Saudis Threaten U.S. Financially

[Baz Dane]

The 9/11 story isn't over.

So grab some popcorn and keep informed as the coming months(and perhaps the years that follow, depending on who gets elected) might start getting very interesting with our "allies" Saudi Arabia.

In the latest 9/11 news, and there's been quite a lot of it lately, the New York Times says that last month, the Saudi Finance Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, told President Obama and some members of Congress to back off sponsoring a Bill currently before the Senate that would allow the families of the September 11, 2001 victims to sue foreign sponsors of terrorism.

The Bill in question I believe is the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act(JASTA)

It's a bi-partisan Bill co-sponsored by Senator John Cornyn(R-TX) and Senator Chuck Schumer(D-NY).

Senator John Cornyn on the Bill...

- "This bill is entitled the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA for short. It makes minor adjustments to our laws that would clarify the ability of Americans attacked on U.S. soil to get justice from those who have sponsored that terrorist attack."

http://www.texasinsi...ng-911-victims/

The Times also pointed out that Saudi Finance Minister al-Jubeir "delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington".

(my underline link below)

He threatened that Saudi Arabia would have to sell off over $750 Billion dollars in U.S. treasury securities and assets if the Bill is passed.

So imagine that, Saudi Arabia dictating directly to the POTUS and Congress on HOW to vote for a Bill... In person.

And even worse... the Obama Administration, much like the Bush Administration before it, is on the side of the Saudis and AGAINST the 9/11 victims' families... as they have been, at almost every opportunity, right from September 11, 2001...

- "The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill’s passage, according to administration officials and congressional aides from both parties, and the Saudi threats have been the subject of intense discussions in recent weeks between lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation."

There's probably not much chance of the Bill being passed though IMO...

- "If the bill were to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president, it could clear a path for the role of the Saudi government to be examined in the Sept. 11 lawsuits."

http://www.nytimes.c...-bill.html?_r=0

Seems like this story is attracting at least some attention as, unlike the news that IRAN was held responsible for 9/11 and was just last month ordered by a New York Judge to pay $Billions in 9/11 damages, the MSM has actually picked up on this story...

The New York Times(as posted above)

http://www.nytimes.c...-bill.html?_r=0

CNBC

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/16/saudi-arabia-warns-of-economic-fallout-if-congress-passes-911-bill.html

CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2...-congress-bill/

Fox

http://www.foxnews.c...ved-in-911.html

Business Insider

http://www.businessi...911-bill-2016-4

Perhaps the legislation passes both houses of Congress, but Obama's stance is already stated apparently. See above.

There's arguing back and forth over whether the Saudis would actually follow through on the threat.

The argument from the Obama camp allegedly has it that if the legislation is passed, other countries may enact similar legislation which would in turn hurt U.S. citizens and buisiness interests around the world.

The answer back is...

- "The bill’s sponsors have said that the legislation is purposely drawn very narrowly — involving only attacks on American soil — to reduce the prospect that other nations might try to fight back."

(NY Times link above)

We have Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Anne Patterson and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy, Andrew Exum both arguing against passing the Bill.

While John Kirby of the State Department is saying the Administration is behind the victims of 9/11, and is supportive of the Bill... Perhaps not the "Administration" as noted above, but Kirby does anyways.

One thing that doesn't escape me is WHY is Saudi Arabia so worried? If they had nothing to do with 9/11, as they have maintained for so long, then why are they posturing and making threats and telling Congress how to vote?

The legislation is geared towards the 9/11 attacks only. What are the Saudis afraid of?

And what the hell are the Saudis doing trying to dictate how the Senate votes, which is an obvious illegality.

I get it that countries use influence all the time to affect changes in their favor in the laws of other nations, but the Saudis are so flippin blatant about it. As are some other countries to be sure.

IMO, I know what they're afraid of, and their actions only reinforce that belief.

Is the Saudi curtain of lies about to fall?

- Other related legislation also in both Houses is calling for the release of the redacted 28 pages from the Joint Congressional Inquiry Into 9/11, which allegedly contains information about Saudi Arabian Officials' (alleged/suspected, perhaps even proven?)role in 9/11 as well.

- The Times mentions the 28 Pages in the above article as well... good for them. I wonder if the recent 60 Minutes feature on the 28 Pages is having an effect?

I started a thread about the 28 Pages back in Dec. 2014 that can be found here, for those wondering what that is all about...

http://www.unexplain...pic=275580&st=0

- The Canadian government has just released a redacted 2015 Report on Human Rights in the Kingdom... There's that word again... Redacted...

"Many sections or paragraphs in the report are blocked out and noted as "Classified" or "Confidential," while the final two pages are withheld under sections of the law that protect information obtained from a foreign source or that could be "injurious to the conduct of international affairs" or the defence of Canada."

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...anada-1.3538022

- Also, not to be forgotten is that recently the European Union voted for an Arms embargo against Saudi Arabia...

http://www.theguardi...to-saudi-arabia

Looks like a lot of bad news hitting Saudi Arabia all around lately... But not to worry... Good ol Uncle Sam is on his way...

Obama is scheduled to fly to Saudi Arabia on Wednesday and will meet with King Salman.

The subect of the meeting is aptly titled and sub-titled in this article...

- "Obama to visit Saudi Arabia for defence talks"

- "US president and defence chief on a two-day trip to the Gulf to talk counterterrorism and regional security threats."

http://www.aljazeera...4211816389.html

Bet that will be a success. Just like all the other meetings with Obama and the Bush's before him. Just look at the situation today to see how those dealings have worked out so far over the last few decades.

In relating all of this to the upcoming U.S. elections, I wonder how much this kind of stuff is playing a part in who the "establishment" or the elites or whatever you want to call them(the U.S Bankers?) that are backing certain candidates, and are perhaps afraid of other candidates?

I seem to recall a few of the candidates in the earlier debates saying how the Saudis are our allies and they would back them even more if elected. Stuff like that.

But in relation to these issues... and this is just my opinion mind you... If Clinton or Cruz wins, then it's a safe bet that this new JASTA Bill and both the 28-Pages' legislations will not get voted on and passed. Conversely, if Trump or Sanders should win, I see it more likely that those Bill's get passed.

I imagine there's quite a lot at stake riding on those issues... perhaps $750 Billion+???

Edit - Fix link

Edited April 16, 2016 by Lemieux

[questionmark]

Jasta was certainly not the best acronym for that bill... now to the theme itself: Who has the money calls the shots and there us nobody on the planet with more dollars than the Saudis. Don't be shocked if you see some more of this.

[+and-then]

Hollow threat. They are enraged over Obama's actions (or lack, I should say) in the region and probably don't know what else to do. That family may seem to be in control but they know in reality that their very lives depend on a good relationship with this country.

[Leonardo]

But in relation to these issues... and this is just my opinion mind you... If Clinton or Cruz wins, then it's a safe bet that this new JASTA Bill and both the 28-Pages' legislations will not get voted on and passed. Conversely, if Trump or Sanders should win, I see it more likely that those Bill's get passed.

I imagine there's quite a lot at stake riding on those issues... perhaps $750 Billion+???

Edit - Fix link

Whatever gives you the belief that Trump's vote, of all the candidates, would go anywhere except where the money is?

[pallidin]

Radical Islam?

[Baz Dane]

Whatever gives you the belief that Trump's vote, of all the candidates, would go anywhere except where the money is?

Because he's already called out the Saudis for 9/11 just a couple months ago...

I believe he is the most likely to support those Bills... I'm not saying that I guarantee he does... But I do believe 150% that if Clinton or Cruz win, that they will be against these Bills and side with the Saudis. That much I'm sure of and guarantee.

[Yamato]

They're just words, and they're old words that have had years upon years not to resonate. Why do we care about it now? Because a fiery red headed strong leader said it? Donald Trump was name dropping Saudi Arabia in his AIPAC speech. And it was another protectionist comment, it had absolutely nothing to do with addressing the mass murder of 3,000 Americans. He's going to make someone else's sons and daughters bleed for them if necessary. After years of studying the Middle East, the ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia are palpable. If we didn't invade Iraq in 1991 it'd have been Israel and Saudi Arabia doing their own job.

The world is overflowing with oil and our consumption of foreign oil is only coming down in the future, e.g. we no longer need be total shills for the biggest sheikhs' oil wells anymore, America. It's not even economically foolish to call out the Saudis anymore. We don't need Middle East oil anymore if we don't ruin our relationships with the better half of Asia and the rest of the Middle East. If we do that, oil will be more expensive than it will need to be and we'll need to be but kissing mass murderers sitting on oil fields "more than ever before." If they sell out because we release Top Secret^TM secrets, we should say fine, we'll buy our oil elsewhere. If it was announced tomorrow that the US was no longer buying Saudi oil, oil prices would drop even lower. Oh the tears.

[questionmark]

I believe he is the most likely to support those Bills... I'm not saying that I guarantee he does... But I do believe 150% that if Clinton or Cruz win, that they will be against these Bills and side with the Saudis. That much I'm sure of and guarantee.

You make a big assumption about somebody who defines himself by the amount of money he has. See, let me explain this to you: If the Saudis dump all their petrodollars on the market (just like they did with all their oil recently to stop non-traditional power sources from surging) Mr. Trump (like the rest of America) will be suddenly real poor with a real possibility that the Burger flipper at McPuke will also be a Billionaire. He is not going to let that happen.

[preacherman76]

They're just words, and they're old words that have had years upon years not to resonate. Why do we care about it now? Because a fiery red headed strong leader said it? Donald Trump was name dropping Saudi Arabia in his AIPAC speech. And it was another protectionist comment, it had absolutely nothing to do with addressing the mass murder of 3,000 Americans. He's going to make someone else's sons and daughters bleed for them if necessary. After years of studying the Middle East, the ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia are palpable. If we didn't invade Iraq in 1991 it'd have been Israel and Saudi Arabia doing their own job.

The world is overflowing with oil and our consumption of foreign oil is only coming down in the future, e.g. we no longer need be total shills for the biggest sheikhs' oil wells anymore, America. It's not even economically foolish to call out the Saudis anymore. We don't need Middle East oil anymore if we don't ruin our relationships with the better half of Asia and the rest of the Middle East. If we do that, oil will be more expensive than it will need to be and we'll need to be but kissing mass murderers sitting on oil fields "more than ever before." If they sell out because we release Top Secret^TM secrets, we should say fine, we'll buy our oil elsewhere. If it was announced tomorrow that the US was no longer buying Saudi oil, oil prices would drop even lower. Oh the tears.

Its because till Trump talked about it, not many people even knew about it.

[Baz Dane]

You make a big assumption about somebody who defines himself by the amount of money he has. See, let me explain this to you: If the Saudis dump all their petrodollars on the market (just like they did with all their oil recently to stop non-traditional power sources from surging) Mr. Trump (like the rest of America) will be suddenly real poor with a real possibility that the Burger flipper at McPuke will also be a Billionaire. He is not going to let that happen.

I make no assumption. I merely state my opinion that I believe Trump to be the most likely to be supportive of passing this legislation.

If Saudi Arabia wants to sell off it's U.S. assets, then let them. The U.S. debt is almost $20 Trillion dollars. The Saudis $750 Billion dollar threat is only a fraction of the $Trillions the Pentagon or the Fed have swindled out of the economy. The U.S. won't "fall" if Saudi Arabia wants to play economical games.

This stuff should have been done 15 years ago. We would probably be living in a much better world today if we had of.

[Baz Dane]

So apparently Sanders is in favor if passing the JASTA legislation...

- "I support legislation by Sen. Chuck Schumer that would allow Americans, including the families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, to use U.S. courts to determine if foreign entities are culpable for terrorist attacks in the United States and seek restitution for the damages and lives lost."

The same, and some other articles are saying that Clinton also supports it, BUT, she actually hasn't said that.

What they, and some other articles are quoting Clinton as saying is...

- "Obviously, we’ve got to make anyone who participates in or supports terrorism pay a price, and we also have to be aware of any consequences that might affect Americans, either military or civilian or our nation."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ex-sen-graham-calls-saudi-arabia-threat-u-s-revealing-article-1.2604613

That was in reference to the comments she made on "This Week".

But here is her full answer...

- "Well, I know there’s been an issue about it for quite some time. I don’t’ know about the specific legislation that you’re referring to, but obviously I’ll look into it."

When asked whether she was prepared to support of oppose it, Clinton replied...

- "I can't. I haven't studied it.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-clinton-also-whiffs-on-saudi-arabia-911-liability-bill-i-havent-studied-it/

I'll give her a SMALL bit of credit there in that she is not currently a Senator etc, which reduces her exposure to Bills etc being put forth, so her answer is somewhat understandable... sort of.

But Sanders apparently said something similar about wanting to look more closely at the legislation, but then issued his statement of support for it anyways.

I don't think it's too hard to understand what the legislation is about, and to decide if you support it or not.

Was she not a New York Senator on 9/11? It really shouldn't be too hard to figure out where your allegiances lay after that day.

I doubt Clinton will support it anyways after she "studies" it... I doubt Clinton will even "study" it to be honest.

But perhaps we will see.

[Dark_Grey]

Bring down their desert sand castle. Sick and tired of these corrupt oil sheiks.

- The Canadian government has just released a redacted 2015 Report on Human Rights in the Kingdom... There's that word again... Redacted...

"Many sections or paragraphs in the report are blocked out and noted as "Classified" or "Confidential," while the final two pages are withheld under sections of the law that protect information obtained from a foreign source or that could be "injurious to the conduct of international affairs" or the defence of Canada."

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...anada-1.3538022

Profit over morals. How Canadian. Ugh.

[questionmark]

I make no assumption. I merely state my opinion that I believe Trump to be the most likely to be supportive of passing this legislation.

If Saudi Arabia wants to sell off it's U.S. assets, then let them. The U.S. debt is almost $20 Trillion dollars. The Saudis $750 Billion dollar threat is only a fraction of the $Trillions the Pentagon or the Fed have swindled out of the economy. The U.S. won't "fall" if Saudi Arabia wants to play economical games.

This stuff should have been done 15 years ago. We would probably be living in a much better world today if we had of.

The problem is that the assets they are talking about are not petrodollars (they'll use those for a bigger gamble), they are talking about Apple shares or GE shares or... you name it. And dumping them all at once on the market will cause a major upset in Wall Street (in fact, we can't exclude a few bankruptcies). So it is nothing that will affect the government directly but the economy at large.

While I personally don't believe that this should be a reason to stop JASTA I doubt that a rich person would support it... the risk of being poor afterwards is way too big.

[Yamato]

Its because till Trump talked about it, not many people even knew about it.

That's what Trump says. I think it's more that people don't care. I'd rather you figure out what you care about yourself, not get told what to care about by your leeder.

My question in the foreign policy thread: "Who attacked us on 9/11?" went full cricket. Why? Do you think other people here don't know? If that's the case, I had a bigger stumper of a question on my thread than I thought. Or is it rather the conclusion that I drew that they don't care? I think it's dutiful ignorance more than some accidental lack of information that they need a giant douche to tell them about it for the first time in 15 years. How many times have you told people here? How many times have I? No, it's not knowledge they lack, it's the lack of belief in a strong leeder. If that's what they need to WakeTFU, then that will be the source of every good and bad result we get. The White House. Is that what you want? That's not what I want. I'm a real libertarian.

Donald Trump doesn't know anything about anything by the way. His best use for us is to ask questions, and actually follow through with those questions by asking the right people, not repeat nonsense so that other people hear it and care about it for the first time ever. For instance, the repetition about China's "manipulation of its currency". Does it matter more that it's bs, or is it more important that Trump says it and so now people are talking bs about it too?

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=CNY+Interactive#{%22range%22:%2210y%22,%22allowChartStacking%22:true}

The pudding proof in the price action suggests that we're the ones all over the place. China's handling their currency just fine.

Trump thinks a trade deficit = "ripping us off". Does it matter that it's more bs, or is it more important that Trump says it so now other people are talking bs about it too?

[Baz Dane]

The problem is that the assets they are talking about are not petrodollars (they'll use those for a bigger gamble), they are talking about Apple shares or GE shares or... you name it. And dumping them all at once on the market will cause a major upset in Wall Street (in fact, we can't exclude a few bankruptcies). So it is nothing that will affect the government directly but the economy at large.

While I personally don't believe that this should be a reason to stop JASTA I doubt that a rich person would support it... the risk of being poor afterwards is way too big.

We'll have to wait and see what happens.

Personally, I think almost everything about 9/11 should be re-opened and examined and let the chips fall where they may.

I've been saying for a long time that we didn't get the full story about 9/11, and enough is enough.

We've been living in a post-9/11 world based on lies and cover-ups. Is it any wonder that "radical Islam" has grown exponentially ever since. It's made easier to fester in a world of lies, and it's time to start telling us the truth... I know, I know... beyond wishful thinking... But one can dream right

They can start with this legislation, and follow it up by releasing the 28 Pages... THEN follow up with true investigations... where ever they lead.

THEN, take action to deal with the criminals, and yes, even traitors. IMO, anyone and everyone who participated in the cover up of the people still at large, who aided and abetted the hijackers, in any way, should be tried for Treason.

If the end result means War, then so be it. At least the right country(countries?) would be invaded.

That's what I think should happen anyways.

[Baz Dane]

I doubt Clinton will support it anyways after she "studies" it...

Well how about that... Now Clinton SUPPORTS the legislation...

Her spokesman Nick Merrill, Tweeted this, after her hesitation on This Week earlier in the morning...

- "Hillary Clinton supports the efforts by Senator Schumer and his colleagues in the Senate to secure the ability of 9/11 families and other victims of terrorist acts to hold accountable those responsible. As president she would work with Congress to this end."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/04/17/hillary-clinton-comes-out-in-support-of-chuck-schumers-911-bill/

Perhaps her handlers told her right after the show that they better make a supportive statement asap?

She couldn't let Sanders get a "one-up" on her on this issue I suppose.

Maybe she really does support it... But I have my doubts.

Haven't heard anything from Trump or Cruz about whether they will support the Bill or not yet. I imagine we will hear from their camps within the next day or two on the issue considering both Sanders and Clinton have now weighed in.

[Baz Dane]

Its because till Trump talked about it, not many people even knew about it.

That's what Trump says. I think it's more that people don't care.

I disagree. Preacherman is correct about that and it's easy to see. Most people I ask about the 28 Pages don't know anything at all about them. There's still quite a few people who think it was Saddam that was behind 9/11. Not many believe that it was the 19 hijackers acting alone though... people that I talk to that is.

In a sense you're right that people don't care. It's hard to care about something you know absolutely nothing about.

WHY people are so uninformed, especially in todays world of technology, is another matter of course.

[Aftermath]

We'll have to wait and see what happens.

Personally, I think almost everything about 9/11 should be re-opened and examined and let the chips fall where they may.

I've been saying for a long time that we didn't get the full story about 9/11, and enough is enough.

We've been living in a post-9/11 world based on lies and cover-ups. Is it any wonder that "radical Islam" has grown exponentially ever since. It's made easier to fester in a world of lies, and it's time to start telling us the truth... I know, I know... beyond wishful thinking... But one can dream right

They can start with this legislation, and follow it up by releasing the 28 Pages... THEN follow up with true investigations... where ever they lead.

THEN, take action to deal with the criminals, and yes, even traitors. IMO, anyone and everyone who participated in the cover up of the people still at large, who aided and abetted the hijackers, in any way, should be tried for Treason.

If the end result means War, then so be it. At least the right country(countries?) would be invaded.

That's what I think should happen anyways.

Word.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Aftermath

[Dark_Grey]

Well how about that... Now Clinton SUPPORTS the legislation...

Her spokesman Nick Merrill, Tweeted this, after her hesitation on This Week earlier in the morning...

- "Hillary Clinton supports the efforts by Senator Schumer and his colleagues in the Senate to secure the ability of 9/11 families and other victims of terrorist acts to hold accountable those responsible. As president she would work with Congress to this end."

http://www.theblaze....umers-911-bill/

Perhaps her handlers told her right after the show that they better make a supportive statement asap?

She couldn't let Sanders get a "one-up" on her on this issue I suppose.

Maybe she really does support it... But I have my doubts.

Haven't heard anything from Trump or Cruz about whether they will support the Bill or not yet. I imagine we will hear from their camps within the next day or two on the issue considering both Sanders and Clinton have now weighed in.

Meh. After Obama's campaign platform to shut down Guantanamo Bay fizzled out like a flat can of soda, I don't pay no mind to what this corporate lapdog has to say. She's flip-flopped on every issue necessary to win an election. Sorry mate.

[Baz Dane]

Meh. After Obama's campaign platform to shut down Guantanamo Bay fizzled out like a flat can of soda, I don't pay no mind to what this corporate lapdog has to say. She's flip-flopped on every issue necessary to win an election. Sorry mate.

You're not suggesting that the honorable Hillary Clinton would LIE are you???

[Baz Dane]

The 9/11 story isn't over.

...

There's probably not much chance of the Bill being passed though IMO...

- "If the bill were to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president, it could clear a path for the role of the Saudi government to be examined in the Sept. 11 lawsuits."

http://www.nytimes.c...-bill.html?_r=0

...

And there ya have folks... The U.S. government is bought and paid for by Saudi Arabia.

They now dictate how legislation goes...

- "The White House on Monday signaled President Obama would veto legislation to allow Americans to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for any role officials played in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/276696-white-house-signals-veto-on-saudi-9-11-bill

Bunch of spineless cowards!

So now we can sit back and wait for Obama to preemptively pardon Clinton for the double-play.

I can't believe this blatant Bizarro-world of 8ull**** we live in!

[Yamato]

I disagree. Preacherman is correct about that and it's easy to see. Most people I ask about the 28 Pages don't know anything at all about them. There's still quite a few people who think it was Saddam that was behind 9/11. Not many believe that it was the 19 hijackers acting alone though... people that I talk to that is.

In a sense you're right that people don't care. It's hard to care about something you know absolutely nothing about.

WHY people are so uninformed, especially in todays world of technology, is another matter of course.

It's the answer to the question. Because they don't care enough to be informed. They're perfectly fine being low information voters. That's not doing their civic duty better than our apathetic citizens who refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.

[Yamato]

How many people here know Saddam Hussein wasn't responsible for 9/11? Everyone, right? Meanwhile Obama's sending us back to Iraq bit by bit and day by day and I don't hear any complaining about it, even from Republicans. They know Iraq didn't attack us, they just don't care. It's still the cool kids' place to go **** with.

[preacherman76]

It's the answer to the question. Because they don't care enough to be informed. They're perfectly fine being low information voters. That's not doing their civic duty better than our apathetic citizens who refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.

In a lot of cases that's true. There are also a lot of cases where people truly believe they are informed. They watch main stream media every night, and believe through that that they are all caught up on world affairs. And many of them come from a generation where you just trusted your government. Heck I made one comment to a old lady in a grocery store who was asking me about the osmosis water machine I was using to fill up some 5 gallon bottles, about not wanting fluoride in my water, and she got all nasty with me. She didn't even care that it came from industrial waste, or she just didn't want to believe me. I think asking why people are not informed cant always come down to not caring.

Edited April 19, 2016 by preacherman76

[Yamato]

We've had our rounds with fluoride in the water and vaccinations too. I drink the F water, it's the only way I can get enough water in my diet. Remember our bodies detoxify in 4 ways: Sweating, breathing, pooping, and peeing. Fluoride actually comes out of our skin in our sweat. Yes, it goes from the gut through the body and out the skin. Great stuff to ingest internally and carry around in our bodies. Govt intervention strikes again, so now we have to get poisoned just so the people who don't brush their teeth can get some F^- briefly passing over their teeth for fractions of a second and staying in their bodies for days. Yet another terrible idea neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump could ever sell me on.