Obama will use veto power to protect Saudi Arabian terrorist sponsors

It's sad to see the so-called "leader of the free world" groveling before the unelected monarch of an oppressive Islamic theocracy. But, hey, the terrorists that Saudi Arabia nurtures have been so useful in Syria that I guess it's justifiable to screw over September 11 families to maintain good relations.

Obama to veto September 11 lawsuit bill by Friday: White House

U.S. President Barack Obama intends to veto by Friday evening legislation allowing survivors and families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia, the White House said.

@Stesilaus: Its a wise Veto, it would cause other countries to attempt to sue us. Dutch parliament said it considers Jasta a “gross and unwarranted breach of Dutch sovereignty". We have no proof that Saudi officials had anything to do with 9/11. Its a silly thing to even attempt to pass.

The House did just passed funding of weapons to Saudi Arabia though. This was to help them fight Yemen. Republicans always doing weird stuff.

I'm torn. On one side I'm not a big fan of the Saudi government, on the other, I hate trial lawyers.

@Stesilaus: You're not looking at the bigger picture here, if this passes, the amount of lawsuits brought onto the US itself would be unprecedented. The ONLY people who wanted to see this get passed is the trial lawyers who already know that any attempt of a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia would go no where.

I pretty much subscribe to what this article describes. Obama is right to veto the bill and this is just a political move by Congress spearheaded by the Republicans which could open the United States to reciprocal moves by other countries. Both parties are wrong.

Yeah I think the risk of reciprocity is more important.

Yeah I have to agree with the prez on this one. Sure the Saudis fund horrible things like terror and presidential candidates but this just opens the way for infinity international lawsuits and would be a huge mess.

Plus what money do the Saudis have anyway? Didn't they just gut all their social programs when the price of oil crashed?

I heard it was so bad they have to buy Ferraris these days instead of Lamborghinis and have to go with regular leather interiors instead of the extra douchey white louis vutton.

To quote the article that @Master_Live linked ...

Since we have interests throughout the world and a military that acts globally (and lethally), our nation has far more to lose than most nations by playing this game.

In other words:

"We dare not permit a lawsuit because the criminality that attends our own activities abroad renders us vulnerable to reprisal lawsuits."

Or, more succinctly:

"We can't appeal to international law because we ourselves hold it in contempt."

Actually anyone can bring lawsuits.....that doesn't mean they have merit. smh

If the US started prosecuting people for supporting, arming and funding terrorists and terrorist groups, the US would be the next on the bill of indictment. Our govt agencies have supported the Taliban, the ultra right in Iran, S Hussein and the Baath Party, Al Qaeda, and a shit ton of other groups. It is ass covering plain and simple. I dont live in a fantasy world where this type of corruption does not happen every day.

The last thing the world needs is a society as litigious as the US taking that nonsense international. The Saudis are pricks, but their government didn't attack the US. More importantly, they are our allies, and opening up the possibility of suing other countries is a slippery slope.

I don't envy Obama; these survivors of 9/11 victims deserve closure, but this would not be a practical nor effective way of doing it.

I'm sure the GoP will have a field day with this, which is of course hypocritical because they tend to shoot down every single meaningful bill that would help the victims and survivors of 9/11.

I'm no fan of Obama, but that was the right call. it might not have been the best thing to do, but in the long run, it is best for our interest.

While I agree this veto is the right thing, I think your assessment does not take into account the reality of the situation. The Saudi government is the chief exporter of Wahhabism in the Muslim world, and has been for decades. The house of Saud funds terror groups, created the ideology the terrorist groups like ISIS use, and have done nothing to help the refugee crisis their actions created.

@Stesilaus:

It is BS to sue Arabia over 9/11.

My reaction. On the contrary, we would look like hypocrites if we passed this bill and it would hit right back at us. Also, Saudi Arabia is a like our top business man.

oh yeah for sure. It's a very fine line, though; we need their oil and yeah the leaders of Saudi Arabia might sponsor terrorism and such but I don't think (I'm not 100% positive, though) their government does. If that were the case I'd like to think we'd have invaded them by now (best of both worlds, oil and justice :P ).

Whatever, I am content bleeding them dry for the next couple decades. Most of their workforce is foreign and private, when the oil dries up so will terrorism. Follow the money...

They do sponsor terrorism. Fascinating how not many people in the West know of the Madrassa. The Madrassa is a Saudi institution at this point. It is a series of hyper fundamentalist Islamic schooling, where kids are brainwashed into Wahhabism from an early age. They sit in rows, repeating lines of the Quran all day. The system they use is the Wahhabi interpretation. This is the interpretation ISIS and Al Qaeda uses.

I want to see the US, instead of continuing to fund this regime, like many other Mid East regimes, pivot towards renewable energies. This would take the legs out of the funding for terrorist groups. The Saudi government would be forced to tax it's people, and it;s obvious that when you have to tax your people, you are more accountable to them.

Whether the people want any sort of democracy, or to be ruled entirely by Islamic despots, that is another issue entirely.

I did not know that; that sounds pretty official, I wonder why we consider these guys allies. Kind of makes me question the last 26 years (or whenever the First Gulf War was. 1992? Cant recall). I will have to read up on that, I've heard of wahhabism but did not know it was a Saudi thing.

And I agree with the renewable energies part. We can make plastics from renewable sources now, it's just a matter of making any existing plants convert over. But that's only 5% of total petroleum use (for plastics). Just need to make cars all switch to something else. Then maybe airplanes, but I don't know if there's a renewable jet fuel.

@mrbojangles25: Just ignore them, they consider US terrorist too. You are right, Saudi government doesnt support terrorism. They help fight it. As we speak now them and 8 other Nations are fighting terrorism in Yemen trying to help Yemen out.

To these people, EVERYONE is a terrorist supporting country. Its sad, but that what happens when you dont study deep enough at the roots of evil and those who use violence to combat it.

If the Saudi Government does not support terrorism, why are they the principle followers of the Wahabbi way, largest exporter of that ideology, which is the version of Islam that so many terrorist groups follow?

Also, who were you referring to when you wrote what I highlighted in bold from your previous statement?

I miswrote on ISIS being founded on Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia is fighting ISIS because ISIS is Salafist, and the Saudi state is Wahhabist. Both take the barbarity of the Quran literally, and set in stone for all time. Their grievances with each other's version of the ideology is theological, and nothing more. They murder each other wherever these versions conflict. Saudi Arabia wants Wahhabism, and ISIS Salafism. That is why they are fighting a terror group. Their game is to promote their version of the ideology, which is the easiest interpretation to follow if someone wants to commit Jihad and rationalize away the murder of non combatants.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/06/saudi_arabia_funds_and_exports_islamic_extremism_the_truth_behind_the_toxic_u_s_relationship_with_the_theocratic_nation/

https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/wahhabism-isis-and-the-saudi-connection/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35101612

http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/isis/1.693831

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html

@hillelslovak: Spin baby spin.

I hate to break it to you, but merely saying I am spinning the story is not proof of me spinning the story. Argue my points like an adult. Please explain to me how the rift between Wahhabism and Salafism does not exist, how the Saudi Arabians are not the largest group of Wahhabism followers, and how the link between Wahhabism and terrorist acts is an untenable one. Please bring an actual argument.

@hillelslovak: Im sure you can figure that out, im busy watching the debates.

You had time to chime in with an unfounded insult. Dont behave like an intellectual coward. If your argument is based on the facts of the situation, prove me wrong. Address my claims, and refute them.

@hillelslovak: Plenty of time to prove you wrong, no rush.

Oh, so you are going to go the Trump way, just insisting you can with no reference to anything factual or argumentative? You are posting back and forth with me, with nothing to provide. Please provide an argument.

I am still waiting for your surely brilliant retort. You claimed to not have time because of the debates, but I see you getting into arguments in the debate topic. So please, counter my argument with something other than your claim of me spinning.....

@hillelslovak: There is nothing to debate. "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide, according to Hillary Clinton." While many consider Wahhabism to motivate terrorism. We still have zero evidence Saudi Arabia's government is funding terrorism. If a time comes when we do get evidence, theyll be punished.

Sunnis have been accused of such terrorist beliefs, but many Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and other places where Sunnis have a majority, are against such extreme beliefs. They have been fighting it for years. I think its last leader was in 1968. Shia's are also highly against it and fight it. Middle East is very complicated due to their religion. Its easy to state ALL Muslims are terrorist, but thats simply not the case.

You just said earlier that it would not be hard to dismantle my claims, now you say there is nothing to debate. Moving the goalpost does not make you sound anything but childish. The House of Saud set up a vast network of Wahhabist Madrassas in a state program. No credible surveyor or analyst on the Middle East will claim anything approaching the stupidity of what you said. They'll be punished? How? Like all the other ways they've been punished for human rights abuses? Get real. I provided you with like 6 articles, and your rebuttal is "No they are not!!"

Sunni terrorist groups include, but are not limited to: ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Al Nusra. Once again, do not expect to be taken seriously by anybody if your argument is "No, they're against extreme beliefs." You make the absurd claim that conflates me recognizing Islamic ideology as a threat with being tantamount to thinking all Muslims are terrorists. Absurdity. Shia majority countries actively fight extremism that is heterodox to their version of Islam. What you are saying is akin to going "In catholic majority countries, they dont persecute Christians." overlooking the fact that they persecute protestants with fervor. Sunni and Shia do not view each other as being Muslim, same way protestants and Catholics view each other a lot of the time.

Seriously, you speak like a follower of Chomsky and Roy. Parroting out platitudes with no rational, factual or historical justification, whilst seeming like something about the profundity and nuance of the situation was entirely lost on you.

@hillelslovak: Again, the debate was whether Saudi Arabian government supported and funded such groups. We have no evidence showing they did. I just showed where Hillary has stated rich Saudi people do fund, but this doesnt mean all of them do. Also not all Sunnis support Wahhabism, and it hasnt had a leader since 1968.

You can claim some do all you want, but again, claiming some support terrorism is a weak statement that Saudi Arabias government is supporting terrorism. We have nothing to debate, i already finished the debate in my first comment.

I have to do this every time with you, repeat, repeat, repeat. Its annoying. You calm EVERYONE supports terrorism, its sad and weak.

Name one instance where I said everyone supports terrorism. What an unbelievably childish and stupid thing for you to presume. You deal in absolute terms, and project them like a moron, like when you try to pretend as if me recognizing Islam as a threat means all Muslims are terrorists. Seriously, your standards of argument are at Trump levels.

Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of the Wahhabi ideology. I showed you like 6 articles, and your response, once again, is "Nuh uh! no they dont!" Are you aware that it is entirely possible for The Sauds, or any other Mid East country, to hate ISIS, and still support terrorist groups? Seems lost on you in entirety.

For the third time, since you stated that my position was easy to abolish, then tried to say there is no debate, I ask you once again, please refute my claims. Here are more pieces on the Saudis funding terrorists. You are free to completely ignore all the facts, like always.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-strada/saudi-arabia-terrorism-9-11_b_9516706.html

https://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Saudi%20Publications%20on%20Hate%20Ideology%20Invade%20American%20Mosques.pdf

https://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/CurriculumOfIntolerance.pdf

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201153165522935167.html

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20141020-saudis-most-likely-to-join-isis-10-of-groups-fighters-are-women/

Please explain away that Saudi citizens are the most likely to join ISIS. In your view, it is probably completely unrelated. But please, tell everyone reading this thread about how your feelings make you superior to the facts.

@hillelslovak: Again mate, you were wrong in stating Saudi Government funds terrorism, end of debate. You can keep your tin foil hat conspiracies to your self. And you called America Terrorist, its sad you are that misinformed.

Once again, anyone who reads any of these threads you argue in can see your pathetic debate and argument skills. Simply saying "No they dont!!!" does not constitute an argument. Please show where I said America was terrorist, whatever that means. It's amazing, you seem to not like Trump, yet you argue just like him!

@hillelslovak: I was talking about our previous debates where you accused America of terrorism. But if you dont consider America terrorist, then that is my bad.

Name one instance where I even insinuated America was terrorist. I have made it very clear, I am not some Chomsky follower who thinks the US is the largest terrorist state on the planet. I am still waiting for your to address my argument in any fashion other than dismissal. Earlier in this thread you, like a schoolyard bully, insisted it would be so easy to demolish my argument. Since then, when challenged, your argument is to simply fold, and say "No, you are working with conspiracies." Nut up and address my argument, along with the information I posted.

@hillelslovak: Then its good to hear you dont think America are terrorist and i apologize.

This one sounds a bit weird anyway. The ability to sue foreign countries sounds like a bureaucratic mess waiting to happen.

I don't see that ending up as a positive thing. The ability to sue really does rely on both parties operating under the same system of law to be effective.

They fight it near and within their own borders.

If it's overseas, they actively encourage it through funding wahabi mosques. It's probably more accurate to say that encourages extremism rather than terrorism. Because most of it is non-violent. They're undeniably a bad actor though.

The bridge between militant, political and jihadist Islamism is one that is not too hard to cross, that is the important thing.

Some people actually do dispute that and suggest that they're often quite separate things.

Extreme ideology is probably more dangerous though because of how much more widespread it is. Entire countries (S.Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan) are essentially ruled by these various ideologies. Whereas terrorists are by their very nature quite small groups (because they annoy too many people with all the killing)

Islamist groups are all over the place. It's such an absurdly deep web. Sunnis fight Shias, and the Shias return the favor, Shia and Sunni come together to fight an extremely crazy version of either version, then go fight a 4th party together, then fight each other again. It's a mess.

U.S. President Barack Obama intends to veto by Friday evening legislation allowing survivors and families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia, the White House said.

Good! Next thing you know descendants of Pearl Harbor will be suing the Japanese and then descendants of Japanese internment will sue the US government.

People shouldn't be allowed to sue other states for containing a person that committed a terrible act.

It were Saudis on 9/11.

His Veto is getting overruled.

Another example of why President Obama is more intelligent and forward-thinking than TC. As active as the U.S. is, particularly with Special Ops and drone strikes, in other nations, this bill will only open the door for foreign lawsuits against the U.S.

Do you really want to have trial lawyers as our defacto determinants of U.S. foreign policy?

Good. Yemeni people will able now to sue the American gov for what its doing in Yemen. And who voted agaisnt? sen john McCain?

I don't think it's a great stretch of the imagination for other nations/peoples to consider wayward drone and smart bomb attacks that kill scores of innocent civilians to be equated as "terrorist" acts.

@bforrester420: You cant call war a terrorist attack. It doesnt work like that.

Isn't Jihad a war? Didn't these Islamic groups declare war on the U.S.? Doesn't that, based on your logic, remove the label of "terrorist attack" from their activites?

Our bombings take place on foreign soil in nations against which we have not declared war.