Congress approves bill to allow 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia

[Irfan Baloch]

Did you EVEN WATCH @Irfan Baloch 's video? OBAMA HIMSELF SAYS THAT THIS WOULD SET A NEGATIVE PRECEDENT! WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO! HE FUCKING EXPLAINS IT HIMSELF!

I understand, but those people can sue us right now. Whether it will encourage them is another matter. It begs the questions, why isn't there much suing being done right now by Iraqis, Afghanis etc?



No, YOU don't seem to care about facts because you think Iraqis and afghanis cannot sue US right now. As you shown in post 29.

please both calm down and take a chill pill

although in principle I agree that its the right of American citizens to sue their tormentors and the US Congress has just endorsed their right to seek justice but I also acknowledge the legal and diplomatic hurdles in it and any future problems America s a country can face as stated by Obama

Saudis might go for out of court settlement and offer some monetary compensation.. expecting them to apologise or accept responsibility seems hard for now .


guys please take it easy. there is no right or wrong answer here its just a different perspective and I understand where both of you are coming from.

 

[That Guy]

You really are just trolling? You say they CANNOT sue, there is big different between not being able to sue and giving precedent which means it may encourage suing of the US. There is big difference here. You keep saying they CANNOT sue. Why on earth is this so hard for you to understand?

THEY CANNOT SUE, BECAUSE OF HOW SOVEREIGNTY, JURISDICTION AND DIPLOMACY WORK! THEY CANNOT SUE! If what you're saying is right, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THIS BILL.

I hope you get banned.

please both calm down and take a chill pill

although in principle I agree that its the right of American citizens to sue their tormentors and the US Congress has just endorsed their right to seek justice but I also acknowledge the legal and diplomatic hurdles in it and any future problems America s a country can face as stated by Obama

Saudis might go for out of court settlement and offer some monetary compensation.. expecting them to apologise or accept responsibility seems hard for now .


guys please take it easy. there is no right or wrong answer here its just a different perspective and I understand where both of you are coming from.

It's not the fact that he's disagreeing with me, it's his annoying habit of ignoring everything I'm saying, and ignoring facts that have been presenting.

If he would present a single fact, backed by evidence, I would give in, but he has refused to, despite me asking him to prove his claims.

 

[Rukarl]

Well I think you have overlooked the fact that Either Iraq or Afghanistan or other countries need to pass a similar bill to become law in their respective countries before their citizens can sue the US governement , and that is what this American bill may entice if passed and adopted as a law..

Maybe they also have such laws, but what I am trying to describe to that guy, is this this bill has nothing to do with the ability of non-US citizens to sue US. This is a basic fact he just simple cannot or will not accept.He seems to not understand the meaning of precedent.

THEY CANNOT SUE, BECAUSE OF HOW SOVEREIGNTY, JURISDICTION AND DIPLOMACY WORK! THEY CANNOT SUE! If what you're saying is right, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THIS BILL.

I hope you get banned.

For the millionth time, this bill is about AMERICANS and not non-US citizens like Iraqis, Afghanis etc. This bill is about allowing US citizens to sue for example saudis and not about anything else.

 

[That Guy]

Maybe they also have such laws, but what I am trying to describe to that guy, is this this bill has nothing to do with the ability of non-US citizens to sue US. This is a basic fact he just simple cannot or will not accept.He seems to not understand the meaning of precedent.

prec·e·dent
noun
noun: precedent; plural noun: precedents
ˈpresəd(ə)nt/

1. 1.
   an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.
   "there are substantial precedents for using interactive media in training"

I understand what it means just fine. YOU, however, seem to be ignoring what I'm saying.

 

[Rukarl]

It's not the fact that he's disagreeing with me, it's his annoying habit of ignoring everything I'm saying, and ignoring facts that have been presenting.

If he would present a single fact, backed by evidence, I would give in, but he has refused to, despite me asking him to prove his claims.

You make 0 sense. You can't even grasp the meaning of the word "precedent".

prec·e·dent
noun
noun: precedent; plural noun: precedents
ˈpresəd(ə)nt/

1. 1.
   an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.
   "there are substantial precedents for using interactive media in training"

I understand what it means just fine. YOU, however, seem to be ignoring what I'm saying.

And how on earth does this word suggest the Iraqis for example CANNOT sue US? It means it will encourage suing. Do you not understand this basic fact?

 

[That Guy]

For the millionth time, this bill is about AMERICANS and not non-US citizens like Iraqis, Afghanis etc. This bill is about allowing US citizens to sue for example saudis and not about anything else.

I swear to god, it's like talking to a 10 year old. You don't seem to comprehend the definition of consequences and precedent.

You make 0 sense. You can't even grasp the meaning of the word "precedent".

And how on earth does this word suggest the Iraqis for example CANNOT sue US? It means it will encourage suing. Do you not understand this basic fact?

I've explained it a million times, and you keep repeating yourself over and over again, like a broken record. I'm done with you.

@waz @WAJsal @Oscar

Can you please take care of this troll?

 

[That Guy]

You are not talking about consequences and precedent, you are saying Iraqis, afghanis CANNOT sue US. And he calls me a 10 year old

Use your brain. Take everything I've said and structure it, one comment is not exclusive from the others I've written.

I was wrong, you aren't 10, you're 5.

 

[That Guy]

You're trying to take the attention away from the fact you have insults me. It seems you cannot handle the fact you are wrong and instead have to resort to insults and ad hominem.

All you've done is troll.

 

[Rukarl]

Use your brain. Take everything I've said and structure it, one comment is not exclusive from the others I've written.

I was wrong, you aren't 10, you're 5.

All you can do is insult. How pathetic.

You need to learn what words mean before using them, you obviously did not even know that the word precedent had nothing to do with ability of suing but rather the encouragement.

All you've done is troll.

No, it is clear who is the troll here. The one who can only resort to insults.

 

[That Guy]

All you can do is insult. How pathetic.

You need to learn what words mean before using them, you obviously did not even know that the word precedent had nothing to do with ability of suing but rather the encouragement.

The funny thing is, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HIMSELF said it would set a PRECEDENT.

Okay, now I'm done. You can pretend that you're right, all you want, and continue to live in your own little bubble.

 

[The SC]

Maybe they also have such laws, but what I am trying to describe to that guy, is this this bill has nothing to do with the ability of non-US citizens to sue US. This is a basic fact he just simple cannot or will not accept.He seems to not understand the meaning of precedent.



For the millionth time, this bill is about AMERICANS and not non-US citizens like Iraqis, Afghanis etc. This bill is about allowing US citizens to sue for example saudis and not about anything else.

So, that many Iraqis and Aghans who hold the US citizenship can sue the US for their own sufferings when tey were living in iraqor Afghanisan for instance? or is it only for acts perpetrated inside the US by foreighners?
This is why I am saying that this bill will have ramifications because of its egoistic nature, other ations will pass a similar bill (after this Precedence) for its citizens who has suffered from US invasions or mischieves to allow them to sue the US government.. or is thisonly related to "terrorism" as defined by the US?

 

[Rukarl]

The funny thing is, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HIMSELF said it would set a PRECEDENT.

And who on earth is disagreeing with him? Yes, this bill may encourage suing of the us but it does not mean foreigners CANNOT sue usa even now. why is this so hard to understand?

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

• 3 Full countries destroyed infrastructure of people and homes , who is gonna pay for that shiat

 

[Rukarl]

So, that many Iraqis and Aghans who hold the US citizenship can sue the US for their own sufferings when tey were living in iraqor Afghanisan for instance? or is it only for acts perpetrated inside the US by foreighners?

This bill is going to allow US citizens to sue other nations. It does not stop them suing US as far as am I aware.

 

[The SC]

This bill is going to allow US citizens to sue other nations. It does not stop them suing US as far as am I aware.

That is the Question, and is it for any other motives or just acts of terrorism perpertrated in the US?