Lloyds of London Suing Saudi Arabia for Funding 9/11 Attacks
by Larry Simons
September 23, 2011
Former speechwriter and geopolitical analyst Craig Hulet appeared on Coast to Coast with George Noory and revealed that insurance company Lloyd’s of London is suing Saudi Arabia government for funding the 9/11 attacks. Hulet revealed that George W. Bush personally intervened and made sure this information would not be made public.
Hulet also pointed out that one of the best pieces of evidence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction was the fact that the United States deployed ground troops to Iraq. He said we would have never deployed ground troops if Saddam had WMD’s because he would have used them against us as a result.
Listen to the interview
19 comments:
How could Saudi be involved if it was an inside job?
And you have yet to address what you think happened on 911......whether it was expression of Arab/ISlamic hatred of Western/American interference or an inside job......because it can't be both.....
You've been saying for years it was an inside job, designed to facilitate American intervention......now you're claiming it was because of American intervention........and it can't be both.
So here we are again.....now you're promoting the idea Saudi was involved.....
What happened to your conspiracy designed to justify War on Terror?
Actually this is quite easy: Especially if Bush knew. The Bush family and the Saudis are very close. They both are involved in trying to control the oil fields in Iran/Iraq. Simple explanation. It's not about terror. It's about oil.
larry this last cock in mouth queenie fraud name left is a jackass. you have already refuted and debunked him time and time again.
Oh. So the Saudis want to help American Imperialism steal its oil? Is that it?
But just a few days ago you were saying that AQ attacked America because it had bases in Saudi and supported Israel etc and withdrawing troops would make USA safer.
So, can we be clear? Why did AQ attack America?
OK, fuckface, lets be clear about something.
When Ron Paul says AQ attacked America, he is peddling the official story, which I do not accept. Whether Ron Paul accepts the official story or not is not the point. If he didnt accept it and said 9-11 was an inside job, it would be the end of his campaign politically, because they would smear him so bad, he would be lucky to be invited to the debates, let alone speak at them.
Why? Because he wouldn't be right? No. Because there are imbeciles in our country just like YOU that do not want to hear the truth, that's why. No matter what they said, even if it made perfect sense, they would be written off like a Nazi. They attempt to write off Ron Paul even NOW when he talks about blowback!!
It's very simple to understand that Saudi Arabia was involved---after all...15 of the 19 hijackers WERE SAUDIS. Bushco and Saudi Arabia conspire to attack the US so both of them can control the middle eastern oil by starting 2 wars as a result. Bushco and the media claim the culprits are AQ which even Bin Laden admits to in 1998, OBL says it's because we have bases there and won't leave [which is true]. OBL is stating a FACT as to the reason but it's not the REAL reason. Since Bin Laden is CIA, he is not going to reveal the real reason why they attack us [which is for oil].
Ron Paul is not LYING when he says OBL says they attack us because we are over there, but it's not the real reason [it's for oil], but if Ron Paul says this, he will be dubbed a conspiracy theorist and condemned even more than he is now.
Regardless, Rick Santorum is DEFINATELY wrong that they attack us for "our freedoms".
And you STILL havent answered my question:
Name one terrorist that has claimed they attack us because we're "free"?? Name ONE???
fuckface, thats a good one larry. hes a fraud.
Larry/RTO: When Ron Paul says AQ attacked America, he is peddling the official story, which I do not accept.
==============
Right. Good. Finally.
Thanks.
----
L/RTO: If he didnt accept it and said 9-11 was an inside job, it would be the end of his campaign politically, because they would smear him so bad, he would be lucky to be invited to the debates, let alone speak at them.
====
But why then use it as a reason to determine policy?
This is a really very dangerous, and irresponsible, self-defeating route.
Ron Paul is arguing for - and you are supporting - policy based on what you believe to be spurious reasons.
How do you think that is going to serve your cause or the American people?
What happened to "the TRUTH"?
---
L/RTO: OBL says it's because we have bases there and won't leave [which is true]
===
You seem to have missed something in your argument too - this is from the BBC, in 2003 - 9 years ago:
--------
The United States has said that virtually all its troops, except some training personnel, are to be pulled out of Saudi Arabia.
The decision was confirmed by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a joint news conference with Saudi Defence Minister Prince Sultan.
--------------
Moreover, even Paul WOlfowitz "had earlier said that the continuing US presence in the kingdom was putting American lives in danger."
---
L/RTO: "15 of the 19 hijackers WERE SAUDIS."
===
Indeed. Finally we're getting somewhere, perhaps. I've never seen you seriously implicate Saudi before - usually you claim the hijackers are still alive (but now you're saying they "WERE" Saudis - past tense).
And you say Bushco and Saudi arranged 911 so as to control ME oil......but Saudi already controls the largest (and best) oil reserves in the world.
----
L/RTO: Since Bin Laden is CIA, he is not going to reveal the real reason why they attack us [which is for oil].
=====
So Ron Paul is flat wrong to argue what he did.
And Ron Paul is also therefore flat wrong to suggest bringing the troops home will make America safer from terrorism then.
What happened to "the TRUTH"?
If it's ok for Ron Paul to make policy based on expedient arguments (and still garner your support) then you really have no right to criticise others for doing so.
How can you criticise other politicians for using lies to support their favoured policies when you support RonPaul doing it?
The truth is the truth is the truth. Political expediency is something else.
If you accept it from RonPaul, don't expect anyone to take Truther complaints seriously about anyone else doing it.
-----
L/RTO: Name one terrorist that has claimed they attack us because we're "free"?? Name ONE???
=====
Why? I never claimed anyone attacked America because it's "free".
I don't find it very difficult to believe that America was attacked because people believe "it is the Great Satan".
Now, being "the Great Satan" does not necessarily mean "America is free".....but it *is* part of it....in so far as America is liberal, modern, democratic, has separation of church and state, allows people to pursue their *own* secular "life liberty and happiness", empowers the individual against state and church and religious/moral order etc. Pornography is legal, alcohol is legal, homosexuality is legal, promiscuity is legal, blasphemy is legal, etc etc etc. All of that stuff is anathema to religious nutballs of Islam.
Saying America was attacked because it is "free" is perhaps a shorthand meant to encapsulate all those things, though it reads absurdly.
But that's only part of what makes the idea of "the Great Satan".
Foreign intervention (aka modern imperialism - hegemony) is surely the major part of "the Great Satan" - and that would include bases in Saudi used to attack Iraq, funding of Iraq to combat Iranian revolution, funding of Iran to oppose Iraq, support for Israel in I/P conflict, bombing Sudan, bombing Afghanistan in the 90s, support for Mubarak and other undemocratic ME.Arab regimes etc etc etc.
You can't really expect too much recognition of that from America....from the actual architects of American intervention and hegemony, the New American Century people......so they had to say something else.....hence "because we're FREE". It's partially true, but it obscures the real reasons, which seem fairly obvious.
The middle east is ONLY strategically important because it has oil. It has almost no other relevance to world powers. And the history is the 1970s OPEC oil embargo, because of Israel.
So, we don't need to posit a grand conspiracy to find reasons for 911 and AQ. OBL was tapping into legitimate and genuine Arab/Islamic concerns - though terrorism is grotesque and cannot be condoned of course.
In which case RonPaul is essentially right - and THAT is the reason he is so opposed - because of all the reasons why America is so involved in the MidEast and elsewhere, and has been for such a long time.
In that sense, 911 fits easily into the usual structural analysis of geopolitics - as presented by Noam Chomsky, for example. [And it explains why he is so hostile to 911 Troof, even though he is sympathetic to many of the political arguments put forward by those involved in "TROOF". Likewise for myself....a lot of the broader sentiments of TROOF are admirable, and correct.....it's just the rationale that is flawed, self-defeating, and wrong. Which is why I care about it.]
"L/RTO: Name one terrorist that has claimed they attack us because we're "free"?? Name ONE???
=====
Why? I never claimed anyone attacked America because it's "free"."
No, you only DEFENDED Rick "the dick" Santorum in his argument against Ron Paul. Being against Ron Paul is being FOR Santorum, so in essence, you DID claim America was attacked because we're free.
DICKWAD
"You seem to have missed something in your argument too - this is from the BBC, in 2003 - 9 years ago:
--------
The United States has said that virtually all its troops, except some training personnel, are to be pulled out of Saudi Arabia.
The decision was confirmed by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a joint news conference with Saudi Defence Minister Prince Sultan"
Oh....NOW you think the BBC is the epitome of truth telling. I remember you saying they weren't trustworthy after I blogged that the BBC reported 7 of the hijackers to still be alive in 2001.
So, in other words: The BBC is trustworthy when they peddle something YOU believe, but when they peddle something you DONT believe, they are full of shit, right??
I did not support Santorum re RonPaul. Don't be so binary.
And re BBC report of US troops leaving Saudi in 03 - it is well known and reported widely. I could use any number of sources, the BBC is about as good as it gets.
The BBC later clarified reports that the hijackers were still alive - they were just claims - it was not the BBC reporting that the hijackers, rather they were reporting that there were claims the hijackers were still alive. That's one of the things Truthers have distorted for 10 years now. They only ever quote the original article - never the BBC clarification.
larry, this guys a dork. he wont answer your questions even if he die.
your "fans" are really something, no, Larry?
What an audience.
Stop writing things yourself?
Hey fuckstick---there's 3 reasons why I have no reason to claim I'm other people.
1. Unlike YOU, I use my ACTUAL name. You, the coward, do not. Why would I use my REAL name to post stories but fake ones to post comments? I ALREADY get many hits.
2. I already get more hits in one hour than you do in 6 months. Do you average 1 per day yet?
3. I have sitemeter, which can tell you im not the person writing the posts you claim I do.
So, go stroke your 2 inch dick and leave us REAL bloggers alone
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/28/al-qaida-ahmadinejad-911-conspiracy
Whats the point of that link? Iran's prez is right.
with this guys own words and links he proves you right yet again larry, hes a fucktard. lol..lol..lol. you own him and his blog. hes pathetic.
Not exactly Sherlock Holmes, are you.
ok watson, if he was a dick. lol
Post a Comment