lines of "What Condi should do about X" and X could be any political issue under the sun and perhaps unrelated much to Condi's politics.
It is not for us to try to set Condi's agenda. I felt on firm ground that the funding and state sponsoring of the 9/11 attacks is an issue on Condi's agenda so that is why I brought this very relevant news up for consideration. On the other hand, debating it brings in all kinds of other issues, as Jim has done here - energy, Israel and pretty soon it'll be anything under the sun.
Now, I am all for general political discussion between Condistas but is this group's message list really the appropriate forum to discuss all political issues irrespective of Condoleezza Rice? I don't think so.
There are people out there who want to bang the drum for all kinds of issues and I need to draw the line somewhere.
I think group messages should be reserved for on topic to Condoleezza Rice. So if Condi has expressed an opinion then do quote her in a group message and add your own two pence worth sure.
I have allowed Jim's message even though it is really is a debate that needs to take place in a more general political discussion forum where Condistas can reach out to others not backing Rice for President as yet. I am offering a link to
The For Freedom Forums - figh.tk for such wider debates. Though that is a quiet forum and there are other forums far busier with far more members posting daily. Condistas should be joining other forums, debating the issues with others there and also adding a link back to here in Rice for President Yahoo Group for anyone you have convinced is the candidate for President we need.
The For Freedom Forums has a Condoleezza Rice forum yes but also forums such as "Republican Intelligence" where such issues can be debated freely.
All members are free to suggest an alternative forum for general political debate but I recommend you do so by adding a folder for your own links in this group's Condistas Directory folder
Create a folder in the Condistas Directory folder in your own name and add any links you like to it, such as a link to your favourite general political discussion forum.