Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

[Image: slide_21.jpg]

The Saudis have long denied any role in supporting or financing al-Qaeda terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. And, U.S. officials have declined to release 28 pages of the official investigative reports detailing the potential role of some Saudi Officials in the plot that killed nearly 3,000 Americans on American soil.

Families of both victims and survivors in the 911 attacks filed a lawsuit against the Saudi government, but the suit was thrown out last year when a federal judge ruled that the kingdom had sovereign immunity in the case.

So, 15 years after the 911 terrorist attacks on America, a very rare bi-partisan bill was drafted and is circulating Congress with support from elected leaders on both the far right and the far left. The bill would allow victims of 911 to pursue legal recourse against Saudi Arabia for its alleged role.

The Obama administration is trying to block the bill. President Obama claims it would put Americans abroad at risk. Secretary of State John Kerry said the legislation could "expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent."

During his presidency, Obama has tried to balance restoring a diplomatic relationship with Iran and maintaining an alliance with Saudi Arabia; they're two of the most stable and functional countries in the Middle East (and bitter enemies, of course).

The U.S. and Iran agreed to the historic Iran Nuclear deal last year. Also last year, the U.S. sold the Saudis arms and bombs to use in their fucked-up (in my opinion) war in Yemen -- a war which has helped bring about the resurgence of al-Qaeda.

Personally, I would love to see the Saudis held accountable for any role they may have played in 911 and some of their other bullshit, which would hopefully help to deter future such bullshit.

BUT, John Kerry makes a good point. If the international immunity is lifted for U.S. citizens to sue the Saudi government for 9/11, how could the U.S. then object to the American government being sued for the bogus invasion/war the U.S. perpetrated on Iraq -- leaving hundreds of thousands Iraqis dead or wounded -- in response to 9/11?

Tricky shit.


I don't want to do anything that can come back and bite us in the ass. Is that asking for too much?

I'm not kidding when I say I long for the good ol' days when our biggest problem was a Prez who couldn't keep it in his pants.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
(04-17-2016, 12:10 PM)Duchess Wrote:

I don't want to do anything that can come back and bite us in the ass. Is that asking for too much?

I'm not kidding when I say I long for the good ol' days when our biggest problem was a Prez who couldn't keep it in his pants.

I know what you mean.

But, when we take action, or don't take action, outside our own borders, there's always something that can bite the U.S. in the ass. We will never please everyone.

We have to consider a lot of factors, some of which are conflicting: allegiance to our allies (which aren't always our allies' allies), what we think is 'right' (from our western point of view), effects on domestic opinion and economics, the uncertainty of even good intelligence...

What bothers me about 911 specifically is that there was no credible intelligence pointing to Iraq as the culprits, and the Taliban in Afghanistan didn't pull off the attacks. There was at least circumstantial evidence very early on to support suspicion of Saudi Arabia though. Yet, we took action against Iraq and Afghanistan and, in my opinion, intentionally turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia.

We invaded Iraq, helped usher in a new President, praised his more "secular" policies while he was actually discriminating against large segments of the population as much or more than Saddam, watched as ISIS emerged and took over key areas of the country, watched as the Iraqi soldiers we'd trained to uphold a more 'democratic' society joined or ran away from ISIS, helped kick to the curb the corrupt leader who we'd ushered in.............and here we are 15 years later trying to quash actual terrorists that emerged during the U.S. occupation.

And, the situation in Afghanistan is starting to look very much like that in Iraq. US-trained Afghani soldiers defecting to the re-invigorated Taliban (which is taking over key portions of the country), the US-backed more 'democratic' government is faltering, we're scheduled to finally bring the last several thousand of our soldiers home, but will probably instead have to send more over...

When we defended Kuwait against Iraq, it was justified. When we joined forces with our allies in World War I and II, it was justified. When we were struck at home on 9/11, retaliation by the U.S. and its allies was justified. I understood Afghanistan, being that al-Qaeda training and safe havens were reportedly located there. But, Iraq was just plain bullshit and it has bitten us in the ass big time. Since 9/11, the U.S. and our western allies have not succeeded in deterring Islamic terrorism or promoting our idea of democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan, but we have managed to kill and die in great numbers.

Now, Hillary Clinton is telling us that taking Gaddafi out was the right thing to do for Libya -- that even though Libya is now plagued with terrorists, it's on the path to a more democratic society. Why the hell should I believe that? Just like Yemen's Arab Spring was a true success story only two months before another tribal/civil war broke out, right? Just like the people of Iraq are so much better off without Saddam, right? Just like we should have armed the Syrian 'rebels' (many of whom are affiliated with 'terrorist organizations') because they're less a threat to Syrians and our allies in the region than Assad, right?

I don't have answers and I know there are no easy ones. But, using the same failed strategies over and over, trying to convince people that they were successes, and expecting different results is arrogant and delusional. In my opinion.

Soapbox Tis all.
(04-17-2016, 01:58 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: We invaded Iraq

I think all of the bs there now can be blamed on that, thanks/no thanks, to George Bush & Dick Cheney. I haven't one nice thing to say about that collaboration. When I hear Dick say he wouldn't change a thing about his decisions I want to nail that fucker with a brick.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
(04-17-2016, 02:21 PM)Duchess Wrote:
(04-17-2016, 01:58 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: We invaded Iraq

I think all of the bs there now can be blamed on that, thanks/no thanks, to George Bush & Dick Cheney. I haven't one nice thing to say about that collaboration. When I hear Dick say he wouldn't change a thing about his decisions I want to nail that fucker with a brick.

The BS there now can be blamed on Obama. He's the one that ordered all our troops out of there when he was advised by people who know what they're talking about not to take them all out.
I don't like Cheney either, but Bush went by the info he was given. Obama goes with his ego and to hell with anyone who thinks different than him.

60 Minutes did a story on this recently. It's called, 28 Pages. Saudi Arabia called it "a compilation of myths & erroneous charges".

28 Pages
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
the filthy animals
oh jeez, Obama gets blamed for everything......

President Bush had signed an agreement saying all troops would be out of Iraq by end of 2011.......Obama actually wanted to leave some residual troops behind but Prime Minister Mailik could not get Parliament to agree with that.....I was happy the troops were being sent home. Enough young men died in the Vietnam war and clearly, enough men and women have more than doubled the deaths caused as a result of 9/11......

We wouldn't be in this shitty mess if not for George W. Bush....he was must be kidding. All Presidents have Cabinet Heads whose job it is to keep the President informed of real, truthful facts, not information from Fox news, and other fantasies ......If they don't do their jobs, the President is ultimately responsible.......this was an impeachable offense, but all we hear is impeach Obama, he is a Muslim, blah, blah, blah.........he will go down in history as a great President.......

None of the terrorists of 911 were living in IraQ; most were residents of SA......and US intelligence had recieved information foretelling of this attack........months before it happened while Bush was President.
This information was not dealt with at the time and these attacks could have been prevented if everyone in the Administration had done his/her job......

You all who want to keep blaming the Obama administration for everything imaginable need to do some serious research covering the last 17 years or so, or maybe start with the initial attack on the WTC in 1993.
Was it Israel who gave us the warning?
(04-17-2016, 07:11 PM)Duchess Wrote: 60 Minutes did a story on this recently. It's called, 28 Pages. Saudi Arabia called it "a compilation of myths & erroneous charges".

28 Pages

Thanks for that link; I hadn't seen the 60 Minutes piece.

Wahhabism is the ultra conservative, puritanical form of Islam that is rooted here and permeates every facet of society. There is no separation of church and state. After, oil, Wahhabism is one of the kingdom's biggest exports. Saudi clerics, entrusted with Islam's holiest shrines have immense power and billions of dollars to spread the faith. Building mosques and religious schools all over the world that have become recruiting grounds for violent extremists. 911 Commissioner John Lehman says all of this comes across in the 28 pages.

^ HOTD: Mo mentioned something very similar in a post some time back. I believe it's true, I believe U.S. intelligence officials have known it for some time, I believe that it explains why so many organized and individual acts of terrorism link back to Saudi Arabia, and I believe U.S. officials refused to publicly acknowledge it because we were too dependent on Saudi Arabia up until recently. I hope the 28 pages are declassified, even if the Saudi government's immunity remains in tact.

John Lehman (911 Commission member, Reagan Sec of Navy) : This is not going to be a smoking gun that is going to cause a huge furor. But it does give a very compact illustration of the kinds of things that went on that would really help the American people to understand why, what, how, how is it that these people are springing up all over the world to go to jihad?

Tim Roemer (Congressman, Joint Inquiry member, 911 Commission member): Look, the Saudis have even said they're for declassifying it. We should declassify it. Is it sensitive, Steve? Might it involve opening-- a bit, a can of worms, or some snakes crawling out of there? Yes. But I think we need a relationship with the Saudis where both countries are working together to fight against terrorism. And that's not always been the case.

Yesterday I saw Obama make a statement against 9 / 11 victims attempting to sue the Saudis, again making the argument that it opens the door to the U.S. being sued. I also saw Donald Trump make a statement about how the unreleased 28 pages from the 9 /11 Commission report implicates the Saudi government (he said pretty much what the 60 Minutes interviewees shared; Trump has not read the report.)

If the pages are released, it won't mean that the Saudi government is proven guilty of criminal state-sponsored terrorism. It will mean that the 9 / 11 families and their reps can use the content of the report to allege that the government of Saudi Arabia holds some liability and should be made to pay in civil court.

Will be interesting to see where this goes.
Today, I read that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. family victims can collect from Iran for terror attacks in 1983. I wasn't previously aware of this litigation. It appears Iran has already been deemed responsible for state-sponsored terror in those cases and was holding off on paying the victims' families.

The court on Wednesday ruled 6-2 in favor of relatives of the 241 Marines who died in a 1983 terrorist attack in Beirut and other attacks that courts have linked to Iran.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for the court rejecting efforts by Iran’s central bank to try to stave off court orders that would allow the relatives to be paid $2 billion USD for their losses.

Iran’s Bank Markazi complained that Congress was intruding into the business of federal courts when it passed a 2012 law that specifically directs that the banks’ assets in the United States be turned over to the families. (HOTD: I'm sure this is part of the reason the Saudis are threatening to remove billions of assets from the U.S. if the 9 / 11 families are allowed to file suit against them.)
And, on Monday, the family of beheaded journalist Steven Sotloff filed suit against the Syrian government.

They allege that Syrian President Assad should pay up because he was an ally in the ISIS beheadings. The Sotloff family claims that Assad supported the beheadings by ISIS in order to shift Western attention away from getting rid of Assad to instead defeating ISIS.

“Syria’s material support for Daesh caused the abduction and murder of Steven Sotloff,” the lawsuit says, using an acronym for the group that comes from its name in Arabic.

It's not clear how the Sotloff family expects to be paid if they win the suit since Assad doesn't have assets and investments in the U.S. (I don't think they'll win this one, personally).