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.

 

Lloyd's insurer sues Saudi Arabia for 'funding 9/11 attacks'

page: 2
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayouttheredude I am not a betting man but if I were I think I would bet on a quick and quiet settlement in this case.


From whom exactly?




posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 
No,The Saudi's will just threaten to cut the UK's oil supply if Loyd's does not back off.Then the British government will step in with a settlement offer.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Perhaps they'll just email them the link to the AE911truth website to dispute the claim.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Here's the Lloyd's arms if you want to salute them because I sure do.





Originally posted by wayouttheredude

I think the House of Saud would very much like to see this suit go away. I am not a betting man but if I were I think I would bet on a quick and quiet settlement in this case.




Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


Lloyd's has had a great many years to dig up information on this. They have some of the world's best investigators and as others have stated very deep pockets. I still think there will be a quick and quiet payoff to make this go away for the Saudi government.



Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by Crakeur
 


I think a private payoff is the more likely and no statement and Lloyd's just says they are going to publicly drop it for the time being to be picked up later. Then of course later does not come and the news cycle has moved on. You could be right but fighting this when Lloyd's has had nearly a decade to research the links between the charities, the banks, and the House of Saud. The resulting exposure seems more than inconvenient given the fact that the Arab spring has sprung and it can spring again.




Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


in most cases, a settlement to make something of this magnitude would be the quick and easy route but, by doing so, they would have the issue of assumed guilt. The public would read into it quickly, that they would rather not have the links exposed and, therefore, they are "making it go away."

If they do settle, it will come with a statement that they are not guilty of this but they'd rather not waste money fighting it as the legal fees would be about the same as the settlement.

Given that the global view of such a statement might be one of scorn, with SA still looking guilty in the eyes of many, they might be stuck fighting it to avoid assumption of guilt.



Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by Crakeur
 


I think a private payoff is the more likely and no statement and Lloyd's just says they are going to publicly drop it for the time being to be picked up later. Then of course later does not come and the news cycle has moved on. You could be right but fighting this when Lloyd's has had nearly a decade to research the links between the charities, the banks, and the House of Saud. The resulting exposure seems more than inconvenient given the fact that the Arab spring has sprung and it can spring again.


Good points.

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 agree the Saudis will want to settle this out of court with no admission of liability.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by UniverSoul
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 

even so, who funded it should be irrelivant
money goes around in circles and we all know everyone is in everyones pockets
america has the most invested in it anyway.
saying that america wasnt behind it is like saying another country payed for america to make billions out of war

Who funded 9/11 is very relevant. It tells us who our real enemy is.

Are you in everyone else's pockets? I'm not. Maybe you think you are?

We only want to pay for things we want.
We don't want to have to pay for things we don't want, don't need and in fact hate.

No-one here wanted to pay for Al Qaeda to do the 9/11 attacks. Not unless someone here is in Al Qaeda.

Of course Americans were not behind the 9/11 attacks on America. The enemies of America attacked America on 9/11, nobody else did.

"Make billions"? The war on terror cost Western taxpayers billions that could have been spent elsewhere on domestic infrastructure, not just replacement Skyscrapers but all kinds of buildings, bridges, airports, railways, internet, hospitals you name it.

Then there is the extra medical research, charitable works and a thousand other worthwhile causes that we'd rather our money could be spent on if we didn't have to fight wars against our enemies.

We sacrificed other spending because we had to defend ourselves because the enemy was and is intent on destroying our peace-time economy - clue "World Trade Center" as well as killing as many of us as they could.

Just because we could and had to pay to defend ourselves doesn't mean we planned the whole attack on ourselves in the first place.

Yours is absurd logic.

There is above top secret and there is beneath contempt. Guess where you are ..

edit on 31-12-2011 by Mr Peter Dow because: typo



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by proteus33
like i have always asked why did we go to Afghanistan if money came from Saudi Arabia? for heavens sake they had
a telethon to raise money for the families of the martyrs who struck at west the next day after attack. does their king have so little control over his kingdom they he couldn't stop the telethon . or did he believe that they did the right thing.

Well look we wanted to kill Bin Laden so we had to send our military wherever Bin Laden had gone to. As it turns out we finally caught up with him in Pakistan. If he had been there from day one and we had known that we would have gone straight to Pakistan to get him.

The Saudis made a point of making Bin Laden unwelcome in Saudi Arabia and wanted him as a foreign-based secret agent because they did not want the coming fight to be happening in Saudi Arabia. They wanted us to "take it outside" to Afghanistan because the whole exercise was the Saudis playing a good cop / bad cop routine with us with

* the Saudi state (as the "good" cop) advising us that our presence in Arabia was no longer required after we had ousted Saddam out of Kuwait for them, and please do stop asking Kuwait or any Arab country to move to democracy, women's rights etc and

* Bin Laden and Al Qaeda (as the bad cop) waging war on us to kick us out of Arabia and to draw us into Afghanistan where they hoped to defeat us like they defeated the Soviets.

The Saudi state wanted plausible deniability. They wanted to be able to fool those in the West who were prepared to be fooled (politicians wanting to sell them arms etc for oil) that somehow Bin Laden was a rogue element, nothing to do with the Saudi King, government etc.

For the Pakistanis, I mean the Pakistani elite who control the Pakistani state, the military mostly, for them the war on terror is kind of like a farming business to make money, because it is a poor country, mostly because it is a badly run country.

The Saudis pay the Pakistanis to recruit (grow) some terrorists and we paid the Pakistanis to capture (harvest) the terrorists. So the war on terror on the Pakistan / Afghanistan border is a money-making exercise for Pakistan.

Pakistan made a killing out of the US supplying Afghan fighters against the Soviets. With the profits from that Pakistan could afford a nuclear weapons programme.

So when Saudi-funded Bin Laden came to them the Pakistani military elite was more than happy to help the Taliban provide a border "tribal areas" (plausible deniability) location for Bin Laden to draw us into war, to fight it out, each of us paying Pakistan for the privilege.

Providing a location for a war on terror all means more money to pay for more nukes for Pakistan for that big shoot out with India one day.

Bin Laden was and Al Zawahri may be the Pakistani "seed corn" for growing new terrorists. That is why the Pakistanis did not want to hand over Bin Laden and the US had to go get him. That is why Pakistan are not too keen to help us get Al Zawahri either. He may be their last seed corn left. Or maybe he has gone to another country altogether.

Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have managed with various plausible deniability excuses somehow to stop themselves being directly targeted as enemies or state-sponsors of terrorism.

But we can see that with Bin Laden captured & killed near the Pakistani military academy, the equivalent of the UK Sandhurst or the US West Point and this Lloyd's legal action against the Saudi government, people are getting wise to who the real enemy funding and helping Al Qaeda is and who is ultimately to blame for 9/11.


edit on 31-12-2011 by Mr Peter Dow because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2011 by Mr Peter Dow because: spelling!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
This is a Lloyd's syndicate suing the Saudis, not Lloyd's itself.

IMO its just an attempt to recover some funds via settlement; on the face of it their case does not seem to be very strong nor involve a great deal of investigative work (ie they are using Wikileaks cables). I dont believe they want it to go to court any more than the Saudis do.

I presume there will be a (probably small) settlement and the whole thing goes away; recovering any funds would be a nice little bonus for the syndicate members.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnightFire
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


It's not new news that Saudi Arabia has been and will continue funding terrorism. Problem is, no one will do anything about it since they control the majority of the worlds oil supply.

Double standard in my opinion.

What like "no-one" would do anything about Saddam since he controlled the Iraqi oil supply?


I seem to remember a whole lot of very handsome and dashing "no-one"s in military uniform doing something terminal about Saddam.


Now sure, the US commander in chief who did something about Saddam at time took a very different view to the Saudi rulers.

But Bush isn't president any more. Obama is. He did something about Gaddafi.

Even if the Saudis are safe with Obama, who after all bowed to the Saudi king, Obama will not be president for ever. He might even be voted out in 2012, which is this year. and happy new year to you all!


Sooner or later, there could come a president who will do something about the Saudis and then the Saudis'll control as much of the world's oil supply as Saddam and his sons do.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by proteus33
why dont we form an alliance with china ,Russia ,great Britain, a france to take conytol of saudi arabia and weed out the extremist and the people funding them and yes i think they should pay multi trillion dollar restittution to all countries and peoples who had a loss from 911. why because saudi kingdom let it happen. i am not anti Muslim.
plus it would be an easier target than afganistan it has water on three sides, a smaller population, less rugged terrain we already have vases there and in several close by nations. if you cut off terrorists cash flow they would go from global threat to regional threat

Well as a Briton I am in but so long as we have the US and a neighbouring country in the venture to launch an invasion from, say Kuwait or Iraq, I don't think we need a lot of other people.

A sea invasion against a well equipped military like the Saudis is not advisable. If invading from the sea was the only option, we'd have to win over elements in-country first; win over some at least in the Saudi military by use of political propaganda, seizing the Arabian satellites and broadcasting "get the Saudis" propaganda - which we should probably do anyway even if we are not invading Saudi Arabia so as to provoke an Arab spring and republican revolution in Arabia against the Saudis.

Yes France would be good to take and these days after Libya, France is a better prospect under Sarkozy than it was at the time of the Iraq war under Chirac so the French may well be up for it.

Other NATO countries might be willing to join in too.

Certainly we won't be inviting the Russians or the Chinese to get a foothold down there.
If the Russians want to help with Afghanistan then that is a better prospect for East / West co-operation.

The Russians have plenty of oil and gas of their own so if they went to Arabia it wouldn't be to get oil for themselves which they don't need; it would only be to stop us having it and frankly I don't think the Russians would be all that keen to join in with us or defend the Saudis.

The Russians might well veto a UN resolution to authorise us invading Saudi Arabia and kick up a huge fuss on Russia Today though so it might be good politics to butter the Russians up with something nice, perhaps a percentage of the Arabian oil revenues for looking the other way or some inward high technology investments into Russia from the west to help diversify the Russian economy which is largely funded by oil and gas and this is a weakness the Russians are aware of and would like some help with.

It is just too far out of area for the Chinese to do much to help or hinder either way.
Sure they'd love to get the oil but we don't need to share it with them so they can butt out.

I am sure the Chinese will understand that grabbing the Saudi oil reserves will help the US deficit and help protect the value of all the US dollars of investment the Chinese now hold. The Chinese will be OK. Just leave them, they'll be fine.

One final point, we are going to have to give a share of the oil to the Arabs, but to our Arab allies, Arabian democrats and republicans.

We can't go in and seize 100% of the oil revenues for ourselves and none for the Arab street. We need to find some Arab intellectuals, democrats and republicans, western educated, perhaps help build them up a political party to support, people we trust, who share our values.

OK all we need now is a US president to lead us and the Saudi oil's ours!


At least this time there will be no argument that it is an "war for oil" because it honestly will be!


edit on 31-12-2011 by Mr Peter Dow because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2011 by Mr Peter Dow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by Unity_99
 


The SA the fall guy?

They did it. They're guilty. Now comes the pay back.



Originally posted by wayouttheredude
But W was all photographed holding hands and kissing on his highness.

Actually he was photographed with one of the named parties in the Lloyd's legal action.


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.


Originally posted by wayouttheredude
Surely the globalist are not going to throw them under the bus now?

Who are the "globalists" and how big is their army? If the "globalists" are the opposite of the flat-earthers then which are you?

Actually, if I was a Saudi royal, I'd be picking out a nice bus to dive under in a staged accident before the West gets around to dealing with Saudi Arabia and then spend some time "recuperating" from an unfortunate "accident" in a foreign hospice hoping to be forgotten then a change of name, perhaps plastic surgery, a new life somewhere else, disappear.

Remember the US offered Saddam $1 billion to go into exile before the Iraq invasion no questions asked. That deal looks good for Saddam now.


Originally posted by wayouttheredude
Of course the eurobankers might just feel like "hey our henchmen at CIA made these enemies de'jour" "Lets use them" lol

The CIA work for the US government, not Eurobankers. The rest of your comment is unfathomable, by me anyway.
edit on 31-12-2011 by Mr Peter Dow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenWun

Originally posted by Unity_99
So lets read between the lines. In other words, TPTB, with the dark weapons, and the death ray,


Oh please do go on. I have a feeling the death ray is the crux of the whole thing. Please enlighten. What are dark weapons and where can I see one?

If they are like dark matter you can't see them and have to deduce their presence from the people who die mysteriously.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
i missed something...were ufos seen on 9-11-2001?......i know that there was no reason for building 7 to go down....with all the info out on 911 ......i should remember seeing ufo's .......which ships were there? Cia coverups & ufo's we have seen the US government lie to us about this before......please post the ufo connection.....thanks



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike dangerously
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 
No,The Saudi's will just threaten to cut the UK's oil supply if Loyd's does not back off.Then the British government will step in with a settlement offer.

The Saudis can't cut off anyone's oil supply. No-one has to buy their oil from Saudi Arabia.

Whoever the Saudis sell their oil to can sell it on to anybody else. All they can do is cut back or stop production, raising the global price of oil. If Saudi Arabia has a prospect of invasion the Saudis could certainly sabotage their own oil wells like Saddam did before Iraq was invaded.

But eventually the fires will be put out and new oil well heads put in place and production restored only under Western control this time.

The Saudis have much more specific control over who they buy from -and it is Saudi contracts to buy arms etc which makes the world's politicians weak at the knees.

Sure the UK, like other countries, has been corrupted into turning a blind eye to Saudi terrorism because the UK wants to sell them stuff.

But the Saudi threat of refusing to buy British stuff is not enough to keep complete control over the UK, not so long as we keep in step with the US who are still in the Arabian area in force.

That is why the Saudi state supported the Al Qaeda terrorism to try to push the USA out of the area so they could treat the USA and allies with the same contempt as they treat everyone else.

The problem for the Saudis is that the USA are not out of area as yet and can still pressure the Saudis with talk of invasion.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
if i had been president on 911 and all the info pointing back to arabia i would have parked several carrier groups in gulf of arabia told saddam if he let us use his 3 airfields no questions asked we would lift sanctions against him place a couple of carrier groups in med off coast of Israel and eygpt and invaded in mass . we would dominate sky .
para troops could secure oil facilities and a couple of tactical nukes dropped in a few strategic locals would definately get worlds attention that if you let your people stir up # pot with us it would be a verrry basss idea.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
An interesting move.

One that paves the way for the US to be sued for the many terrorist attacks in Britain and Ireland carried out by the IRA cowards using US money?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by UniverSoul
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 

even so, who funded it should be irrelivant


I see you did not lose anyone close to you in the attack.

The people who funded it, caused it,.. and are unltimately responsible.
Please tell us, and the victim's families exactly how that is "irrelevant".




money goes around in circles and we all know everyone is in everyones pockets
america has the most invested in it anyway.
saying that america wasnt behind it is like saying another country payed for america to make billions out of war



You really haven't paid attention.

Haliburton profited, America suffered for it.
The US was sold out by our president and VP.

GWB attacked AFGHANISTAN to secure a unified government, so they could access pipeline rights and mineral rights.
They put the ex VP of UNOCAL in office as the president of Afganistan, and announced the largest mineral deposit discovery in the history of the planet.
Haliburton used the US military to secure land and assets, then moved in with corporate armies to keep them.

Still don't see the real picture?
Not one step of this was hidden either.
There is no conspiracy, it's clear as day for anyone who isn't too lazy to look at the news.
GWB, Dick Cheney, and Haliburton conspired to defraud the US into using our armed forces to attack and secure assets for private a company/companies ( Haliburton).

And guess how many people are just too blind to see the plain facts?
"Mission Accomplished"!



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
no we are not blind to those facts yes the bish cheney group needs to be tried on treason charges. but saudi arabia was the most responsible for said attacks.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
What is the geopolitical situation in Saudi Arabia? Are they so far under the sphere of western influence, that it is a safe assumption, that if Saudi Arabia had a hand in 911 it did only so on behalf of westerner secret services? Is the kingdom of Saudi Arabia at odds with the US and other countries to the point where they would fund an insurgency?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join