Posted on 09/21/2011 5:07:28 PM PDT by Kaslin
Justice: A new 9/11 lawsuit portrays the Saudi government as having more control over al-Qaida charities before the attacks than it (or the U.S.) has admitted. Let's hear the truth.
Lloyds of London seeks $215 million in damages from the kingdom to recover claims it paid 9/11 victims and their families. The suit charges that the Saudi government funded al-Qaida through its banks and charities.
The complaint, filed in U.S. court, states that without official Saudi sponsorship, "al-Qaida would not have possessed the capacity to conceive, plan and execute the Sept. 11 attacks." In other words, absent Saudi support, the Twin Towers would still be standing — along with nearly 3,000 Americans.
We're impressed by the documentation cited in the 156-page complaint by Cozen O'Conner, a major Washington law firm. It's much more detailed than the lawsuit brought on behalf of 9/11 families, which a federal judge dismissed for lack of evidence. This one might have a shot. It points to new intelligence, including recently leaked diplomatic cables.
Among the findings:
• Senior Saudi officials and Saudi royal family members — including Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naif — either served as executives of suspect charities or sat on their boards while the charities were used to launder money to al-Qaida; and they knew of the activities.
• The Saudi charities themselves often provided not only money but employment cover, ID badges and logistical support to al-Qaida operatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Highly unlikely...not that the Saudi regime deserves any praise, but they were enemies of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden and his group had been trying to bring down the House of Saud by sponsoring terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia should have been our first target in the so-called WOT.
A big “hmmm” bump...
SOOO, lets buy more oil from then so they can fund the next attack. Got we are f-ing fools sometimes.
that was GOD not got
how many 9/11 mad bombers were saudi?
17 out of 19, I believe.
And then there's this; way too much documentation to summarize in a few paragraphs.
There an old Saudi Prince/sheik who became an Irish citizen and has laundered billions$ of "private" Saudi donations the last few decades.
He is also the middleman for the majority of funding of Mosques in the US, and their accompanying madrassas, all with Saudi money.
> Saudi Arabia should have been our first target in the
> so-called WOT.
The “sacred” kabala rock in Mecca that all the Mahometans come to worship should have been blown to powder on 9/12 with a cruise missile fired from a submarine and armed with a conventional warhead.
A formal warning should have followed that response to say that the next next attack on American soil, which includes embassies, would prompt a response that would vaporize all of Mecca.
The next attack on American soil would prompt the cratering of Medina.
Each capitol of each Mahometan state should have been cratered in its turn for every attack thereafter.
I think it would have been all over once we got to Damascus and Tehran.
I just think that we should have made it clear that we´re taking control of their oil industry. Should they want to carry it further would be their call.
suit withdrawn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
