Lloyds insurance sues members of Saudi Arabian government for funding 9/11

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

Story here:

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.

Its complaint, which quotes heavily from US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks detailing investigations by the US authorities into al-Qa’ida, attempts to establish funding links between some Saudi charities, and the terror group, and implicate the Saudi government in that funding through its support of the charities.

[OldnCrinkly]

This is really strange. I live in Pittsburgh and have heard nothing about this. I would think a story like this would be all over the news, not just here, but everywhere. I’m inclined to think no such case has been filed.

[lieu]

I looked but didn’t see what the statute of limitations on this might be. Or is that just for criminal and not civil actions?

[Nawth_Chucka]

It’s about damn time SA was held liable, never mind we’ve brought war to two other countries who didn’t have nearly as much involvement in backing the attacks as our ‘friends’.

[gonzomax]

Something like 17 of the highjackers were Saudis. I think their contribution was more than money. But they have our oil. Not hitting them was a business decision.

[tdn]

@gonzomax

Something like 17 of the highjackers were Saudis.

15. The other 4 were Egyptian.

[Yeticus_Rex]

@gonzomax

Something like 17 of the highjackers were Saudis. I think their contribution was more than money. But they have our oil. Not hitting them was a business decision.

And if we did attack SA instead of Iraq & Afghanistan, you would have then said that we attacked them for the oil.

Am I right?

[user_hostile]

Looks like they filed for dismissal. Per the article, they may refile later(?).

I wonder what brought that about?

[appleciders]

15 of the hijackers were Saudis. That doesn’t make the Saudi government responsible for the acts of its citizens. If Lloyds can demonstrate that the Saudi government contributed money or other resources to the hijackers, with knowledge of what it would be used for, then sure, sue away. I just don’t see why the nationality of the hijackers has to do with anything. We wouldn’t sue Italy for actions taken by Italian mobsters in the U.S., would we?

[Sunspace]

@gonzomax

…But they have our oil…

They have their oil. That the US has arranged its affairs so that it is dependent on that oil for basic functioning is ultimately not the fault of the Saudis.

[levdrakon]

@user_hostile

Looks like they filed for dismissal. Per the article, they may refile later(?).

I wonder what brought that about?

A ton of money.

[Cunctator]

Note that it’s a syndicate of Lloyd’s (syndicate 3500, which is effectively an insurer) that is bringing the action. Lloyd’s itself is not an insurer.

[LonghornDave]

@Cunctator

Note that it’s a syndicate of Lloyd’s (syndicate 3500, which is effectively an insurer) that is bringing the action. Lloyd’s itself is not an insurer.

This is correct. Lloyd’s of London is an exchange. This is loosely analogous to saying the New York Stock Exchange company trading under the ticker symbol AAPL has … It would be obviously clearer to say Apple in that instance. That’s not a perfect comparison, but it is pretty close.

The Lloyd’s of London syndicate 3500 is the London based RiverStone Managing Agency Ltd., which was formed in 2003 by U.S. based The Riverstone Group, which has been owned since 1998 by Canadian based Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited.

[Boyo_Jim]

What can the government do if crazy Uncle Faisal decides to invest in Cousin Osama’s Jihads 'R Us franchise scheme?

[Der_Trihs]

@Yeticus_Rex

And if we did attack SA instead of Iraq & Afghanistan, you would have then said that we attacked them for the oil.

And that would have been our motive. I see no evidence that the Bush Administration had the slightest concern over the lost lives of Americans (or anyone else), or ever regarded 9-11 as anything other than an opportunity to profit and to push their agenda.

[armedmonkey]

@Der_Trihs

And that would have been our motive. I see no evidence that the Bush Administration had the slightest concern over the lost lives of Americans (or anyone else), or ever regarded 9-11 as anything other than an opportunity to profit and to push their agenda.

Their agenda being the destruction of the Justice League. Cheney even captured and waterboarded Aquaman at one point.

[Shodan]

@Der_Trihs

And that would have been our motive. I see no evidence that the Bush Administration had the slightest concern over the lost lives of Americans (or anyone else), or ever regarded 9-11 as anything other than an opportunity to profit and to push their agenda.

Geez - get a new trick, pony.

Regards,
Shodan

[Yeticus_Rex]

@gonzomax

Something like 17 of the highjackers were Saudis. I think their contribution was more than money. But they have our oil. Not hitting them was a business decision.

@Yeticus_Rex

And if we did attack SA instead of Iraq & Afghanistan, you would have then said that we attacked them for the oil.

Am I right?

@Der_Trihs

And that would have been our motive. I see no evidence that the Bush Administration had the slightest concern over the lost lives of Americans (or anyone else), or ever regarded 9-11 as anything other than an opportunity to profit and to push their agenda.

@Shodan

Geez - get a new trick, pony.

Regards,
Shodan

Right reason…wrong guy…this time.

[gonzomax]

@Yeticus_Rex

And if we did attack SA instead of Iraq & Afghanistan, you would have then said that we attacked them for the oil.

Am I right?

No we get their oil. We attacked Iraq for the oil.

[gonzomax]

@Sunspace

They have their oil. That the US has arranged its affairs so that it is dependent on that oil for basic functioning is ultimately not the fault of the Saudis.

Too bad and their bad luck that our oil is in their country.
The Saudi Royal family is huge. Some claim that Osama had them scared that he was going to start a revolution in Saudi Arabia ,to get America out . They felt it was good to have him busy elsewhere. But they felt a bit coerced into giving him money.