Is There a Growing Consensus that Saudi Arabia is a State Sponsor of Terrorism?

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
If Saudi sponsors terrorists including the 911 group then the idiots in Washington didn't pull off 911.

But then again if you have a conspiracy hammer everything looks like a conspiracy nail.




The Saudis are sock-puppets of the US black bag community. Rest assured, the hands-off policy toward Saudi Arabia post 9/11 was absolute proof that these people were just following (US) orders. Directly or indirectly. Have you ever seen evidence ignored so completely as the US "investigations" worked to ignore the Saudi connection?

Mohammed Atta's stripper girlfriend gave gave us some insight into this a**hat's life. Like helping unload CIA coke shipments at Florida airports and coming back to the apartment to snort up prodigious quantities of coc aine.




posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
That the Saudis were the number 1 state sponsors of terrorism is something I have figured to be the case for the past n20 years. And they get away with it quite a lot. We turn a blind eye in exchange for easy access to their oil. And they stab us in the back when our heads are turned. Been that way for decades.

Putin better watch his back if he thinks he can deal with this government safely.


Yoiiu got it wrong. The Alphabet agencies are the ones whom set those secret armies up to begin with and turned control over to one of their closeart allies.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by juspassinthru
 




The Saudis are sock-puppets of the US black bag community. Rest assured, the hands-off policy toward Saudi Arabia post 9/11 was absolute proof that these people were just following (US) orders


If you think a 400 year old country controls a set of dictators and kings, whose lineage and history date back thousands of years, you'd be sorely mistaken.

The United States has always been the puppet, not the other way around.

~Tenth
edit on 11/20/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
This (the embedded video) is a good discussion of the Saudi connection to terrorism, starting off with the update that they have been reinstated as defendants in the 9/11 victims' families' lawsuit claiming damages for that attack.

www.browardbulldog.org...


With an unusual acknowledgment of a mistake in a high-profile case, a federal appeals court in New York City has restored Saudi Arabia as a defendant in a lawsuit brought by thousands of 9/11 victims, their families and others.

For a decade, the 9/11 plaintiffs have asserted that the desert kingdom bankrolled al Qaeda prior to the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Now, they can once again pursue their claim in court.

The ruling also restores as a defendant the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a government agency the plaintiffs contend funneled tens of millions of dollars to terrorist fighters across the globe.

Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired Congress’s Joint Inquiry into the attacks, hailed Thursday’s ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan.

“This is a very significant breakthrough that could collapse the dam of cover up which has kept information on the Saudis involvement from the American people,” Graham told BrowardBulldog.org in an exclusive interview.


That particular part of the story is a legal issue that has to be read carefully to be understood properly.

The presenter of the video quotes Prince Bandar bin Sultan as threatening Tony Blair in a way that misrepresents the literal meaning of the prince's statement and could easily be challenged by a defense attorney in court, but despite the legalities involved one might be forgiven for thinking that not informing someone of an impending 7/7 attack might be tantamount to participating in the attack.

In any event, the discussion moves on to what makes Saudi Arabia tick, and that is by far the most interesting part of the video.

edit on 15-1-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I just want to note a couple of things in regard to the recent court ruling that puts Saudi Arabia back into the position of defendant in the 9/11 victims' families' civil suit for damages.

As the Broward Bulldog article states:

www.browardbulldog.org...


The 16-page order by a three judge appellate court panel is a labyrinth of legal argument. Its essence, however, is that the court’s own conflicting rulings about how to apply the law in different 9/11 lawsuits led to an “error of law” by a lower federal court judge in New York, George B. Daniels, who wrongly let the Saudis off the hook for potentially billions of dollars in civil damages.


I haven't read the judgement, but I do not believe that it means that the US government has designated Saudi Arabia a "state sponsor of terrorism". The legal ramifications of such a designation would probably be more severe than simply being named defendant in a lawsuit. I believe that such a designation would allow the freezing of Saudi assets in the United States. That would be a very serious rupture in US/Saudi relations and might well be a prelude to an invasion of Saudi Arabia.

The attorney representing Saudi Arabia has made a statement that is undoubtedly true and important in the overall context of 9/11 truth.


But Michael K. Kellogg, a Washington, D.C. attorney who represents Saudi Arabia, called the decision “contrary to settled law.”
. . . . .
“It is also important to recognize that the Second Circuit’s decision has nothing to do with the facts of the case and does not find that the plaintiffs’ allegations are meritorious or even plausible.”


That is sobering enough, but there is a more interesting and troubling aspect to this story.


The ruling comes amid a parallel push in Congress to pass the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which would ensure that victims of terrorism on U.S. soil have the opportunity to hold its foreign sponsors accountable in U.S. courts.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, introduced JASTA in the Senate in September. Co-sponsors include seven Democrats and five Republicans. An identical bill in the House has similar drawn similar bipartisan support.

When Schumer introduced the bill, he said JASTA was needed “due to flawed court decisions that have deprived victims of terrorism on American soil, including those injured by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, of their day in court.”


Could it be that in reinstating the Saudis as defendants in the current lawsuit, the "powers that be" are actually attempting to prevent possible adjudication of this kind of case against the Saudis under terms of the new JASTA legislation, which might create a legal structure more favorable to the 9/11 victims' families'?

The Broward Bulldog article should be read in its entirety.

Hanging the 9/11 attack on the Saudis, if it gets a lot of victims' families' off the government's back might be an effective way for the government to punt this whole issue to the sideline and finally run out the clock on 9/11 for all effective law enforcement purposes.

If I were giving the Saudis legal advice, I would say, "Settle out of court." Not doing so is fraught with pitfalls.

There are no dependable actors in all of this.

edit on 15-1-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Saudi Arabia is in the pocket of America and England to a greater degree than Israel even.

www.independent.co.uk...

If money is funneled through Saudi Arabia into terrorist hands that would be quite a strange pattern. On one hand they bulldoze Mosques when they are in the way of malls. On the other hand they want to wage Jihad on America? Either there is some serious dissidence within Saudi Arabia or somebody is to produce some terrorism for somebody to exploit politically.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join