21 replies to this topic

[Haydar Husayn]

NEW YORK — A federal magistrate judge says al-Qaida, the Taliban and Iran should pay $6 billion to relatives of Sept. 11 victims for aiding in the 2001 terror attacks.

The magistrate's recommendation is largely symbolic since it would be nearly impossible to collect any damages.

But plaintiff Ellen Saracini tells the Daily News (http://nydn.us/OgIS41 ) that she is happy about Manhattan Federal Magistrate Judge Frank Maas' recommendation Monday. Her husband, Victor, was the captain of one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center.

Last year, Judge George Daniels signed a default judgment on the lawsuit brought by family members of 47 victims. He found al-Qaida, the Taliban and Iran liable and asked the magistrate to determine damages.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (ah-muh-DEE'-neh-zhahd) has denied any Iranian connection in the attacks.

http://online.wsj.co...9378ccb225.html



It would be interesting to know how they managed to connect Iran to 9/11.

[Jaysro]

Am I the only one left who still thinks it was an inside Job?

[Reshad]

stupid people are stupid

[GreyMatter]

Even by the American standards, what in the world was Iran's involvement in the 9/11?

[asif khan110]

lil dramas to began and involment of iran will prove by them, they set people mind before war. i think dey are to set mind first before attack, nd this news is one of the parts of drama

[Logic]

Haydar Husayn, on 31 July 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

NEW YORK — A federal magistrate judge says al-Qaida, the Taliban and Iran should pay $6 billion to relatives of Sept. 11 victims for aiding in the 2001 terror attacks.

It would be interesting to know how they managed to connect Iran to 9/11.

Because Iran had no lawyers in the court room to say otherwise so its a judgement win by default. Good luck collecting this money.

[lalala123]

Logic, on 31 July 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Because Iran had no lawyers in the court room to say otherwise so its a judgement win by default. Good luck collecting this money.

Reshad, on 31 July 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

stupid people are stupid

You got that right....

[Gnome]

I don't think the Iranians were involved.  But they may be involved with other terrorism, especially against the Israelis.

[Darth Vader]

Its only logical. Iran should also pay for the Vietnam war, the Cold war, the Space race and for implanting Monica Lewinski into the White house during Clinton administration.^^^

[titumir]

Gnome, on 31 July 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

I don't think the Iranians were involved.  But they may be involved with other terrorism, especially against the Israelis.

And what do you think of Israeli terrorism against Iranians? Wait... You think it doesn't exist, right? Or else, it exists, but you must make a thousand excuses for it.

[awaiting_for_the.12th]

titumir, on 01 August 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

And what do you think of Israeli terrorism against Iranians? Wait... You think it doesn't exist, right? Or else, it exists, but you must make a thousand excuses for it.

I mean every other month an Iranian scientist dies but obviously the Zionist state are the victims

[Sapphire]

Haydar Husayn, on 31 July 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

NEW YORK — A federal magistrate judge says al-Qaida, the Taliban and Iran should pay $6 billion to relatives of Sept. 11 victims for aiding in the 2001 terror attacks.

The magistrate's recommendation is largely symbolic since it would be nearly impossible to collect any damages.

But plaintiff Ellen Saracini tells the Daily News (http://nydn.us/OgIS41 ) that she is happy about Manhattan Federal Magistrate Judge Frank Maas' recommendation Monday. Her husband, Victor, was the captain of one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center.

Last year, Judge George Daniels signed a default judgment on the lawsuit brought by family members of 47 victims. He found al-Qaida, the Taliban and Iran liable and asked the magistrate to determine damages.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (ah-muh-DEE'-neh-zhahd) has denied any Iranian connection in the attacks.

http://online.wsj.co...9378ccb225.html



It would be interesting to know how they managed to connect Iran to 9/11.

They should ask israel to pay $6 billion, not Iran. IDIOTS!!!!

[Darth Vader]

They can't. They are "Gentile" robots.

[Sapphire]

Pathetic

[Goku]

WaSallam,

How the heck is Iran responsible for 9/11? LOL... If anything Saudi Arabia should be held responsible....

USA should pay to the relatives of dead Iraqi citizens (over 500,000) trillions of dollars then lol....

[ABA]

Too bad Clinton admitted that the US created Al Qaeda and helped spread Wahabbi Islam with the help of the Saudis.  

Not only is the supposed link to Iran false; it shows why Wahhabis are puppets of the US.  



How much does Israel owe Iran and Iraq?  



As I always, I read IranianFacebook.com

[Gnome]

GreyMatter, on 31 July 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Even by the American standards, what in the world was Iran's involvement in the 9/11?

Probably none.  But this was during the Khatami era when things wer much more peaceful anf progressive.  The youth movements actually had much more respect for Katami back then.

titumir, on 01 August 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

And what do you think of Israeli terrorism against Iranians? Wait... You think it doesn't exist, right? Or else, it exists, but you must make a thousand excuses for it.

Well the "Death to Israel" rallies sure don't help Iran.  They have already been implicated in Mexico, Thailand, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and India, so you tell me.

Let me make this clear... I don't think Iran had anything to do with 9/11.  I think at the time with Khatami in power, they were capable of becoming a respectable nation.  I just question their direction under much more extremist elements now, as I am sure with most Iranians.

[titumir]

Gnome, on 03 August 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

Let me make this clear... I don't think Iran had anything to do with 9/11.  I think at the time with Khatami in power, they were capable of becoming a respectable nation.  I just question their direction under much more extremist elements now, as I am sure with most Iranians.

And during the Khatami era.... Did America stop its sanctions against Iran? Did it stop its hostile attitude against Iran?

No! Rather they put Iran in the "Axis of Evil".

That's America for you.

[Gnome]

titumir, on 01 August 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

And what do you think of Israeli terrorism against Iranians? Wait... You think it doesn't exist, right? Or else, it exists, but you must make a thousand excuses for it.

Yes, I am against terrorism against Iranians.

[ShiaBen]

I honestly don't know if this judge's statement is more ignorant or the one where one educator thought that Hezbollah is a faction of Al-Qaida.

[Basso]

GreyMatter, on 31 July 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Even by the American standards, what in the world was Iran's involvement in the 9/11?

"Daniels ruled last year that the plaintiffs had established that the 2001 attacks were caused by the support the defendants provided to al-Qaida. The findings said Iran continues to provide material support and resources to al-Qaida by providing a safe haven for al-Qaida leadership and rank-and-file members."

Well this is certainly stupid and I think the KSA would have been a much better fit.

[Waiting for HIM]

This is what some in media say...


http://globalpublics...ing/?hpt=hp_bn2

There’s a power struggle going on in the Middle East – a quiet competition between two nations over quite differing ideologies, approaches and rhetoric. The main players in this face-off? Iran and Saudi Arabia. But there’s an interesting twist.
Sectarian differences are at the root of the brewing rivalry for regional supremacy in the Middle East, a rivalry thrust into the spotlight as a result of the crisis in Syria. According to a former senior White House official, it is a case of soft power messaging vs hard power. But in this case, the soft power is coming from Tehran.
“We always think of Iran as a military dictatorship, but the Iranian message is clear, they want free and fair elections” in countries like Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, and also Syria, says Hillary Mann Leverett, a former White House official who worked on Middle East issues and held various roles with the U.S. State Department and the National Security Council.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, Leverett says a tougher stance has been demonstrated through the funding and training of fundamentalist Islamic groups. “They [the Saudis] support armed groups aligned with al-Qaeda – they are not mainstream Sunnis, who are not interested in killing other Muslims.”
Iran is a predominantly Shiite Muslim, non-Arab state that has found an ally in Syria through Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Sunni majority Saudi Arabia, in contrast, is an Arab state that has a close relationship with the United States, and also supports Syria’s opposition movement.
The inevitable tensions were evident earlier this month when Saeed Jalili, Iran’s top security chief, visited al-Assad in Syria. “Iran will not allow the axis of resistance,of which it considers Syria to be an essential part, to be broken in any way,” Jalili said, referring to Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.
“The two big points of the Iranian push were for there to be a ceasefire in Syria for three months at the end of Ramadan, and that there should be free and fair elections,” Leverett said. “The Iranian message and belief is – if a country has free and fair elections, it will pursue independent policies that are in that country’s national interest. The Iranian belief is that if they pursue independent policies, they will inevitably be unenthusiastic about pursuing U.S. or Western policies.”
Leverett believes that Iran can apply its policy of supporting free and fair elections to Syria, despite the Syrian population being mostly Sunni, not Shiite. And this is not because Iran necessarily believes that any elected successor to al-Assad will be pro-Iranian or Shiite. “Rather, a free and fairly elected successor to al-Assad would not be interested in strategic cooperation with the U.S. and would not be interested in aligning itself with Israel,” Leverett says. “That would be completely against the views and histories of the people….For Iran that is an absolute net gain in geopolitics.”
Saudi Arabia, she says, is unable to take a similar tack.
“The Saudis cannot call for a ceasefire or for free and fair elections because the Saudis haven’t had free and fair elections in their own country. It doesn’t sound genuine, so they can’t do it, and they don’t want to do it,” she says. “No precedent has been to set to have everyone else doing it except them.”
But Leverett adds that there’s self-interest at stake, too. “The basic thing is, the Saudis aren’t interested in an outcome in Syria that leads to a government that carries out the interests of the people of Syria,” she says. “What the Saudis are interested in is a head of state who will be on their side. And their side is against Iran and its influence in the region. This is a big albatross that Saudi Arabia has on its neck.”
Geopolitics aside, though, sectarian differences are also constantly bubbling under the surface. “They [Saudi Arabia] also want to portray [it as] the Iranians don’t stand for Muslim causes, beliefs, independence or nationalism,” Leverett says. “The Saudis want others in the region to see the Iranians as Shiite, Persian, non-Arab, non-Sunni, and that what the Iranians are doing has nothing to do with democracy or freedom, but rather promoting a narrow sectarian vision. While the Saudi message is that the Shiites are infiltrating Arab affairs to undermine the Sunni community and the Sunni state.”
“They see the Shiites as heretical, non-believing, non-Arab Persians. Some Sunnis believe that, and the Saudis back that up with a tremendous amount of money and weapons,” she says.
The numbers would certainly seem to bear this out. Last year, Saudi Arabia reportedly purchased as much as six times as much military equipment from the United States last year as Iran's entire official defense budget. And the quality of its weapons systems also outshines that of Iran.
“Iran is not buying bullets, guns, and tanks,” Leverett says. “No one will sell it to them. They also want to be independent. The money they put in their military is for indigenous production.”
Included in recent U.S. weapons contracts to Saudi Arabia were reportedly F-15 fighter jets and Apache and Black Hawk helicopters.
All this means that casual perceptions of the tensions in the Middle east are worth closer scrutiny if the U.S. and others want to understand the regional dynamics – and how they may play into security issues aside from Iran’s nuclear program.
“The Islamic Republic [of Iran], we think of it as aggressive, has not threatened to invade other countries [since becoming an Islamic Republic in 1979],” Leverett says. “That’s where the conflict is today. It’s a battle today between this message that Iran has to promote of freedom, and the Saudis that are really trying to fight that message.”