No thread on the 60 Minutes piece on Saudi 9/11 ties?

JahFocus CS

Get It How You Get It
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
20,462
Reputation
3,740
Daps
82,449
Reppin
Republic of New Afrika
that congressional bill is nothing but a cheap retaliation for this:pacspit:
Saudi proposed law seek death for fakkits Saudi authorities seek death penalty for coming out

yall need to start paying attention brehs:ufdup:these filthy devil cacs aint playing no games over accepting fakkitry....:scust:
that oil shyt is only a distraction-----like the h-bomb fakkitry is the new genocidal weapon:whoo:

-damned if you accept it or face starvation if you dont since the Saudis are against it and are Muslims:ehh:

.well just put 2 and 2 together brehs:martin:but I know yall wont get it till its probably to late:snoop:

You're a fukking idiot. :yeshrug:
 

无名的

Superstar
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
5,608
Reputation
1,386
Daps
15,011
that congressional bill is nothing but a cheap retaliation for this:pacspit:
Saudi proposed law seek death for fakkits Saudi authorities seek death penalty for coming out

yall need to start paying attention brehs:ufdup:these filthy devil cacs aint playing no games over accepting fakkitry....:scust:
that oil shyt is only a distraction-----like the h-bomb fakkitry is the new genocidal weapon:whoo:

-damned if you accept it or face starvation if you dont since the Saudis are against it and are Muslims:ehh:

.well just put 2 and 2 together brehs:martin:but I know yall wont get it till its probably to late:snoop:


Just think. . . we could have invaded Saudi Arabia and paid for the costs with the oil we took, but we ended up in Iraq for no good reason and lost trillions of dollars with nothing to show for it. Those trillions of dollars could have gone into the US education system and maybe, just maybe, this poor soul would have been positioned to function in society. Instead, he likely has the inability to tie his own shoelaces and often forgets to breathe without reminders.

:snoop:

My days are much better when I'm off the Internet and I don't encounter people who hold such uneducated opinions. Why do I do this to myself?
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
72,260
Reputation
8,197
Daps
218,657
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
Congress Threatens To Seize Saudi U.S. Assets
Some current nonsense headlines in the U.S. media read like this: Saudis threaten sell-off of U.S. assets if 9/11 suits are allowed:

Saudi Arabia has warned the United States not to revoke its sovereign immunity, protecting the kingdom from lawsuits related to Sept. 11, or it will sell off hundreds of billions in American assets.
It is not the Saudis who are threatening something. It is the U.S. Congress that is threatening to lift the immunity of nation states in front of U.S. courts:

The Senate bill is intended to make clear that the immunity given to foreign nations under the law should not apply in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil. 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.
Under the bill a civil U.S. person could file in a U.S. court against nation states for acts or omissions(!) of that nation state related to some "terrorist act". U.S. courts are notorious for dubious rulings against foreign states, impounding and seizing huge assets of such states.

In 2012 Congress passed a law that specifically allowed victims of terrorist attacks allegedly related to Iran to collect judgements against the Iranian state. Judges started to rule in favor of billions in compensatory damages to victims and to impound even assets of Iranian charities. One of these cases and the anti-Iranian law are now in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Immunity against such judgements is standard international law and known as "acta iure imperii" - the principal that no foreign court can judge the liability of a nation state for acts and omissions in the exercise of the nation state's authority.

Should the U.S. Congress break that principal, any foreign national wealth fund, pension fund or otherwise state related institution could have its U.S. assets impounded under this or that dubious terrorism judgement.

The Saudis would be utterly stupid to leave even a penny invested in the U.S. or in U.S. bonds should that law pass.

This not because the Saudi state had something to do or not with 9/11. Even a claim that the Saudi state somehow neglected to prevent some of its nationals to commit terrorism could, under the new law, be enough to seize U.S. investment of a Saudi national wealth fund. The Saudis said they would withdraw their $750 billion in U.S. assets should the law pass. That would be simply a necessary and prudent move and announcing that move is not "a threat".

If the law should pass not only the Saudis but any other nation state could and should pass similar laws and allow their use against the United States. Some Russian widow of a solider who died years ago from wounds received in Afghanistan by U.S. supported Mujaheddin, aka terrorists, could have U.S assets in Russia seized as compensation. Many South America countries have fought against U.S. instigated terrorism. There are many victims who could sue over such cases and there are many U.S. assets to seize.

To sue against U.S. assets under such laws would be a profitable business for some enterprising lawyers. One wonders how Congress would react when the first U.S. assets get seized.
 

TRFG

Not who you think
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
13,798
Reputation
275
Daps
38,509
i cant tell who i'd rather see wiped off the face of the planet, israel or saudi arabia :patrice:

either one would be :ahh:

5NmKCSE.jpg
 

DUCKED_OFF

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2014
Messages
4,252
Reputation
750
Daps
14,671
Reppin
Florida
I got a question.....so lets say the bill gets passed...........does that mean us black folks could come up with a bill that could eventually allow us to sue governments and companies that sponsored terrorist acts against black people in america?
 
Last edited:

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
72,260
Reputation
8,197
Daps
218,657
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
I got a question.....so lets say the bill gets passed...........does that mean us black folks could come up with a bill that could eventually allow us sue governments and companies that sponsored terrorist acts against black people in america?

And vice versa
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,377
Reputation
-34,322
Daps
617,925
Reppin
The Deep State
Congress Threatens To Seize Saudi U.S. Assets
Some current nonsense headlines in the U.S. media read like this: Saudis threaten sell-off of U.S. assets if 9/11 suits are allowed:

Saudi Arabia has warned the United States not to revoke its sovereign immunity, protecting the kingdom from lawsuits related to Sept. 11, or it will sell off hundreds of billions in American assets.
It is not the Saudis who are threatening something. It is the U.S. Congress that is threatening to lift the immunity of nation states in front of U.S. courts:

The Senate bill is intended to make clear that the immunity given to foreign nations under the law should not apply in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil. 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.
Under the bill a civil U.S. person could file in a U.S. court against nation states for acts or omissions(!) of that nation state related to some "terrorist act". U.S. courts are notorious for dubious rulings against foreign states, impounding and seizing huge assets of such states.

In 2012 Congress passed a law that specifically allowed victims of terrorist attacks allegedly related to Iran to collect judgements against the Iranian state. Judges started to rule in favor of billions in compensatory damages to victims and to impound even assets of Iranian charities. One of these cases and the anti-Iranian law are now in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Immunity against such judgements is standard international law and known as "acta iure imperii" - the principal that no foreign court can judge the liability of a nation state for acts and omissions in the exercise of the nation state's authority.

Should the U.S. Congress break that principal, any foreign national wealth fund, pension fund or otherwise state related institution could have its U.S. assets impounded under this or that dubious terrorism judgement.

The Saudis would be utterly stupid to leave even a penny invested in the U.S. or in U.S. bonds should that law pass.

This not because the Saudi state had something to do or not with 9/11. Even a claim that the Saudi state somehow neglected to prevent some of its nationals to commit terrorism could, under the new law, be enough to seize U.S. investment of a Saudi national wealth fund. The Saudis said they would withdraw their $750 billion in U.S. assets should the law pass. That would be simply a necessary and prudent move and announcing that move is not "a threat".

If the law should pass not only the Saudis but any other nation state could and should pass similar laws and allow their use against the United States. Some Russian widow of a solider who died years ago from wounds received in Afghanistan by U.S. supported Mujaheddin, aka terrorists, could have U.S assets in Russia seized as compensation. Many South America countries have fought against U.S. instigated terrorism. There are many victims who could sue over such cases and there are many U.S. assets to seize.

To sue against U.S. assets under such laws would be a profitable business for some enterprising lawyers. One wonders how Congress would react when the first U.S. assets get seized.
This shyt basically means, Iran is getting back on the block, they were behind 9/11 ultimately, but the Saudis are bad for business and we're shifting support to Iran.

:mjlol:

Those people are fukked :heh:
 

shhh-kull & bones

Judah have I loved, Esau have I hated! -GAWD
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
1,040
Reputation
-75
Daps
1,653
Reppin
BK, USA
Just think. . . we could have invaded Saudi Arabia and paid for the costs with the oil we took, but we ended up in Iraq for no good reason and lost trillions of dollars with nothing to show for it. Those trillions of dollars could have gone into the US education system and maybe, just maybe, this poor soul would have been positioned to function in society. Instead, he likely has the inability to tie his own shoelaces and often forgets to breathe without reminders.

:snoop:

My days are much better when I'm off the Internet and I don't encounter people who hold such uneducated opinions. Why do I do this to myself?

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

you're funny as hell:russ:

you must be really mad:umad:

Use cheap insults and unfounded beliefs to make a mute point brehs
-
:lolbron:

anyway I am brushing off my shoulders of all that dirt buddy
as I write this....:youngsabo:



So invading the Saudis using Sept 11 as the excuse with no shred of evidence and stealing their oil would have been alright with you:what:


Oh wait wasn't that what happened in Iraq.... And why is there a base as big as Vatican City in Iraq full of contractors????huh:damn:


I'll wait for your wise ass retort:ahh:

Y'all can get distracted by the oil issue...but the rest of the world knows what's up:francis:



:russell:
and as far as that weak little remark about me functioning in society... trust me I would not associate my self with no so called society with dusty pseudo smart asses like you
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,838
Reppin
the ether
If Saudi owning those bonds means that they can actually try to hold US policy hostage, then hell yeah, let them sell them.
 
Top