House Passes Bill Allowing 9/11 Lawsuits Against Saudi Arabia

[Carrikature]

I don't know how anything involving litigation works, domestically or internationally, since the subject not only bores me to death, but I've never been personally involved in the process, thus I have absolutely no experience or knowledge how the process works, but that doesn't mean litigation is not possible. That's basically your retarded argument. I know it's logically possible for the points made in the previous post.

So you admit to knowing nothing about it but claim it's obviously possible? And you think I have a retarded argument? Your points establish the reasoning behind your belief. They don't establish 'logically possible'. 'Logically possible' has a meaning, and that ain't it.

[seanD]

So you admit to knowing nothing about it but claim it's obviously possible? And you think I have a retarded argument? Your points establish the reasoning behind your belief. They don't establish 'logically possible'. 'Logically possible' has a meaning, and that ain't it.

If you want to believe that international litigation is completely ineffectual and that everything I said in post #12 is merely symbolic posturing, knock yourself out. You've made your retarded point clear more than once. I get it already. That doesn't explain to me personally why there was immunity against this action, why Obama expressed deep concerns about it and warned of a precedence it will set with other countries, why he risked his reputation to veto it, and why there was even a bill about it in the first place. All that is just political posturing lol? Okay, bro, go for it.

[demi-conservative]

Too much of politics is posturing for it to be irrelevant even if it's not actually possible.

Well from lobbying efforts we can see very very clearly Saudis think it's irrelevant!!

[Roy]

What was preventing them from suing the Saudi government before?

IIRC some-one in the USA successfully sued the USSR government over unpaid invoices, resulting in them being able to seize an Aeroflot plane.

[Carrikature]

If you want to believe that international litigation is completely ineffectual and that everything I said in post #12 is merely symbolic posturing, knock yourself out. You've made your retarded point clear more than once. I get it already. That doesn't explain to me personally why there was immunity against this action, why Obama expressed deep concerns about it and warned of a precedence it will set with other countries, why he risked his reputation to veto it, and why there was even a bill about it in the first place. All that is just political posturing lol? Okay, bro, go for it.

That's...not at all what I said. You've claimed it's obviously possible while admitting to knowing nothing about it. I'm pointing out that it doesn't work that way.

[Carrikature]

Well from lobbying efforts we can see very very clearly Saudis think it's irrelevant!!

Um, I'm saying it's not irrelevant even if it's not actually possible. You're kinda proving my point here.

[seanD]

What was preventing them from suing the Saudi government before?

IIRC some-one in the USA successfully sued the USSR government over unpaid invoices, resulting in them being able to seize an Aeroflot plane.

That's how I imagine it would be, especially if the country is an ally and thus has a lot assets interconnected with the US.

[The Thinker]

I'm against Obama on this one. Sue the crap out of the Saudis. They support radical Islam all over the world, and they're one of the most oppressive countries in existence.

[seanD]

I'm against Obama on this one. Sue the crap out of the Saudis. They support radical Islam all over the world, and they're one of the most oppressive countries in existence.

They don't just sponsor terrorism, they are the terrorists. The only distinguishable factor between them and the caricature terrorists we're brainwashed to fear and dread is that they're the upper class terrorists, and thus their actions are a whole lot more covert. Plus they get western media and neoconservative cover. Yet they're just as violent, bloodthirsty, radical, prejudice, and religiously fundamental as the lower class terrorist boogieman we're trained to fear. You'd think that our fear and hatred would be directed towards them the most since they're obviously a much bigger threat to democracy and our safety due to their wealth and power, but of course, the invested corporate interests in their assets create the necessary double standard.

[One Bad Pig]

Hm, what a way to pick a fight. Saudi Arabia has serious financial issues at home from what I've read in the past.

When your whole economy is pretty much based on one commodity, that tends to happen when that commodity isn't performing well. Once their oil's gone, what will they have left beyond hajj-based tourism?

[The Thinker]

They don't just sponsor terrorism, they are the terrorists. The only distinguishable factor between them and the caricature terrorists we're brainwashed to fear and dread is that they're the upper class terrorists, and thus their actions are a whole lot more covert. Plus they get western media and neoconservative cover. Yet they're just as violent, bloodthirsty, radical, prejudice, and religiously fundamental as the lower class terrorist boogieman we're trained to fear. You'd think that our fear and hatred would be directed towards them the most since they're obviously a much bigger threat to democracy and our safety due to their wealth and power, but of course, the invested corporate interests in their assets create the necessary double standard.

I totally agree. They're just the terrorists who've made deals with our politicians, so our politicians ignore their threat.

[rogue06]

I'm against Obama on this one. Sue the crap out of the Saudis. They support radical Islam all over the world, and they're one of the most oppressive countries in existence.

Your gal Hillary sure gets a lot of money from them all the while preaching about a need for human rights, especially the rights of women.

[demi-conservative]

Um, I'm saying it's not irrelevant even if it's not actually possible.

Your weird English was hard to follow!

You're kinda proving my point here.

Is fine with me.

[seanD]

First victim engages in political posturing...

On Friday, September 30, a woman widowed when her husband was killed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 became the first American to sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Washington DC District Court, just two days after Congress slammed Obama for siding with Saudi Arabia, overriding his presidential veto only for the first time in his administration, and enacting legislation allowing Americans to sue foreign governments for allegedly playing a role in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

Stephanie Ross DeSimone alleged the kingdom provided material support to al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden. Her suit is also filed on behalf of the couple’s daughter. DeSimone was two months pregnant when her husband, Navy Commander Patrick Dunn was killed.

She is suing for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

In the lawsuit she alleges that "at all material times, Saudi Arabia, through its officials, officers, agents and employees, provided material support and resources to Osama bin Laden (“bin Laden”) and Al Qaeda. The support provided by Saudi Arabia to bin Laden and Al Qaeda assisted in or contributed to the preparation and execution of the September 11th attacks and the extrajudicial killing of Patrick Dunn."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...r-full-lawsuit