Saudi Arabia Threatens To Sell Off $750 Billion In U.S. Assets If Congress Allows 9-11 Families To Sue

Abdullah_of_Saudi_ArabiaPresident_Barack_ObamaWhile the level of protection afforded Saudi Arabia in Washington is hardly a secret, the level of that support was on display this month when officials pushed the Obama Administration to release long-withheld pages from the 9-11 report, as we previously discussed. Those pages reportedly implicate Saudi Arabia in the 9-11 attacks. Saudi Arabia response with an express threat to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars of assets if Congress were to pass a bill allowing the Kingdom to be held liable for the attacks. One would think that the response would be outrage at the threat. After all, the bill would only allow citizens to sue and a bipartisan group of Senators have joined to support the 9-11 families. Saudi Arabia could still defend itself (and according to its government, vindicate itself) in a court of law. Of course, the United States has a real court system as opposed to the government controlled, Sharia “courts” used in the Kingdom to mete out medieval justice.

The Administration not only is staying silent about this insulting threat but is doing precisely what the Saudis are demanding in trying to block the bill. When push comes to shove between the victims or 9-11 and the Saudis, the choice appears clear.

So that there would be no mistake about the threat,
Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month — threatening a sudden sell-off of $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets to cripple the economy. The rationale is to avoid the assets from being frozen by American courts. Interestingly, this assumes that you are likely to be found guilty of complicity in the worst terrorist attack in United States history. What is interesting is that the use of al-Jubeir seemed calculated to maximize the threat. The same message could have been delivered through leaks that the Saudis were preparing such a selloff for strategic reasons. The open threat was a serious miscalculation by the Saudis in my view. Few Americans would take the threat as anything short of a slap in the face of the victims of 9-11 and the country as a whole.

The Obama Administration is shrugging off the insult to our legal system by a country that violates every core principle of due process and civil liberties in their own country. Instead, it is suggesting that holding Saudi Arabia liable for American deaths could put Americans at legal risk overseas. Whatever the merits of the argument against the access to the courts for these citizens (and I would be very interesting to hear them), the Administration should have delivered a clear message that we do not respond to such threats, particularly when another country is balancing American lives against foreign investments.

What do you think?

122 thoughts on “Saudi Arabia Threatens To Sell Off $750 Billion In U.S. Assets If Congress Allows 9-11 Families To Sue”

  1. Why are inferior, subhumans so obsessed with Israel as this all-powerful, all-knowing force? I understand that such inferior, subhumans recognize that they are worthless, pathetic creatures, but why do they put Israel on such a towering pedestal? Why can’t they be more realistic and aspire toward the value of something not so galactically unreachable like Israel? How about something only stratospherically above them? Say, like, pond scum?

  2. Coming back for air, weasel? Return your occipital parietal region to stevegroen’s noxious nether zone. He misses you. Inhale deeply. Repeat.

  3. pseudo-patriot + stevegroen = occipital parietal region inserted deep within the recesses of each others noxious nether zones. Inhale deeply. Repeat.

  4. Steve: Of course I don’t agree with them on all issues. Nobody agrees on everything. The photo is just an example of Jews going against Israel. Judaism Rejects Zionism and the state of Israel. Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism. Zionism is not Judaism. Many Jews are not Zionists, they reject Zionism and are our brothers in this struggle. These Jews aren’t anti-Semitic, they’re anti-Zionist. So are we.

  5. Israel & Zionist Jews are guilty of 9/11
    “When you find that every one of the key people involved in the 9-11 cover-up and deception are Jewish Zionists, then it is rationally compelling to conclude that the crime they are covering up is, in fact, a Jewish Zionist crime.”
    “William Jeffrey was Director of the National Institute of Standards & Technology when it
    released its 9-11 Final Report in Sept 2005. He is obviously a high-level agent in the 9-11 cover-up.”
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology lied. WTC 7 did not come down due to office fires
    Jeffrey should be arrested for High Treason and Complicity in 9/11
    The Crypto Jew Behind the NIST Cover-up of 9-11: William Jeffrey

  6. Arrest Zionist Liar Philip Zelikow, Traitor & Israeli agent
    Zelikow should be arrested for High Treason and Complicity in 9/11
    9/11 Commission Executive Director
    Primary author of the 9/11 Commission Report.
    The Lying Zionists wrote the 9/11 Commission Report
    “The Report contains no mention of the interview in which the owner of Building 7 states that he and the Fire Department decided to “pull” Building 7 — an apparent admission of a conspiracy to destroy the building and its contents.”

  7. Saudi Arabia gave the world:

    – The most intolerant, hateful belief system ever (Wahhabism)

    – Record beheadings

    – ISIS

    – The San Bernardino killers

    – 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers

    – Osama Bin Laden

    Gee thanks…..but no thanks.

  8. Patriot (musicman27103) –

    Dude, you are of a different world or out of your mind. Everybody saw airliners hit the World Trade Centers. It was not a scheduled demolition. Lmao

    All of your anti-Israel propaganda has turned my opinion of your posts into thinking that their all perpetual anti-semitic rhetoric.

    Bye Felicia!

    1. Patriot: 50,000 Ortho Jews can’t be wrong? Not that I disagree with the protest, but – sheesh – those guys won’t even sit in the same row as a woman on an airplane! They’re the voice of reason? They’re a bit like using Ferguson, Mo’s Mike Brown as the 18-year old poster child against police violence just after he stole from and then assaulted the quick mart cashier. I don’t know that they’re persuasive examples to put forward.

      Neat photo though.

  9. All Judaics everywhere must publicly reject World Zionism
    “The World will eventually retaliate against the Likudists in Israel (taking down Israel at the same time) for doing 9/11/01, other numerous staged Terror and false-flags all around the World and their genocidal Apartheid and massive land theft against the Palestinians.”

  10. With regard to the WMD issue in Iraq, in essence I believe there are four possibilities:

    1. There were WMD but the coalition forces never located them.
    2. There were WMD but the Iraqi government immediately destroyed them, preventing any discovery.
    3. There were no WMD in Iraq.
    4. The coalition found WMD and did not publicly announce this.

    Possibility #4 is the least likely, since it would be greatly advantageous to the US government to announce this..

    Item #1 is the second least likely given the amount of effort, time and occupation of Iraq.

    Situations two or three are in my view the most likely. On logic it seems improbable to declare with 100% certainty that Iraq had not one WMD anywhere in their country, that includes some old box of chemical artillery shells in an abandoned building at on old army base. Iraq certainly possessed and used these in the past, as noted in its war with Iran and actions against the Kurds in the north. Iraq also was in the process of constructing a nuclear facility before Israel took it out. So, from this perspective, yes, Iraq most likely had WMD, even if it was–at least–in antiquated and unusable form.

    The importance of this type of WMD possession hinges on what the Iraq government’s intents and designs were.

    The US government tried to make the case to an international audience that even a thimble-full of an anthrax preparation would be sufficient to cause a catastrophe if unleashed into a city. So it seemed the US was looking for even the most granular of WMD to justify taking out Saddam, even if it meant kicking the dust off that box in the warehouse to sanitize Iraq. But as stated before, it is the intent of the government that matters.

    Surely Saddam needed to go, preferably by his resignation, death from old-age, our peaceful ouster by his countrymen,. But had anyone in the US government proven that an imminent attack on the US or NATO forces was to be levied by Saddam’s military unless we disposed of him? I’ve never heard of any of this prior to the Iraq War. (I will concede that Saddam was definitely involved in the attempted assassination of President Bush in the early 1990’s however.)

    An analogy to this is to travel down a rural road in a ranching community. Probably every house one drives past has at least a .22 caliber firearm and most likely many more. You cannot see them, but they might be there. Then there is Farmer Jones, who recently moved in from San Francisco, views his neighbor Farmer Smith as an existential threat because he saw Smith target shooting at the fairgrounds. Farmer Jones becomes angered and worried that Smith might use a .22 rifle to murder everyone at the grange or worse might have a deer rifle that can kill people at 400 yards. So, he becomes so upset he goes into a feedback loop of fear for months and calls up his cousin Sheriff Bubba “Hair Trigger” Jones and tells the sheriff Smith has machine guns, ten boxes of grenades, and a real mean looking sling-shot. Bubba kicks in Smith’s door, trashes his home looking for WMD, shoots up half his cattle and burns his timothy crop. It doesn’t matter that Farmer Smith gave away all his rifles to his grandson two years ago, Bubba throws him in jail because he obviously threatened Farmer Jones and was a menace to the peace and tranquility of Mayberry County.

    For the last possibility, that Saddam ordered the destruction of WMD prior to the coalition’s arrival, it is very plausible. In a post capture interview with former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, Mr. Aziz stated that Saddam completely underestimated President Bush’s resolve thinking the Americans would just send a few cruise missiles in and that would be it. (as it has been a past practice of prior presidents) When it became certain to him that the Americans were about to invade, he went into near panic.

    I believe given Saddam’s personal fears and need for self-preservation, and that he would be probably hanged if the coalition found the WMD and used it as evidence against him in a subsequent show-trial, (a procedure which of course as a dictator he is fully aware) he would be foolish to not order his big government and military apparatus to use every resource possible to destroy the evidence, including dusting off that old box and dumping it into the sea.

    I don’t believe we as ordinary citizens will ever know the full truth of what happened leading up to the Iraq war. Too many people in power have too much to lose. But if one were to look at some other countries, using similar colored lenses, we have to wonder.

    * Russia has the greatest potential to destroy the United States. Nobody doubts this. Are the Russians going to instigate a nuclear war against us just out of the blue? Nope. Why? Because they have not lost their minds and know they will be obliterated in retaliation. But despite the cold-war tensions, one thing the US could certainly rely on was that the Soviets were not wanting to go into a pointless and destructive war and they had reliable self-preservation in mind.

    * North Korea. Megalomaniacal leader, moderately capable military, has low grade nukes, makes propaganda statements about nuking DC and killing Americans.

    So why is it that under the WMD litmus test we applied to Saddam, why hasn’t the US government prosecuted a war against Kim Jong-Un? Well, probably because the political class has nothing to gain by attacking an impoverished nation having insufficient resources to exploit. And, one that is such a pariah we are not likely to gain any political advantage in changing his government in the same manner our politicians depose foreign leaders to bring other leaders into our fold. No, not worth the cost/benefit.

    We didn’t seem to raise much objection when Saddam gassed the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980’s, but then again we were selling arms to both sides. Quite a business model I might add.

Comments are closed.