Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 17, 2016

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.

Posted by b on April 17, 2016 at 16:37 UTC | Permalink


It doesn't have to be money either it could be a carrier or Air force One assuming you had the ability to actually seize it.

Posted by: Scojam | Apr 17 2016 17:02 utc | 1

All Americans, brown, black, beige or plaid, young, old, rich, poor, male or female, are taught from the moment of birth till they die, that the US is the finest, freeest, fairest place in the history of the solar system, and the rest of the world is an eerie place populated by corrupt, unfunny, unfriendly, cowardly furriners who all wish they were Americans too. That's what the world is up against.

Posted by: ruralito | Apr 17 2016 17:19 utc | 3

How would Congress react: impose sanctions, destabilize the country, finally invade (without declaring war). Congress knows no other way to react

Posted by: Quentin | Apr 17 2016 17:22 utc | 4

the usa is the most litigious country in the world... i guess it goes with money grubbing for anything and everything.. i remember the joke about their being 30 lawyers in the us for every engineer in japan...

it is my hope that the world find an alternative to the use of the us$ as a type of world currency.. this will require trading oil without having to do it via the us$ value.. it will mean the imf and world bank are done away with, or replaced with something more equal... that isn't going to happen any time soon with some having much more to gain or lose then others, but it has to happen.. i see the usa legal system wanting to strong arm the rest of the planet now too... no one need be surprised at the usa's actions at this point...

ditto @2 nmb.. i was thinking of that while reading this article.. all of it defies any form of sanity known to sane people, but it will thrive in the usa!

Posted by: james | Apr 17 2016 17:24 utc | 5

I don't think such a law would work against Israel. There will be double standards.

The problem for the Saudi government is it depends on U.S. support to remain in power.

Posted by: Edward | Apr 17 2016 17:28 utc | 6

Fantastic - bring it on- the self inflicted end of the hegemon - the only one with the power to do it! National suicide by hubris - couldn't be scripted better.

Posted by: Bridger | Apr 17 2016 17:33 utc | 7

No real news here. Imperial hubris continues, aka US exceptionalism. Only that it becomes more rabid and xenophobic with time.

The only question is, how long before it becomes a total farce.

Posted by: NotMe | Apr 17 2016 17:40 utc | 8

AFIK, Shia's don't do suicide bombing, so that leaves out Hezbollah. Sunnis do it all the time. The attack in Beirut was a suicide bombing.
from the second NYT link:

The question before the court is relatively narrow: Did Congress act unconstitutionally in passing a 2012 law helping families of victims of terrorist attacks — including those killed in the 1983 Beirut bombing — collect judgments against Iran?

Posted by: okie farmer | Apr 17 2016 17:44 utc | 9

Interesting concept & strange position to stake out in the midst of the slow train wreck TPP and sundry "trade agreements" which disallow associated nations to sue associated corporations, but instead permits corporations to sue nation states for any and all manner of interference of commerce.

Wonder how they can push the one (TPP) and the other (arbitrary asset seizure) concurrently? Who in their right mind would trade with the US while this arbitrary and draconian asset trap could be sprung on them?

The TPP and EU counterparts are, of course, a boon for megacorps and a nightmare for the common people in that all manner of poisonous foods and other products will be foisted upon us.

Posted by: fast freddy | Apr 17 2016 17:59 utc | 10

I agree, with caveats, to #7 above.
Bring it on. The real downside to such an action is the fact that the goals of the US is already evident, as #2 pointed out with the link that was posted. That court action opened a door we have kept locked tight for a long time: we don't use courts because courts can be used against us/US. One has to wonder what the real thinking was (assuming there was any beyond greed and stupidity) behind the court ruling against Iran. Was it to highlight the duplicity of our geo-politics, or was it to break down our position as a hegemon? Nah ... it was simple American greed ... nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: rg the lg | Apr 17 2016 18:08 utc | 11

I gotta agree with Bridger @7. Wonder if there're enough votes to override Obama's veto?

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 17 2016 18:11 utc | 12

"One wonders how Congress would react when the first U.S. assets get seized."

I'm pretty sure Congress is thinking along the lines of "Quod licit Jovi, non licit bovi." OR something to that effect. There is a complete refusal among the US ruling class to recognize that the US has reached the limits of its imperial power and attempts to go beyond it will only result in tears and sorrow. But empires can often only learn the hard way.

Posted by: Lysander | Apr 17 2016 18:24 utc | 13

As for the Saudis and their 9/11 involvement, it seems to me the official narrative is long past its sell by date and someone else besides "Al Qaeda" has to take the fall for 9/11 and it obviously isn't going to be the US government. So KSA is being set up as the fall guy. What the KSA is saying is that if they are going down, they are taking everyone with them. A common end for criminal conspiracies.

Posted by: Lysander | Apr 17 2016 18:30 utc | 14

The Saudis announce that they, the other GCC states and Iran and Iraq are going to sell oil and all settlements are to in a mixture of yuan, roubles and euros. Who needs the dollar then? Nobody, so the US dollar loses its reserve currency status and all the advantages that entails.

Posted by: blowback | Apr 17 2016 18:38 utc | 15

Ok, let's assume that #15 is correct. That the US$ goes down and is no longer the reserve currency. Let's also assume that Killary is elected ... with her track record, what does the 'Empress for a Time' do? Drop bombs ...
On who?
Well Putin of course because, well, that makes just about as much sense as anything else that crone has ever done.
Will the oligarchs be happy, or sad?
If Putin retaliates maybe they'll be dead. Of course, so will the rest of us, but ...


Maybe the cancer the world has lived with so long will self-destruct? If so, maybe life, the universe, and everything can start over? Well, if not ... maybe 42 was the answer after all?

Posted by: rg the lg | Apr 17 2016 19:09 utc | 16

Obama's visit to the KSA is right around the corner to smooth things over.......would love to be a fly on that wall.

Posted by: notlurking | Apr 17 2016 19:11 utc | 17

Has the 2012 anti-Iranian law resulted in any other country legislating similar laws against the US.......just asking.

Posted by: notlurking | Apr 17 2016 19:15 utc | 18

The Saudis, like the Israelis, wouldn't last long without the evil US empire backing them up. The Saudi threats are the most insignificant snd meaningless threats Ive ever seen. It is the current Saudi criminal-ship that will almost immediately crumble without US support, so it is empty as a threat gets.
The Saudi threat to withdraw 750 billion in assets, but the US Federal reserve has already printed trillions to support criminal banks, its own and overseas ones. What's 750 billion ( A number I have a hard time believing the Saudis have ) when the Fed can print it if they need it. At least short to midterm.
As well, there are so many corrupt immoral self aggrandising princes waiting in the wings to lick US boots that regime change in Saudi Arabia is always an option for the US.

Posted by: tom | Apr 17 2016 19:34 utc | 19

Iran ordered to pay $10.5 billion for 9/11 by US judge, Saudi Arabia ... zero!
Posted by: nmb | Apr 17, 2016 1:08:42 PM | 2

Maybe the Yankees are too stupid to discover who really did 9/11 and are planning to sue every country on the planet for the 9/11 MIHOP/LIHOP Inside Job. Iran was a bizarre first cab off the rank but more interesting questions than "Who will they sue next" (after Iran and Saudi Barbaria) would be
"When will they sue Russia, North Korea and Iraq?"
"Who will they sue LAST?"

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 17 2016 19:48 utc | 20

How US covered up Saudi role in 9/11

Posted by: nmb | Apr 17 2016 20:13 utc | 21

i guess funding empire's massive liabilities with barren coffers is getting to be more and more problematic,

having faded prudence into oblivion a long time ago,

like there was no tomorrow...

...and, indeed, a future predicated on faith in launch-ready missile silos and nuclear charged submersibles was always shortsighted...

but the clip is picking up nonetheless, moving pretty fast in fact,

like a bad asteroid.

Posted by: john | Apr 17 2016 20:26 utc | 22

LIHOP, MIHOP: Hijacking the Hijackers

Posted by: okie farmer | Apr 17 2016 20:29 utc | 23

Agree completely that this would be a really stupid law. If we are attacked by a foreign government the correct response is not to sue them, that's a can of worms and seems rather pointless. There are other more traditional avenues to deal with foreign powers that act against our interests.

In my opinion the real tragedy was that, after 9/11, Dubya spirited all those Saudi nationals out of the country and cut off any chance of determining if the Saudi national terrorists of 9/11 had organized backing from either the Saudi government or powerful Saudi individuals. Why don't we hear more about that? Why have we all just accepted that in silence?

Posted by: TG | Apr 17 2016 21:42 utc | 24

I guess US is threatening to move on the Saudis cuz they are considering an agreement to restrict oil production, therefor supporting the price? A consequence of rising prices would be the survival of energy companies now targeted by US oligarchs.

US oligarchs seem to be moving in a determined way against fossil fuel production. First the massive oil increase by the Saudis which I assume was at least w the consent of the US. Then the continuing CO2 scare, now backed up w global governance agreements to progressively cut fossil fuel use.

Also the Obama administration ordered such stringent requirements on CO2 and methane that in some cases no technology exists to comply with the orders. It is against this background that Justice Scalia wrote the judgement which did two things: It remanded the case to the lower court w instructions that cost must be a factor considered by the lower court. Secondly, the judgement issued a STAY on the administration's order until judicial remedies were complete. Scalia died on the 3rd evening following this and the Supreme Court has refused to hear any more cases pertaining to the matter. It would seem that keeping oil prices low is very important indeed to the oligarchs.

I'm not informed as to the limits to prosecute & seize assets of other countries. Surely the US has done so on other occasions without the nicety of a (US) law which purports to override an international law. Didn't Russia have some state-owned assets seized as the result of a foreign court's ruling? I remember Scott at The Saker writing about a whole rash of these cases.

Also if legalities are to be considered I should think numerous countries could sue the US. I don't suppose that could be what the law is for?

Posted by: Penelope | Apr 17 2016 22:04 utc | 25

If the US were to pass such a law, not only the Saudis but China and Japan would also seriously have to consider pulling their money out of US treasury bonds and other investments they have. Don't those two countries, er, have heaps invested in the US? This law could set off an ominous chain of dominoes falling.

Posted by: Jen | Apr 17 2016 23:20 utc | 26

Barflies, Why be shocked? When was the last time Congress voted a Bill before reading it?

U.S. has always discarded International Treaties when it suits; notice its provocative meddling in the South China Sea when it is not a signatory to the Law of the Sea treaty.

“US Sends Warplanes, Troops and Ashton Carter to South China Sea”

{.} China, under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, has the most direct claim to the territories, and has taken steps in recent months to cement those claims..[.]

Now, unilaterally, the exceptional one is setting aside codified Diplomatic Conventions. The dog does not always bark before it bites. Sovereign Immunity is a two-way affair.

Oops, in a blowback, let’s start with some minor inconveniences and then scale up:

“We are so sorry Mr. Secretary of State, upon passage of the Schumer/Cornyn Bill by your Congress, your government has opted to withdraw from codified Diplomatic Conventions, (Vienna 1961 and Geneva 1949). We no longer recognize U.S. Diplomatic passports. You will need a visa and all shipments including any and ALL bags to your staff at your previously accredited mission will now attract duties, taxes and the withdrawal of all other privileges formerly accorded”

Ya Think such a scenario is far fetched?

Posted by: likklemore | Apr 17 2016 23:51 utc | 27

So what happens when the Saudis realize that they sold their gold (oil) for warehouses filled with pallets of US $100 bills that are not worth the paper they are printed on and a bunch of armaments that can easily be turned on the PTB?

Posted by: ALberto | Apr 18 2016 1:07 utc | 28

In my opinion the real tragedy was that, after 9/11, Dubya spirited all those Saudi nationals out of the country and cut off any chance of determining if the Saudi national terrorists of 9/11 had organized backing from either the Saudi government or powerful Saudi individuals. Why don't we hear more about that? Why have we all just accepted that in silence?

Posted by: TG | Apr 17, 2016 5:42:11 PM | 24

Saudis make a much more convenient/believable scapegoat after having principals whisked away as they were. Saudi Arabia as a state/Kingdom garnered zero benefit from 911. Yes they are rotten and primitive - again this helps to build a case against them should the need arise.

Greater Israel was/is the obvious beneficiary of 911.

Posted by: fast freddy | Apr 18 2016 1:27 utc | 29

@28 The princes will all move to their houses in Knightsbridge leaving lower level functionaries to deal with angry Shia.

Posted by: dh | Apr 18 2016 1:42 utc | 30

@ ALberto 28

The Saudis see they are being thrown under the bus and have threatened to unload US Treasuries to avoid seizure of these assets. But they do have other options; quietly convert USTs to the yellow metal, declare they have enough USD, piled high since 1973, and will now diversify to accept payment for oil in Yuan, euros and CAD.

And there goes the US$ as the world reserve currency.

Posted by: likklemore | Apr 18 2016 1:46 utc | 31

There's a pissing match going on right now between Saudis and the US. It's being aired in these tete a tete stories in the MSM.

The key components are:

threat of blackmail to SA by US wrt 911

petro dollar and (the threat of) alternate currencies by SA

gold and oil

artificial devaluation of oil and extended timeline of undervalued prices

threat of asset seizure

Posted by: fast freddy | Apr 18 2016 2:07 utc | 32

The problem here is that the Saudis, no matter how slimy, had nothing to do with 9/11. It was Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, and other high U.S. gov. traitors cooperating with Mossad and Israhell military - communications and explosive experts. The "Saudis" that were supposedly trying to learn how to fly big planes, according to Israhell, were other Mossad agents with stolen Saudi passports building their cover story.
Where all you people asleep?

Posted by: Tony B. | Apr 18 2016 2:17 utc | 33

@31, what's CAD? Canadian dollars?!

Posted by: ruralito | Apr 18 2016 3:31 utc | 34

@Tony B,

Of course not. Many folks have smelled this coming from a mile away. But it will be important to keep repeating that the Saudis are just the convenient patsies. We must call out the real criminals and their media stooges as this ridiculous cover story of 'the Saudis did it' will be repeated ad nauseum. Continuous ridicule should be the order of the day for those cretins who try to propagate that nonsense. Happy debunking!

Posted by: kafkananda | Apr 18 2016 3:33 utc | 35

@27 - I like your scenario. I don't see it far fetched at all. I always figured Russia was such a stickler for the law both from a sense of principle and - mostly in fact - from a sense that its best security was in a world of laws. But I never squared the circle quite enough to see how, when your enemy is in total violation of all laws, the best attack you can make is to strengthen the rule of law, and progressively ascend an increasingly high ground, in the way that the general invisibly gathers his forces in the hills, readying to sweep down on that final day of conclusive battle.

@33 & #35 - good points. The ideal meme would be the one that cements the Saudis as the bad guys, and then starts to feed in the story of the affinity between the Khazars of Tel Aviv and Riyadh.

Posted by: Grieved | Apr 18 2016 4:29 utc | 36

In the last 5 years,, the USA has been undermining Saudi Arabia by setting some traps where they naively fell: Syria and Yemen.
The USA wants an end to the Islamist extremist propagated by Saudi Arabia because it is now affecting the USA and the EU in a more insidious way despite the 'precautions' taken after 9/11.
By excluding the Saudis from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism while including Iran whose only "terrorism" is retaliating on Israel's abuses in the region, the USA has allowed the free growth of Al Qaeda, ISIS and other extremist groups all under the Wahhabi ideology.

The USA has not been able to confront and threaten Saudi Arabia because of the huge business it represented for US oil and weapons industries and supported by jewish lobbies.
Now the threat of sunni terrorism is spreading at a fast speed, triggered by the naive 'regime change' policies of the US and the EU toward countries that have become a serious military threat to Israel, i.e Libya, Iraq and Syria.
The threat is now present in the USA and Europe. There is an urgency not only to stop it but to extract the poison at its root. The poison is the Wahhabi ideology and the root is Saudi Arabia.
We are seen a flurry of press articles attacking Saudi Arabia stronger that it has even be. Saudi Arabia is been weakened as days pass and either it will bow to the request of seriously cracking down on its own religious extremists and risk a collapse of its system or be ostracized by the whole world despite is money and collapse under internal pressure. For Saudi Arabia it is a loose lose situation, that is why it is gesticulating trying to build some kind of protection from other Sunni countries, and threatening the USA of divorce.
The kingdom is doomed. It can't survive as it is and it can't renew itself, therefore it will collapse sooner or later.

Posted by: virgile | Apr 18 2016 4:53 utc | 37

'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.'

so does this apply to Israel?

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2016 6:29 utc | 38

@7 Bridger

I agree with you. Hudson first noted the oxen crossing jove's line when the IMF tossed its 'eternal' vow, not to lend to countries who've stiffed other countries, when it lent to Ukraine who'd stiffed Russia. Effectively bifurcating the financial world into those 'with us' and those 'agin us'.

The 'judgment' - the words 'law', 'judges', and 'judgment' all need quotes now when used with regard to the USA - against Iran on 9/11 was laughable, but in exactly the same vein.

The decision by US 'bankers' - they need the same quotes as 'judges' - to keep the Iranians from 'gaining access to the US financial system'[1][2] were again in the same vein, but in the tradition of the junky's 'hot shot' - the dope so pure it kills the customer who's become more of a liability than he's worth. Administered to the junky US by the its Israeli pusher.

The Israelis - who I'd look at long before the Saudis as the real authors of 9/11 - started this push to blame 9/11 on the Saudis some years ago now. They've apparently decided its time to have their hired hands in the US congress move on it now.

The congress, unlike the bankers who are recent converts, have always looked up to their Israeli handlers as the wiseguys, who always manage to keep the crap game going no matter how badly the Americans are fleeced. If they do manage to start a run on the US treasury - it's hard to see how not just this but the sum of recent US moves cannot help but do so - they'll be disabused of their faith in the Israelis, irremediably, of course. Their surprise will only be surpassed by that of the Israelis themselves.

I'm ready for anything to stop the wars, and have been so for some time. If the collapse of the imperial petrodollar is what it takes, so be it. But pay attention to the long sequence of events that led up to this, my fellow Americans, and don't let them do exactly the same thing again to us next time! There is a danger of that, you know. Lybia after Iraq, Syria after Libya ...

Won't it be great to be citizens of the formerly imperialist US of A? small letters, us of a?

[1] Washington insists Iran gets no access to US finance, 5 April,
[2] US Official: Iran Will Not Gain Access to US Financial System , 5 April,

Posted by: jfl | Apr 18 2016 6:53 utc | 39

'The USA wants an end to the Islamist extremist propagated by Saudi Arabia because it is now affecting the USA and the EU in a more insidious way despite the 'precautions' taken after 9/11.'


doubt it

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2016 6:56 utc | 40

the problem is proving US meddling in a court of law, even when it is in your face. usually it is shrouded behind NGO's, humanitarian and UN institutions. CIA/State Dept. even utilise the large evangelical organisations in the US, working through their local branches in the target countries. this is espcially usefull in countries with a strong christian tradition.

Posted by: rint | Apr 18 2016 7:32 utc | 41


The problem for the Saudi government is it depends on U.S. support to remain in power.

so does Israel.

Posted by: rint | Apr 18 2016 7:38 utc | 42

Posted by: et Al | Apr 18 2016 10:33 utc | 43

A while back, b, your view was that America was indeed attacked by
Muslims on 9/11. The work of Bollyn and others shows Israel to be the main party. And that is something that Trump has been slyly hinting at, for example with his tactical false claim that thousands of Muslims celebrated 9/11 in New Jersey. The easily searchable but unspeakable truth was that there were no reports of Muslims, but many stories about the five Israelis, later proved to be Mossad, who were arrested after a witness saw them wildly celebrating the destruction of the WTC. Zionist forces had to finally paper over this embarrassment by cooking up belated eye-witness accounts and posting those. Again, Trump mentioned that 9/11 was blamed on Iraq, falsely, and that some say Saudi Arabia was involved. But the records exist, and we can find out who it was. So, by all means, let's have this law. It will help a Trump government defang if not dismantle the Jewish state when Americans finally put America first.

Posted by: sarz | Apr 18 2016 12:55 utc | 44

@40 Brian

How can you explain the media and political campaign the USA has been launching to criticize Saudi Arabia as it has never been before?

In my view the USA wants to force Saudi Arabia to agree in "sharing" the region with Iran and Turkey. Saudi Arabia got Egypt, Iran got Iraq, Turkey has an eye on Syria. Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon are still for grab.
The USA hopes that once an agreement is made by three powers and the countries are allowed to develop economically the Islamist extremism will recede. Yet the issue of Israel's fate complicates the matter for the USA.

Posted by: virgile | Apr 18 2016 13:24 utc | 45

jfl says:

Won't it be great to be citizens of the formerly imperialist US of A

bloody fantastic! hated, ridiculed, spit upon, stupefied amongst the dregs of a forlorn, crumbling society, weakened by a longstanding diet of poison and perfidy, struggling to break the encryption to mass delusion, living the off-the-rails post post-enlightenment with barely a hint of any cuneiform unlinking, bewildered by the abstract phases of disunity.

but you're right, of course, these'll be just growing pains. it'll be great.

Posted by: john | Apr 18 2016 13:31 utc | 46

It's obvious the Zionists are turning on their once ironclad friends the Saudis.Since 9-11 the silence and collusion has been self evident.
Something is about to break?

Posted by: dahoit | Apr 18 2016 13:57 utc | 47

@ ruralito 34

To your question, answer is Yes.

@ virgile 37

Unless the pending Senate Bill is Saudi Arabia specific, with the exception of the masters, all countries will be affected.

@ brian 38

No, no: Israel is special and will not be affected. When S&P downgraded the U.S. credit rating, Reuters’ article stated the downgrade will impact Israel’s bonds - these instruments are guaranteed by the U.S. government. Are the bonds of the 50 states so guaranteed? And, really how do you target or fire the boss?

Posted by: likklemore | Apr 18 2016 14:06 utc | 48

So, does this mean that Larry 'double indemnity' Silverstein is a Saudi?

Posted by: ALberto | Apr 18 2016 16:06 utc | 49

nary a word about Israel, huh?

Got a few minutes? This is worth a watch:

Posted by: Mike K. | Apr 18 2016 16:16 utc | 50

Slightly OT. Some 10 days ago I read a paper by a F economist (no link, it is pure speculation in any case) that meandered on somewhat about offshore cos., accounts, funds, and then gave advice to tax avoiders or evaders.

Under no account (sic), he advised his F brethren, should you contemplate parking your trusts or cos. or whatever in the US (now the main offshore actor. Or one of the biggest..) because the US plan is as follows. Little by little there will be crackdowns on all forms of tax avoidance / evasion (see for ex. EU’s plans to straighten out the likes of Google and Apple) and one day these assets will be frozen and simply confiscated by the US!

As for 9/11, The Saudis are responsible! was a Democrat meme from day 3 - 10. First it was Palestinians, maybe? Bin Laden, then yes *for sure* Saudis.. Not Iraq, not Afgh, not Bin Laden, not Al Q, but KSA! This meme was pushed so hard many tried to sue KSA and blaming KSA has been a leitmotif of Bush/Repub opponents since forever. “We attacked the wrong country!” Yikes…

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 18 2016 16:45 utc | 51

US Foreign Policy leaders have little concern about Islamist (sic) Extremism. If they did, they would have done what Russia did. Importantly, the US would plug up ISIS money, weapons, resources and equipment supplies - especially those with American provenance.

Recall how easily bloodthirsty US forces annihilated surrendering Iraqi's as they attempted to escape in vehicles.

Instead of that, we get pictures of ISIS driving around in new Toyota pick ups.

How gullible we are.

Posted by: fastfreddy | Apr 18 2016 16:46 utc | 52

B, I appreciate your steadfast defense of the sovereignty of all nations

Posted by: Cresty | Apr 18 2016 17:12 utc | 53

Americans have been sold an image of Saudis as "moderate" Muslims, when in fact, their support one of the most virulently fundamentalist strains of Islam: Wahabism.

It is about time that the USA started severing economic, political and military ties with this backwards feudal monarchy.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 18 2016 18:02 utc | 54

No doubt were the saudies involved in the 9/11, but the main promoters are not the saudies, but the israelis. Remember the "dancing israelis" (who were Mossad agents) jubilating at the destruction of the twin towers. Remember Larry Silverstein. How about the third tower, it wasn't hit by a plane... So this is an insiders' game and by insider, I include Israel, since as Sharon once said: "we (the israelis) control the US". I think the whole thing about the stupid saudies is a smokescreen to deviate attention from the main culprits.

Posted by: Rumbero | Apr 18 2016 20:02 utc | 55

Saudis were involved in 9/11. However, who put them up to it? Was it their own idea? I doubt it.

This bill is all noise, and a joke, for consumption by the masses. Cutting off arms sales to KSA? Ain't gonna happen.

It suits the US just fine to publicly distance itself from its clients in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel. That does not mean the US is not fully behind most of what they are doing. The theatrics going on now allow the US to reap the geopolitical benefits of the conflicts on the ground, while shielding itself from the negative publicity associated with being an evil imperial aggressor.

'We didn't do it - it was them - those guys over there.' You know, the ones we sell or donate our weapons to, whose fighter planes we refuel; the ones we train, share intelligence and embed our military advisors with and whose governments we dominate. We had nothing to do with it...

Posted by: Nick | Apr 18 2016 23:24 utc | 56

@51 noirette, 'one day these assets will be frozen and simply confiscated by the US!'

That is the case! Whether for 'tax evasion' or just for not holding your mouth right, as the Texans say. People need holes in their heads to deposit funds in the USA.

As for the Saudis ... maybe for days 3-10, but as the days turned to years - aside from the occasional 'Hey, those hijackers were Saudis, ya know!' - 'our pals' the Saudis were ignored. They had the get out of jail free card. It was just some few years ago that the redacted 28 pages became the issue. The Israelis becoming jealous of ... the Saudi's increasing 'usefulness' to the empire? the fact that the Saudis paid in petrodollars for their weapons? ... whatever, it was decided it was time for the Saudis to go.

According to the Israelis everyone, including the USA, has to go ... just in the fullness of time. The run on the US banking system anticipated above may be the tell that it's the US' time to go in the Israeli view. They're surely the ones behind Iran's being sued fr 9/11, and her not being 'allowed to participate in the US financial system', or however it was put. The imperial hubris of the USA is exceed only by that of the pipsqueak Israel.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 18 2016 23:53 utc | 57

@56, nick 'Saudis were involved in 9/11. However, who put them up to it? Was it their own idea? I doubt it.'

My bet is that Mossad had the guys on the planes believing they were working for bin Laden. The CIA might have wired the demolition of the WTC, but 'humint' has always been beyond them. Not beyond the Israelis, though. Their strong suit.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 18 2016 23:57 utc | 58

@41 -- Yes. The NGOs are operational subsidiaries of CIA-DOS. Agree that "most" fundamentalist/evangelical Christian groups are infiltration ops. But don't paint ALL Christian groups with the same broad-brush. Some are genuinely focused on helping their fellow-man. Good rule of thumb is whether the group is riddled with cryptos. They're hard to miss. #js

Posted by: 4H | Apr 19 2016 14:42 utc | 59

55;The Israelis were dancing before the 2nd plane hit the towers.
They were quite aware of what was going down before we did.

Posted by: dahoit | Apr 19 2016 15:26 utc | 60

Like robbing your neghbor because your cousin spit in your face and shot one of your kids dead. To hell with congress.

Posted by: Howard T. :Lewis III | Apr 20 2016 2:55 utc | 61

My bet is that Mossad had the guys on the planes believing they were working for bin Laden. The CIA might have wired the demolition of the WTC, but 'humint' has always been beyond them. obat Penyakit Asam Lambung
pengobatan herbal asam lambung

Posted by: salim perdana | Apr 27 2016 0:57 utc | 62

The Israelis were dancing before the 2nd plane hit the towers.
They were quite aware of what was going down before we did. cara memesan eye care softgel

Posted by: syifa | Apr 27 2016 8:33 utc | 63

The comments to this entry are closed.