It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saudi Threatens ‘Dire Implications’ Over U.S. Law Allowing 9/11 Victims to Sue

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
the 'dire implications' #1 is the Petro Dollar itself, that was a no-brainer to deduce.

But another 'dire implication'... #2 could very well be the exporting of extreme, Wahhabism to the hundreds of Foreign Mosques that the Saudi Monarch have built over the decades in Europe/America and all western countries.
These Mosques (built to placate the Salafist/Extreme Fundamentalist Islam led in Arabia by the Wahhabist Sect)

I reckon that Mosque building for the radical sect allowed a sort of Détente between the Jihad/Sharia Sect and a Monarchy by the house-of-Saud...


Here's where the sinister aspect of the Mosque exporting comes into play... the 'dire implication' might just be the radical sect along with the House-of-Saud making all of these Mosques into Arms and weapons cache's/armories which cannot be busted by the host nation.... the coming waves of hate & war/Jihad preaching by every foreign Mosque in every western country can result in complete Anarchy and terror and insurrection/ sabotage from the hundreds of arms depots scattered in western democracies world-wide

this has all been planned ever since the Muslims were thrown back from taking over Europe at the Gates of Vienna 1683




see: 1683: The Siege of Vienna | History Today
www.historytoday.com/walter-leitsch/1683-siege-vienna

In the summer of 1683, the main army of the Ottoman Empire, a large and well-equipped force, besieged Vienna. The town was nearing the end of its ability to resist ...






** Wahhabism

Wahhabism (Arabic: الوهابية‎‎, al-Wahhābiya(h)) or Wahhabi mission; Arabic: الدعوة الوهابية‎‎, ad-Da'wa al-Wahhābiya(h) ) is a religious movement or branch of Sunni Islam. It has been variously described as "ultraconservative", "austere", "fundamentalis…




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio


this little blurb is related.... Its about the sudden 180degree reversal of the Fed & USA Treasury policy of selling all the gold & PMs they have stored...

the Fed/Treasury are now on a binge buying spree of accumulating Gold (so expect the gold futures to remain in decline for the next 6 months for sure)


I OP-ED a post to my documents earlier...here it is :


'Sprott Money'.... THE United States has broken another record in the month of July 2016, in which 23.8 tonnes of gold was brought back into the country
Compared to countries such as Russia and China, who have been steadily accumulating precious metals, this may not seem like much, but it must be looked at in the proper context. The United States for the past decade has been a monstrous exporter of the yellow metal! So why the change of heart?

I, and many others, believe that perhaps something big is coming.
The crash may be closer than we think and the elites might know more than they are willing to share.
Hopefully not, but we shall see. Prepare now, or risk losing everything. You've been warned - something fishy is afoot.


 


Yeah... something Big is at the doorstep.... but I don't think a stock CRASH...
probably the Petro Dollar being demoted into a basket-of-currencies, instead of a stand alone Trade Currency.
Saudi Arabia is mad at the devious psychopaths in charge of USA policies right now




an abbreviated thought, but it makes sense to me....or my dot connecting is failing me



edit on th30147528397630062016 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

Ahh so Gold will keep the dollar afloat like it did in the past,and when it restabilizes its back to debt again. Circular logic.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: F4guy
That is not a temporary injunction and anyway...


What do you call halting the lawsuit for 180 days?


...that section has been superceded by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.


How can something older supersede (take the place of) something newer?


answer to the 1st question - a stay
2nd - treaties beat statutes. You can't undo a treaty just by passing a new law. laws are unilateral. treaties are bilateral



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

OK, so the Saudis are mad that Congress flipped a middle finger at Obama, and overrode his veto of the law allowing US citizens to sue the Saudi government. They're threatening to pull billions of dollars out the US economy.


US Congress = DUMB

And the Saudis are right.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
This Law (i.e.,New 9/11 just passed by Congress) is far more of a concern for Hillary Clinton and Obama directly since they are likely to be sued by the Syrian government for starting a civil war in their country. And, I believe the same can be said for at-least three others countries.

The Saudi government is dependent upon the US for arms shipments.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
The United States of America does not negotiate with Terrorists.

Seriously though I think we have to let the chips fall and see what happens. We can't just say "Oh well, nothing to do", it's all Fake F'ing money anyway.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy
answer to the 1st question - a stay


Injuction/stay. Semantics. My point is valid, it can be put off indefinitely.


2nd - treaties beat statutes. You can't undo a treaty just by passing a new law. laws are unilateral. treaties are bilateral


Wow. Do you not know that a treaty is not United States law since it was not passed in Congress and signed by the President?


As a matter of domestic law within the United States, Congress may override a pre-existing treaty or Congressional-Executive agreement of the United States. Learn about treaties and law







edit on 1-10-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer because Barstar Lumberjerk drank it all



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
You mean the Saudi Wahabbists are not really friends of democracy after all? Hahahahahahaha



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
As if!!! No lawyer in the world is going to take a case they know they can't win on contingency. Not a one. The ONLY cases they take on contingency are ones they are certain are a slam-dunk or are likely to settle quickly.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Lets see those ignorant senators jump like jack rabbits in heat to repeal that stupid meaningless bill when threatened with money loss for their corporate overlords.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

WOuld they now though? because that would endanger their jobs.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: jtma508
As if!!! No lawyer in the world is going to take a case they know they can't win on contingency. Not a one. The ONLY cases they take on contingency are ones they are certain are a slam-dunk or are likely to settle quickly.


Or the ones that want to get their name out there via a high profile case for public consumption. They do not need to win this to raise their visibility.




edit on 1-10-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer but if he did he would drink it from a skull



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: F4guy
answer to the 1st question - a stay


Injuction/stay. Semantics. My point is valid, it can be put off indefinitely.


2nd - treaties beat statutes. You can't undo a treaty just by passing a new law. laws are unilateral. treaties are bilateral


Wow. Do you not know that a treaty is not United States law since it was not passed in Congress and signed by the President?


As a matter of domestic law within the United States, Congress may override a pre-existing treaty or Congressional-Executive agreement of the United States. Learn about treaties and law


The crucial words in your response are, "As a matter of domestic law within the United States". That's why I pointed out that treaties are bilateral. The whole issue here is whether a foreign person, not within the US can sue and collect from the US. That's not a domestic matter. It is international. And under our Constitution, treaties are not passed by the House. The Senate must pass by agreeing to them, and they are signed by the President.
As to the difference between a preliminary injunction and stay, it's not just semantics. The terms are very important. A PI requires a monetary bond. A stay does not. And the prerequisites are very different. I practiced international law for 30 years. You?








posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
A stay, in this case can be asked for by the DOJ but the Judge must agree in order for it to become effective.

In the mean time, all of the civil wars started by Obama and Hillary, plus the evidents will become visible. My understanding is that approximately 12 people in our government were involved in approving the civil wars directed by Hillary. So, I think what we are actually looking at is war crimes.

edit on 1-10-2016 by WishIKnew2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Does anyone wonder why the senate or congress ever ask Obama why his administration is supporting terrorists in Syria?


No they never do, not even the GOP

WHY

Ill tell you why

The answer is inside the senate Intelligence committee where they have information about a finding to destroy Syria by any means possible.


This is something vital and relevant to todays world that these clowns will never reveal or deal with



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy
The crucial words in your response are, "As a matter of domestic law within the United States".


Which this recently passed bill is, domestic law. It overrides the treaty you cited as that treaty is not domestic law.


The Senate must pass by agreeing to them, and they are signed by the President.


Which is not the same as domestic law.


The terms are very important. A PI requires a monetary bond. A stay does not. And the prerequisites are very different. I practiced international law for 30 years. You?


I practiced for 31. And the point stands, it can be postponed indefinitely.








posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
That's what happens when you rely on a rogue state to prop up your economy.


Saudi Arabia is only our twelfth largest trading partner. They need us more than we need them.



Yes, and mostly to protect their arses from everyone that would like to kick them if the US wasn't acting as hired muscle.

Never understood why the US is willing to invade and flatten many other countries in the ME, yet seem to bow and scrape to Saudi and pretend to like them for the fat cheques, instead of just..well, taking what the Saudi's have.

The Saudi's seem to have trouble crushing even the poorest, least equipped of enemies, despite the umpteen billions of $ worth of sophisticated weaponry the West sells them every year..it's obvious they'd stand zero chance against an army like the US's...so why tollerate their barbarity?

If they intend to try and crash the US economy...simply freeze and seize all of their assets in the US and give 'em the metaphorical finger...problem solved. What are they going to do about it but rant and rave for a bit? They're certainly not going to get in their shiney, new expensive tanks we've just sold them are they!



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
If they intend to try and crash the US economy...


The reality is they are not capable of doing this. People mistakenly think two things, that we get most of our oil from them (Canada is our largest supplier) and that they can sell off their Treasury Bills and damage the economy (it could only hurt them and not us).



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join