Saudi Arabia has ways to hit back at 9/11 lawsuit effort

[stander]

1 hour ago, Steely Dan said:

They did indeed. As if to prove a stopped clock is right twice a day I do for once side with Obama. This is a can of worms of colossal proportions.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

I agree that it is a complex issue, but the 9/11 families deserve the right to find out the truth.

[Morch]

On 9/29/2016 at 7:14 AM, OMGImInPattaya said:

The United States isn't Sweden...just one blow from the US and the House of Saud would tumble like a house of cards. They'll do what they're told.

 

And bringing down the House of Saud (even if it was as simple), is a favorable course of action...because?

There's no shortage of messed up countries in the region, perhaps better to avoid another addition.

[ttthailand]

I think it is refreshing to see the house and senate supporting the people who put them in office. The president forgot who he works for and thinks he knows best.... Honesty and truth has been neglected too long ! Let the chickens come home to roost. This may cause a fuss in the short term but better to let it sort out now than later ....

[Chicog]

3 minutes ago, ttthailand said:

I think it is refreshing to see the house and senate supporting the people who put them in office. The president forgot who he works for and thinks he knows best.... Honesty and truth has been neglected too long ! Let the chickens come home to roost. This may cause a fuss in the short term but better to let it sort out now than later ....

The truth is that America suffered its worst terrorist attack under a Republican administration, yet for some reason they didn't think this merited eight separate investigations.

 

 

[canuckamuck]

I think they should sue the Saudis for making 3 skyscapers fall at freefall speed into their own footprint and  4 passenger jets vanish, using only box cutters. Obviously the Saudis have been breaking the laws of physics.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, ttthailand said:

I think it is refreshing to see the house and senate supporting the people who put them in office. The president forgot who he works for and thinks he knows best.... Honesty and truth has been neglected too long ! Let the chickens come home to roost. This may cause a fuss in the short term but better to let it sort out now than later ....

They're not supposed to support them, they;re supposed to act in their best interest. And this law sounds nice and looks good, but is not in the best interests of the USA.

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 hours ago, Chicog said:

Can you imagine if the GCC persuaded OPEC into dealing in Yuan per barrel rather than dollars?

And if you think that is impossible, you missed the news this week about a significant landmark that is tomorrow.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-chinese-yuan/

 

They never switched to Euros or Yen in the past, even during the '73 oil embargo (Deuche Marks, Pounds, Francs back then), why do you think they would switch to Yuans now? Believe me, it will never happen.

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

And bringing down the House of Saud (even if it was as simple), is a favorable course of action...because?

There's no shortage of messed up countries in the region, perhaps better to avoid another addition.

I didn't say the US should do it (though that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing); I way just arguing that the Saudis need the US at least as much, if not more, than the US needs them as so they are not going to do anything to damage the relationship as the topic headline implies.

[Naam]

21 hours ago, The Deerhunter said:

The USA is now a net energy exporter for the first time in decades

little do you know

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=m

 

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I didn't say the US should do it (though that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing); I way just arguing that the Saudis need the US at least as much, if not more, than the US needs them as so they are not going to do anything to damage the relationship as the topic headline implies.

 

I doubt that the US can currently afford (from whichever point of view one chooses to apply), another ME country in flames. SA (or the House of Saud) knows this too. Diplomatic relations are often a matter of balance rather than a clear cut options. While I agree that it is unlikely SA will resort to anything dramatic, it is also doubtful that the new legislation will actually be applied in a meaningful way.

[OMGImInPattaya]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt that the US can currently afford (from whichever point of view one chooses to apply), another ME country in flames. SA (or the House of Saud) knows this too. Diplomatic relations are often a matter of balance rather than a clear cut options. While I agree that it is unlikely SA will resort to anything dramatic, it is also doubtful that the new legislation will actually be applied in a meaningful way.

I would agree with your assessment of the legislation; as with most of what comes out of Congress, it is mostly political grandstanding (did someone say there's an election in a month ).

Edited September 30, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[blazes]

I believe the yuan is, on October 1st, about to be inducted to the Great World Currency Club called Special Drawing Rights administered by the IMF, which, eventually, will have the effect of undermining the dollar's status as the #1 world currency.

 

See this IMF source:

https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htm

[tomwct]

If the Saudi Government did nothing wrong then no problem! If they have their hands in the cookie jar, they could be in trouble.

[MobileContent]

On 9/29/2016 at 7:14 AM, OMGImInPattaya said:

The United States isn't Sweden...just one blow from the US and the House of Saud would tumble like a house of cards. They'll do what they're told.

 

Fully agree with you.

 

This whole article is very much rubbish. If the US and Western countries stops pupping up the regime the House of Saud will be gone in no time and this also counts for the GCC countries.

 

They want to stop overflying rights? Let the West do the same and Qatar Airways, Emirates, Gulf Air etc will loose their rights as well to the EU, US, Australia etc.

 

This is just talk and the Arabs will do nothing. 

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 hour ago, blazes said:

I believe the yuan is, on October 1st, about to be inducted to the Great World Currency Club called Special Drawing Rights administered by the IMF, which, eventually, will have the effect of undermining the dollar's status as the #1 world currency.

 

See this IMF source:

https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htm

You mean like the French intended to do with the introduction of the Euro...how did that turn out for them (and Europe). Special Drawing Rights just means a country's currency is more or less freely convertible, just as most Western European currencies and the Japanese yen have been for a long time. None of these currencies has ever even made an attempt to supplant the mighty Greenback as the world's reserve currency. It won't be any different with the yuan.

[blazes]

3 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

You mean like the French intended to do with the introduction of the Euro...how did that turn out for them (and Europe). Special Drawing Rights just means a country's currency is more or less freely convertible, just as most Western European currencies and the Japanese yen have been for a long time. None of these currencies has ever even made an attempt to supplant the mighty Greenback as the world's reserve currency. It won't be any different with the yuan.

 

"the mighty Greenback as the world's reserve currency"??  Hubris this is called, dude.

 

Or, more to the point, ignorance of world history.  The pound sterling occupied this reserve currency status until the end of WW1.  And where is that today? Languishing in the cellar, the poor cousin of the mighty Greenback.

[OMGImInPattaya]

19 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

"the mighty Greenback as the world's reserve currency"??  Hubris this is called, dude.

 

Or, more to the point, ignorance of world history.  The pound sterling occupied this reserve currency status until the end of WW1.  And where is that today? Languishing in the cellar, the poor cousin of the mighty Greenback.

It's also called reality. Yes, every country and its currency has its day; for the Chinese it was 1000 years ago (Han Dynasty ). 

Edited September 30, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[boomerangutang]

It's a complex issue, but I'm more for allowing the lawsuits than forbidding them.

The plaintiffs must have some indications that rich individuals and probably also financial entities are behind the attackers.  Am not sure to what extent Al Qaeda can be sued.  In other words, if it's shown that wealthy individuals/entities supported Al Qaeda, then can there be enough of a connection to the bombings of 9-11?  I don't know.  Overall though, it would be good to at least expose financiers of terrorism, even if the possibility of getting recompense is remote.

 

[Andaman Al]

5 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

It's a complex issue, but I'm more for allowing the lawsuits than forbidding them.

The plaintiffs must have some indications that rich individuals and probably also financial entities are behind the attackers.  Am not sure to what extent Al Qaeda can be sued.  In other words, if it's shown that wealthy individuals/entities supported Al Qaeda, then can there be enough of a connection to the bombings of 9-11?  I don't know.  Overall though, it would be good to at least expose financiers of terrorism, even if the possibility of getting recompense is remote.

 

Careful what you wish for. I would wager that particular money trail goes nowhere near Saudi

[stander]

9/11 victim sues Saudi Arabia for husband’s death.

 

A widowed woman, whose husband was killed in the 9/11 attacks, has sued Saudi Arabia, demanding reparations over her husbands' death.

Stephanie Ross DeSimone, filed a complaint at a court in Washington on Friday, alleging that the Saudi regime had provided material support to al-Qaeda and its former leader, Osama bin Laden, who have been blamed by American officials as 9/11 masterminds.

The move came after US senators on Wednesday voted 97-1 in favor of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which allows relatives of the victims of the 2001 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia. The House of Representatives also voted for the legislation, 348 to 77.

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/10/01/487105/US-Saudi-Arabia-911-JASTA-DeSimone

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, stander said:

9/11 victim sues Saudi Arabia for husband’s death.

 

A widowed woman, whose husband was killed in the 9/11 attacks, has sued Saudi Arabia, demanding reparations over her husbands' death.

Stephanie Ross DeSimone, filed a complaint at a court in Washington on Friday, alleging that the Saudi regime had provided material support to al-Qaeda and its former leader, Osama bin Laden, who have been blamed by American officials as 9/11 masterminds.

The move came after US senators on Wednesday voted 97-1 in favor of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which allows relatives of the victims of the 2001 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia. The House of Representatives also voted for the legislation, 348 to 77.

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/10/01/487105/US-Saudi-Arabia-911-JASTA-DeSimone

This really is a huge can of worms.

 

I wonder what the motivation is to pass this bill? It certainly is not so that compensation can be paid to victims. The politicians do not give a crap about the victims. Perhaps victims could have been paid out of some of the 6 billion USD paid to Larry Silverman for the insurance claim for the WTC buildings, and the Government should have paid compensation for those killed in the Pentagon. 

 

The lady concerned has filed a few charges, the main two being

Quote

Wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress were the two main charges that DeSimone brought to the court against the Saudis.

By passing this bill the US Government are effectively saying that they are also guilty and liable for the same charges to be brought against them by every family in Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc. I hope this action continues now as the Saudi's will be in possession of some really shocking intelligence info that could upset the apple cart if they choose to use it in a defence.

 

Quote

alleging that the Saudi regime had provided material support to al-Qaeda and its former leader, Osama bin Laden,

 

A good lawyer could argue quite convincingly that the Bush family provided material support to Osama Bin Laden as they (The Bush's) were partners with his father and it would be reasonable to assume that Osama bin Laden had access to 'family money'. Time for the popcorn.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Andaman Al

[vaultdweller0013]

The reason the law was passed now is pure politics. There is an election on. Some congressmen wanted to go back home and point this out as an accomplishment; others just wouldn't want to be on the record as being against "justice against sponsors of terrorism" -- to hell with the consequences.

 

Also, the law only applies to "foreign" states so it can't be used to sue the US in US courts. Now, other countries could pass similiar laws and the US could be sued there. 

[The Deerhunter]

21 hours ago, Naam said:

little do you know

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=m

 

 

Is that the same as being a net energy exporter/?  Your quote is about petroleum imports & exports which may be the same but there may be other factors in the energy equation.  The article that spoke of the first export shipment of oil going to China very clearly spoke of US net energy exports, not specifically petroleum  imports exports.  You may well be right and the author of the article I am quoting may be in error, but I do not have  the time to research it.  Thanks if your point is valid.  

[Naam]

22 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

Is that the same as being a net energy exporter/?  Your quote is about petroleum imports & exports which may be the same but there may be other factors in the energy equation.  The article that spoke of the first export shipment of oil going to China very clearly spoke of US net energy exports, not specifically petroleum  imports exports.  You may well be right and the author of the article I am quoting may be in error, but I do not have  the time to research it.  Thanks if your point is valid.  

 

the US is exporting mainly high quality crude derivatives and also a rather small amount of unrefined crude. but the bottom line is that 5 million barrels/day are net imported. that's around 25% of the daily consumption.

 

imports from Saudi Arabia are about 1 million barrels/day, i.e. any discussion of a backlash in this respekt is totally irrelevant because this rather small quantity can be easily compensated by imports from the other four main suppliers Canada, Venezuela, Mexico and Colombia. 

 

 

 

[The Deerhunter]

On 10/1/2016 at 2:41 PM, Naam said:

 

the US is exporting mainly high quality crude derivatives and also a rather small amount of unrefined crude. but the bottom line is that 5 million barrels/day are net imported. that's around 25% of the daily consumption.

 

imports from Saudi Arabia are about 1 million barrels/day, i.e. any discussion of a backlash in this respekt is totally irrelevant because this rather small quantity can be easily compensated by imports from the other four main suppliers Canada, Venezuela, Mexico and Colombia. 

 

 

 

I believe my point was that the US may have the whip hand with S.A. in questions of petroleum imports.  It seems you agree,.

[Naam]

1 hour ago, The Deerhunter said:

I believe my point was that the US may have the whip hand with S.A. in questions of petroleum imports.  It seems you agree,.

i don't agree as neither the US nor SA has any whip hand pertaining to crude ex/imports.

[thaihome]

Back on topic. This is the connection.

....victims’ families are focusing on an unproven theory that a Saudi consular official in Los Angeles and a Saudi intelligence operative in San Diego directly assisted two of the 19 hijackers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/04/08/why-the-u-s-keeps-importing-so-much-oil/

TH

[The Deerhunter]

On 10/2/2016 at 8:56 PM, Naam said:

i don't agree as neither the US nor SA has any whip hand pertaining to crude ex/imports.

OK!  Truce?

[Naam]

2 hours ago, The Deerhunter said:

OK!  Truce?

[impulse]

On 10/1/2016 at 2:41 PM, Naam said:

 

the US is exporting mainly high quality crude derivatives and also a rather small amount of unrefined crude. but the bottom line is that 5 million barrels/day are net imported. that's around 25% of the daily consumption.

 

imports from Saudi Arabia are about 1 million barrels/day, i.e. any discussion of a backlash in this respekt is totally irrelevant because this rather small quantity can be easily compensated by imports from the other four main suppliers Canada, Venezuela, Mexico and Colombia. 

 

That's true.  The USA isn't concerned about getting oil from Saudi Arabia.  We don't need it.  The goal is that the oil is available on the world market, because if China or Japan or Europe can't get their oil from SA, they'll be bidding up oil from other places. 

 

Personally, I think we should let the folks that get their oil from the Middle East pay to defend their own sources and their own tankers on the open seas.