It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by wayouttheredude I am not a betting man but if I were I think I would bet on a quick and quiet settlement in this case.
Originally posted by wayouttheredude
I think the House of Saud would very much like to see this suit go away. I am not a betting man but if I were I think I would bet on a quick and quiet settlement in this case.
Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by UniverSoul
Lloyd's has had a great many years to dig up information on this. They have some of the world's best investigators and as others have stated very deep pockets. I still think there will be a quick and quiet payoff to make this go away for the Saudi government.
Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by Crakeur
I think a private payoff is the more likely and no statement and Lloyd's just says they are going to publicly drop it for the time being to be picked up later. Then of course later does not come and the news cycle has moved on. You could be right but fighting this when Lloyd's has had nearly a decade to research the links between the charities, the banks, and the House of Saud. The resulting exposure seems more than inconvenient given the fact that the Arab spring has sprung and it can spring again.
Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by wayouttheredude
in most cases, a settlement to make something of this magnitude would be the quick and easy route but, by doing so, they would have the issue of assumed guilt. The public would read into it quickly, that they would rather not have the links exposed and, therefore, they are "making it go away."
If they do settle, it will come with a statement that they are not guilty of this but they'd rather not waste money fighting it as the legal fees would be about the same as the settlement.
Given that the global view of such a statement might be one of scorn, with SA still looking guilty in the eyes of many, they might be stuck fighting it to avoid assumption of guilt.
Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by Crakeur
I think a private payoff is the more likely and no statement and Lloyd's just says they are going to publicly drop it for the time being to be picked up later. Then of course later does not come and the news cycle has moved on. You could be right but fighting this when Lloyd's has had nearly a decade to research the links between the charities, the banks, and the House of Saud. The resulting exposure seems more than inconvenient given the fact that the Arab spring has sprung and it can spring again.
Originally posted by UniverSoul
reply to post by wayouttheredude
even so, who funded it should be irrelivant
money goes around in circles and we all know everyone is in everyones pockets
america has the most invested in it anyway.
saying that america wasnt behind it is like saying another country payed for america to make billions out of war
Originally posted by proteus33
like i have always asked why did we go to Afghanistan if money came from Saudi Arabia? for heavens sake they had
a telethon to raise money for the families of the martyrs who struck at west the next day after attack. does their king have so little control over his kingdom they he couldn't stop the telethon . or did he believe that they did the right thing.
Originally posted by KnightFire
reply to post by wayouttheredude
It's not new news that Saudi Arabia has been and will continue funding terrorism. Problem is, no one will do anything about it since they control the majority of the worlds oil supply.
Double standard in my opinion.
Originally posted by proteus33
why dont we form an alliance with china ,Russia ,great Britain, a france to take conytol of saudi arabia and weed out the extremist and the people funding them and yes i think they should pay multi trillion dollar restittution to all countries and peoples who had a loss from 911. why because saudi kingdom let it happen. i am not anti Muslim.
plus it would be an easier target than afganistan it has water on three sides, a smaller population, less rugged terrain we already have vases there and in several close by nations. if you cut off terrorists cash flow they would go from global threat to regional threat
Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by Unity_99
The SA the fall guy?
Originally posted by wayouttheredude
But W was all photographed holding hands and kissing on his highness.
Originally posted by wayouttheredude
Surely the globalist are not going to throw them under the bus now?
Originally posted by wayouttheredude
Of course the eurobankers might just feel like "hey our henchmen at CIA made these enemies de'jour" "Lets use them" lol
Originally posted by FallenWun
Originally posted by Unity_99
So lets read between the lines. In other words, TPTB, with the dark weapons, and the death ray,
Oh please do go on. I have a feeling the death ray is the crux of the whole thing. Please enlighten. What are dark weapons and where can I see one?
Originally posted by mike dangerously
reply to post by wayouttheredude
No,The Saudi's will just threaten to cut the UK's oil supply if Loyd's does not back off.Then the British government will step in with a settlement offer.
Originally posted by UniverSoul
reply to post by wayouttheredude
even so, who funded it should be irrelivant
money goes around in circles and we all know everyone is in everyones pockets
america has the most invested in it anyway.
saying that america wasnt behind it is like saying another country payed for america to make billions out of war