Lloyd's insurer sues Saudi Arabia for 'funding 9/11 attacks'

September 19, 2011, The Independent (One of the UK's leading newspapers)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lloyds-insurer-sues-saudi-arabia...

A Lloyd's insurance syndicate has begun a landmark legal case against Saudi Arabia, accusing the kingdom of indirectly funding al-Qa'ida and demanding the repayment of £136m it paid out to victims of the 9/11 attacks. 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. The case singles out the activities of a charity, the Saudi Joint Relief Committee for Kosovo and Chechnya (SJRC), which was alleged by UN officials to have been used as a cover by several al-Qa'ida operatives, including two men who acted as directors of the charity. It is alleged that at the time the SJRC was under the control of Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, half-brother of King Abdullah and the long-standing Saudi Interior minister. The claim states: "Between 1998 and 2000, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, through the SJRC, diverted more than $74m to al-Qa'ida members and loyalists affiliated with SJRC bureaus. Throughout this time, the Committee was under the supervision and control of Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz."



Note: This article singles out the important connection between Al Qaeda and the wars in Kosovo and Chechnya, where, as in Afghanistan in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden's organization provided Muslim jihadis to promote US imperial interests. This activity continued into the summer of 2001 in Macedonia, just a few months before 9/11. Amazingly, the lawsuit described in the article has been dropped.


What pressures could have been brought to bear on Lloyd's to cause it to drop its suit two weeks after bringing it?
READ MORE

Zakaria destroys Rumsfeld’s Iraq war talking points

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld isn't letting go of his talking points that support the U.S. invasion of Iraq following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Exactly 10 years after those attacks, Rumsfeld suggested to CNN's Fareed Zakaria Sunday that Iraq had been "hospitable" to al Qaeda before the U.S. invaded the country.

"There's no question that al Qaeda and Zarqawi and people were in Iraq," Rumsfeld argued. "They aggregated there."

"If we hadn't invaded, they wouldn't have been there," Zakaria pointed out.

"We don't know that," Rumsfeld insisted. "You don't know that. I don't know that."

"But they went in to fight us. So since we weren't there, why would they have gone into Iraq?" Zakaria countered.

"Why have they gone into Yemen and Somalia?" Rumsfeld asked. "Why do al Qaeda go anywhere? They go where it's hospitable."

"Right, and Iraq hadn't been hospitable," Zakaria said. READ MORE

Watch this video from CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS, broadcast Sept. 11, 2011.

Are the U.S. and NATO creating a new boogeyman in Libya?

Having the backing of over thirty nations, including the U.S., the
Al Qaeda linked rebels are now the recognized government of Libya.
With Gaddafi out of power, the rebels have moved on to ethnic
cleansing and the looting of weapons depots for chemical weapons
and surface-to-air missiles. If things were bad for Libyans under
Qaddafi, things are certainly worse now.

Are the U.S. and NATO creating a new boogeyman in Libya?

Video:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/4977.html

One of the problems with Al Qaeda has been that they are not "state actors",
this has hampered efforts to fearmonger the populace here. If this action
now makes Al Qaeda a "state actor", will we now have reason to invade
the rest of the middle east eventually?