Pic changed due to a complaint from Animby

A Lloyd’s insurance syndicate has begun a landmark legal case against Saudi Arabia, accusing the kingdom of indirectly funding al-Qa’ida and demanding the repayment of £136m it paid out to victims of the 9/11 attacks.

The Brighton-based Lloyd’s 3500 syndicate, which paid $215m compensation to companies and individuals involved, alleges that the oil-rich Middle Eastern superpower bears primary responsibility for the atrocity because al-Qa’ida was supported by banks and charities acting as “agents and alter egos” for the Saudi state.

The detailed case, which names a number of prominent Saudi charities and banks as well as a leading member of the al-Saud royal family, will cause embarrassment to the Saudi government, which has long denied claims that Osama bin Laden’s organisation received official financial and practical support from his native country.

Outlined in a 156-page document filed in western Pennsylvania, where United Airlines flight 93 crashed on 9/11, the claim suggests that the nine defendants “knowingly” provided resources, including funding, to al-Qa’ida in the years before the attack and encouraged anti-Western sentiment which increased support for the terror group.

The legal claim states: “Absent the sponsorship of al-Qa’ida’s material sponsors and supporters, including the defendants named therein, al-Qa’ida would not have possessed the capacity to conceive, plan and execute the 11 September attacks. The success of al-Qa’ida’s agenda, including the 11 September attacks themselves, has been made possible by the lavish sponsorship al-Qa’ida has received from its material sponsors and supporters over more than a decade leading up to 11 September 2001.”

Oops! Sorry Iraq…..our bad.




  1. legendinmyownmind. says:

    Sounds fair if they pay triple damages.
    Saudi Arabia; The root of a shitload of EVIL.

  2. deowll says:

    Um, we supported the IRA, Irish Republican Army, or rather many of our citizens did. We have also support more than a few revolutions. Do we have to pay off the people harmed in those?

    The only way they would be directly liable is if the people at the top gave money knowing it was going to pay for the attacks.

    I don’t think the royal house approved of that plan.

  3. bobbo, the law is what happens whether you like it or not says:

    International Jurisdiction from Pennsylvania huh? Enforcement of any judgment? From what I’ve read there “should be” personal liability in highly placed and rich enough house of Saud family members if not the King Himself whom I’m sure was always looking in the other direction.

    Heh, heh. From the link: “The 9/11 Commission, America’s official report on the attacks, found that there was no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials individually funded al-Qa’ida.” /// sounds like the 911 Commissions should be sued to as a conspirator after the fact?

    Good luck. Do they insure any of the Wallstreet Programs?

  4. scandihoovian says:

    Insert Foghorn Leghorn rant >>>> here.

  5. McCullough says:

    bobbo- Bush (Cheney) blocked any investigation into Saudi ties.

    And yes, Bush (Cheney) should be sued as conspirator. I know, good luck. No one has the balls.

    “WASHINGTON — Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Senator (D) Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.
    Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from June 2001 through the buildup to the Iraq war, voted against the war resolution in October 2002 because he saw Iraq as a diversion that would hinder the fight against Al Qaeda terrorism.

    He oversaw the Sept. 11 investigation on Capitol Hill with Representative Porter Goss. According to (D) Graham, the FBI and the White House blocked efforts to investigate the extent of official Saudi connections to two hijackers.”

    http://boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/05/911_hijackers_tied_to_saudi_government_graham_says_in_book/

  6. ± says:

    Slimy lawyers doing their thing. One can only hope they lose with this international attention; the alternative is more tort litigation than ever, but henceforth on a worldwide scale.

  7. Jambe says:

    It’ll be interesting to see what becomes of this. The House of Saud isn’t to be taken lightly.

    Regardless of whether any substance comes of this case, the black helicoptering that’ll go on will be worth it on on its own.

    Am I a terrible person? I suppose it’s just my way of dealing with the constant torrent of news about just how bad humankind can actually be.

  8. Animby says:

    Tilting at windmills.

    The only winners are the lawyers…

  9. Micromike says:

    We always knew it was Saudi Arabia, that’s why we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without 911 how could they bury the Constitution and without the constant threat it could happen again we might return to sanity. By leaving the terrorists untouched they can make us continue to live in fear and give up our rights forever.

  10. Milo says:

    This may be the most effective tactic against Islamist terrorists yet.

  11. High Karate says:

    The suit was dropped today.

  12. Troublemaker says:

    The CIA’s Destroyed Interrogation Tapes and the Saudi-Pakistani 9/11 Connection

    http://huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/the-cias-destroyed-interr_b_75850.html

  13. ECA says:

    i DONT KNOW..
    HOW FAR DO YOU WANT TO GO??
    Russia attacks Afghanistan, and USA covertly backs Afghanistan?? for 10 years??
    WE taught them and armed them.

  14. smartalix says:

    Nobody really wants to know the facts behind the Saudis and 9/11, sadly. They are too inconvenient for everyone.

  15. KMFIX says:

    Finally a little reality to 9/11. Follow the money…

  16. MikeN says:

    So now can we sue Al Gore for the Unabomber? How about all those French who died in a heat wave for lack of air conditioning made too expensive by their global warming rules?

  17. msbpodcast says:

    I’ve been staring at that picture of Shrub holding hands with the Saudi and it finally clicked why he was quite happy continuing a policy put into place by Clinton in 1993.

  18. Animby says:

    I wish you homophobes would get over the hand holding thing. It’s customary in some parts of the world. You don’t look askance at two women walking through the mall arm in arm, why should a men holding hands bother you so much? I admit I was taken aback the first time I saw a couple of Taliban soldiers walking down the streets of Kabul hand in hand. And I admit it took me a while to get over it when you meet someone and they don;t drop the handshake for several minutes. Or when someone takes your hand and walks you to something they want you to see. But you do get past it. McCullough, Peapod, try to realize your western customs are not universal. You got a problem with Saud or Bush, fine say so, But don’t be a prejudiced ass.

  19. bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist says:

    Animby–thats such a great set up, I can’t stop myself: and how long did it take you to get used to (xxxxx). I just respect you too much to give specificity to the joke.

    It really is all on a continuum.

    Mind the gap.

  20. McCullough says:

    #18. Animby, yeah right, I guess now you’re going to tell me 2 men hugging is OK.

    Too easy, too easy.

    ROFL

  21. Dallas says:

    Amateurs. At least the King was trying to get some tongue in there.

    Bush insulted the culture and why we were attacked.

  22. The0ne says:

    Love the pic 🙂

  23. Animby says:

    McCullough. Bobbo.
    Good on ya. My first morning chuckles.

    The nice thing about this photo is it shows two equals greeting each other.

    Not like Obama bowing to kiss the Prince’s hand…

  24. mharry860 says:

    Thanks for changing the picture, this is way better.

  25. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Yep–in general the hand would be my choice of preference==but everyone in the House of Saud is an Arab. You know what that hand has been doing.

    McCullough: very thoughtful response for those cultural elites among us who want to do away with culturally imposed sexual codes.

    Ha, ha.

  26. Animby says:

    #28 Noname: Of course it is. Arab men kiss each other on the cheeks (face) not the lips. I still enjoyed the photo change…

  27. MikeN says:

    >Taliban soldiers walking down the streets of Kabul hand in hand.

    Taliban or Afghan? The Taliban came to power easily because they were willing to crackdown on the open pedophiles in Kandahar and elsewhere. Another cultural trait of course, nothing to criticize.

  28. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    #30–MikeN==very subtle critique there. How are you capable of same while also posting the Puke Crap you do? Seems inconsistent. I am making another fine distinction between being financially and even socially conservative vs being a Teabagger. Big Difference there. A foot in each camp should be a stretch for anyone?

  29. President Amabo says:

    Do what you like with the pic. Just remember that it’s been proven that GW was 6.87 time better a POTUS than his predecessor and (so far) 27.54 time better than his sucessor. (considering that he wasn’t all that great, what does that say about the other two?)

  30. pedro says:

    #31 Your meds are past due. Good thing this was a small seizure but if you don’t take them soon… god help us.

    How’s that FISA vote working for ya? Is as disgusting smooching the Arabs.

    Go talk to a mirror about being inconsistent.


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 5351 access attempts in the last 7 days.