Quote: AllGov

Lloyd’s Sues Members of Saudi Royal Family for Funding Al-Qaeda in 9/11 Attacks
Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Prince Salman Bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud

Leaders of Saudi Arabia are being sued by Lloyd’s insurance for playing a key role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Lloyd’s has paid more than $215 million in claims filed by families of those killed in the attacks, and wants Saudi leaders to reimburse the company.

As far as the insurer is concerned, 9/11 never would have happened without “the sponsorship” of Saudi Arabia, which provided al-Qaeda with the means “to conceive, plan and execute the September 11th Attacks,” says the Lloyd’s lawsuit.

In addition to the Saudi government, defendants in the case are the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia & Herzegovina, the Saudi Joint Relief Committee for Kosovo and Chechnya (SJRC), the Saudi Red Crescent Society, National Commercial Bank, Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Company, Prince Salman Bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, Suleiman Abdel Aziz Al Rajhi (CEO of al Rajhi Bank), and Yassin Al Qadi (an employee of al Rajhi Bank and founder of the Muwaffaq Foundation). Salman Bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud is currently the Governor of Riyadh Province.

The SJRC is included because, according to Lloyd’s, the organization between 1998 and 2000 diverted more than $74 million to al-Qaeda members and loyalists. At that time the committee “was under the supervision and control of Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz.”

Peter Dow of Rice for President and the For Freedom Forums comments.

I’ll applaud Lloyd’s and salute their coat of arms. Nice one.

The Arms of Lloyd’s
LLOYD’S website

Now wouldn’t it be refreshing to see Western leaders squaring up to the Saudi royals with that kind of backbone instead of grovelling down to make arms deals with them?

I posted the above in the US Message board and here is a part of the debate there that followed.

Quote: High_Gravity

Hmm I wonder how far this will really go, those Saudis have A LOT of oil money and could probably pay a pretty outrageous price to settle this out of court.

Yes you are right because if the Saudis admit liability and pay what is small change for them to settle this Lloyd’s claim in court then everyone else with a claim of loss following 9/11 – so that is not just losses suffered on 9/11 but arguably all those who lost loved-ones in Afghanistan, which was a war on terror consequential after 9/11 (possibly the Iraq war too) – also will find it much easier to prove their claim against the Saudis.

Add up the entire US and allied military and diplomatic service costs for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, compensation for those serving there who were killed and injured, so that’s life time support for all the families of the killed, plus compensation for loss of earnings and quality of life losses for all those injured ..

That adds up into the trillions of dollars, serious money which amounts to quite a boost to the western economies in fact.

Hence why I suspect you are right that the Saudis will want to settle this out of court with no admission of liability.

It occurs to me that Lloyds of London insurers are not as well resourced as say the CIA and MI6 intelligence services. It seems to me that our intelligence services should have got around to blaming the Saudis for funding this before Lloyd’s did.

If they did, if they informed US presidents Bush and Obama, why is it business as usual with the Saudis?

Just yesterday another arms deal between the US and Saudi Arabia was announced, 50 thousand American jobs saved apparently. Presumably this is why US presidents are making nice with the backstabbing Saudi royals, to keep the business deals coming?

It just looks wrong when US presidents make nice with our enemies.

The then US President George W. Bush (L) and Saudi Arabia’s Prince Salman Bin Abdul Aziz, brother of King Abdullah, watch a traditional celebration dance outside the Al Murabba Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, January 15, 2008.

I think the West should stop turning the other cheek and instead man-up and confiscate the Saudi oil fields to pay our war costs for the war they started by funding Al Qaeda!

Quote: High_Gravity

The Saudis have $10 trillion in US Banks and own numerous properties and businesses here, its because of this that our government is very leery to stop doing business with them. Like you said in previous posts though, in reality though the Saudis are no friends to the us. The textbooks that preach firey Anti American and Anti Western hatred in the madrassas in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia and elsewhere are all printed out in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia produced the most foreign fighters to fight against our troops in Iraq not to mention most of the 9/11 hijackers were from the Kingdom. I personally would like to see the US start doing less and less business with the Saudis and the other Middle Eastern countries, but I don’t know how to even begin that process when we have so many ties and agreements with them.

Well a good start would be confiscating that $10 trillion to distribute to compensate US 9/11 victims and war on terror casualties.

The UK and other countries who have incurred jihadi terrorism or war on terror costs should do the same. (Actually I am a republican so I always need to add that the UK should be overthrown and British republics do whatever it is that the UK should be doing)

Now I haven’t really worked out the figures as to whether $10 trillion would cover all American costs.

If it does, if UK costs are covered by what we can confiscate of what the Saudis have invested in Britain and other countries get compensated this way, then fine, especially if the Saudis stop funding new jihadi terrorism, maybe that will be that, though I still think we should support a republican democratic revolution in Saudi Arabia.

Now supposing $10 trillion of Saudi assets invested in the US doesn’t compensate sufficiently. Supposing the fair compensation figure is more like $100 trillion all told.

Then the US, with allied backing, presents the Saudis with an ultimatum – you pay us X% (where “X” is maybe 50%, 75% or 90% depending on how much of a hurry we are in to get compensated) of all the taxes you collect from the Arabian oil industry in Saudi Arabia until such time as you have paid off your debt, or else.

The “or else” could be a Western military invasion of Saudi Arabia to seize the Arabian oil fields.

Such a war would not be easy as the Iraq war demonstrated and the war aims could be thwarted initially because the Saudis would probably sabotage the oil wells, like Saddam did, by the time our military took the oil fields but eventually the fires would be put out and the oil wells restored to working order and at that later time we’d start getting 100% of all the taxes and the percentage of that we gave to the Arabs would not go through the Saudi state – we’d fund Arabian democrats and republicans instead – so the Saudi kingdom would be bankrupt and finished as a viable entity. The Saudi royal family would be finished as a ruling class apart from ruling their camels.

At least this time there would be no argument about whether such an “or else” war would be a “war for oil” because it honestly would be.

From the Republican Intelligence forum in For Freedom Forums

Since forever, I’ve existed within the realm of the Boy’s Club.

To be honest, it’s really not that big of a deal. The view is very nice from where I sit–lots of powerful men in suits.

I went into undergrad thinking that I was going to be an engineer; that dream was squashed by the realization that I have a personality. Maybe it was my personality that got me in trouble with the professors–the world may never know. What I do know is that I was the victim (/clutches pearls) of misogyny and sex discrimination for the first time at the tender age of 18. I’m not saying it wasn’t understandable; it’s got to be weird for these lifetime engineers to all of a sudden be dealing with an increased concentration of female brain power. But what wasn’t understandable was for me to be sent out of a professor’s office not because our conference was over, but because there was a male student waiting. What wasn’t understandable was being blatantly–we’re talking, the “make eyecontact and pointedly look away” type of blatantly–ignored in class while the male students were favored. The assignments turned in by female students were graded more harshly, and the grades of female students trended lower than those of male students.

It sucked. I dealt with it because I thought I wanted to be an engineer. Nobody ever died of chauvenism, right?

In law school, I discovered a different brand of misogyny. It’s quieter. Over the past two and a half years, I’ve come to the conclusion that I have to modify my personality both in the courtroom and the negotiation table; the first advice I was given when I was selected for membership on the moot court board was, “don’t come across as a bitch.” At an interview, I would never be caught dead in pants, much less shoes without at least a two inch heel–and that’s pushing the envelope. Wear a skirt, but not too short. But not too long. Wear heels–height matters. Be assertive, but not too aggressive–you might come across as a rabid feminist. That’s okay behavior for your worthless (yes, worthless) “Gender in the Law” class, but not for a true professional setting.

Also sucky? I guess it depends on how you look at it. I don’t particularly mind playing the part. When it comes to percentage of female partners, comparative income between male and female associates, and other statistics like that, though, things look bleak. Having to stack my resume has been exhausting. And yes, it is annoying to know that I will potentially make 73% (or whatever the latest statistic is) of what my male colleague makes; but all of that pales in comparison to what happens to women in the other three corners of the globe:

For Saudi women, progress comes slowly, and not at all surely

Women in Saudi Arabia won a small but promising victory this year. No, they aren’t being allowed to drive; that’s still forbidden. Most of the time, they still can’t work, travel or even open bank accounts without the approval of a male guardian. But they do have this: Saudi women can now buy lingerie in stores from female salesclerks, instead of the sometimes leering men who used to staff the counters. If this modest wave of liberalization continues, they may even get fitting rooms.

It doesn’t sound like much, but in the glacial process of modernization in the tradition-bound kingdom, it’s an important step. “This is the beginning of a real social change,” Eman Nafjian, one of the new generation of Saudi women’s activists, told me over coffee in Riyadh, the capital, last week. “It will allow more women to work in shopping malls. And that’s a step toward more opportunities for women’s employment in general.”

…and then I thought about how many stupid times a day women in America bitch and moan and complain about “equal rights.”

That’s not to say that income disparity between men and women is right, or that men should be able to discriminate against the women they work with. I’m not saying that at all, so read the rest of this post before you scroll down to the comments and start making asinine accusations. What I’m saying is that America at large should be appalled at the attitude regarding gender disparity in the west, because it is nothing–nothing–compared to what women in Saudi Arabia are put through on a daily basis.

At least in America, women have certain rights. We have the right to choose to use birth control. We have the right to choose an abortion. We are a suspect class. When these rights are unconstitutionally violated, I fully support a woman’s right to protest that violation–even when it comes to contentious issues like abortion. (If you want to get rid of a thing, you have to get rid of it within the confines of the law.) It’s wrong for an employer to pay a woman less than he would pay a man. It’s wrong for someone to treat people differently based on gender. It’s wrong for a man to feel justified in slapping me on the ass when we’re on our way into the courtroom.

But it’s also wrong for women in this country to act like lives are lost on a daily basis due to the sexism of our patriarchal overlords. There is a great difference between legitimate sex discrimination, and legitimate idiocy. There is a difference between sexual harassment, and men behaving like boys. There is a difference between traditional gender roles and gender repression. If you have to look for the injustice, it probably isn’t there–and that’s what I’m seeing in today’s society. Women–and some men, for God only knows what reason–looking for injustice. Looking for unfair treatment. Looking for a reason to point the finger and cry foul.

Looking for a reason to play the victim.

Women in Saudi Arabia don’t have to look for a reason to play the victim; they don’t have to sift through the evidence to find injustice–it’s all around. They wear it over their faces; it comes with them when they want to venture out into public. It is ingrained into their collective psyche. That ingrained, inherent injustice gives me perspective. The next time I cuss (not under my breath) about how uncomfortable my Spanx are, or how annoying it is to have to flirt without flirting just to insert myself into a conversation at a professional event (most of which feel like very a very vanilla version of Henry VIII’s court), I’m going to keep those women in mind. I’ll keep them in mind the next time I’m tempted to not force myself to go to an event on “raising awareness” about “women’s issues”; “raising awareness” is fine, but the women of Saudi Arabia who have decided to fight repression have inspired me to not only attend those events, but to stand up and ask these feminists what “raising awareness” really means. We all know about gender inequality–anyone who denies its existence either lives under a rock, or in a state of complete pigheaded denial–so what good does “raising awareness” do when we already know all about the thing we’re supposedly being made aware of?

It’s pointless, really.

American women–especially highly educated American women–who sit around with the goals of “raising awareness” and “exacting change” should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. How ridiculous we must look to the women of Saudi Arabia, whose only method of “raising awareness” is to do something brave, something that could end in arrest or public humiliation. Our enthusiasm for and embrace of the power of mental masturbation not only wastes time, it cheapens the movement. Protesting a simple request to not whip out a breast in public is not brave. Protesting a minor’s inability to pump unnatural levels of hormones into her system unsupervised is not brave. Staging estrogen-infused freakouts over nonissues is not brave–it is shallow, attention-seeking blog fodder.

Women in America fight over these issues because they are women. Womanhood is a very big deal to these people; you’d think having a vagina and a pair of breasts was something inherently special and rare. We fight because we are women, we argue because we are women, we go to work on “the issues” because we are women. Women women women. WOMEN. Sacred feminine. We are strong, we are equal, and we need special rules!

O.o

I’d like to challenge the women of America to take a look at the women of Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain, or Afghanistan, and do something truly brave. If you’re going to fight injustice and expose inequality, don’t do it because you’re a woman. Do it because you’re a person. Do it because the woman behind the veil is a person. Do it because the junior associate working late again is a person. Do it believing that personhood for all is more important than an overarching liberal agenda, or don’t do it at all.

Originally posted at THATAmyMiller.com: crawl inside the mind of the last conservative law student