Did Epstein run a World Satanic Ring?

[Vixen]

He was already named as a co-conspirator of Epstein in trafficking. The 'torture video' email doesn't appear to have anything to do with that.

He stepped down just one week ago. This was directly the result of the email release.

A tycoon from the United Arab Emirates whose intimate friendship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was revealed in the latest release of files by the US Justice Department has been replaced in his post as head of one of the world’s largest port operators.

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem emerged as a powerful force in global trade as the former chairman and CEO of Dubai’s DP World, which has a footprint in more than 80 countries, over the past three decades. CNN

 

[Thermal]

He stepped down just one week ago. This was directly the result of the email release.

Yes, which indicate actual trafficking involvement, not the torture video comment.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, which indicate actual trafficking involvement, not the torture video comment.

The CNN article is dated 16th Feb 2026. It very clearly states the following:

Bin Sulayem is not a household name in the United States. But a newly published memo has propelled him into the spotlight in Washington.

In 2009, Epstein wrote a short email to a recipient that the DOJ had initially redacted. “Where are you? are you ok I loved the torture video,” he said at the time.

 

[junkshop]

@Vixen, you don't seen to have provided evidence supporting this claim yet:

Epstein knew Sarah Ferguson before she knew Andrew.

Are you able to?

 

[Axxman300]

Eyes Wide Shut, baby.

I was thinking along the lines of Joan Baez's place in Big Sur in the late 1960s, among other places...

 

[Thermal]

The CNN article is dated 16th Feb 2026. It very clearly states the following:

Yes. It thrust him into the spotlight of gossipers, which no one gives a fat rat's ass about. He resigned (IMO) because the actual ◊◊◊◊ was about to roll downhill, taking him with it.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. It thrust him into the spotlight of gossipers, which no one gives a fat rat's ass about. He resigned (IMO) because the actual ◊◊◊◊ was about to roll downhill, taking him with it.

But he admits to enjoying 'the torture' of presumably trafficked individuals. The context was whether this would qualify as calculated evil.

 

[Thermal]

But he admits to enjoying 'the torture' of presumably trafficked individuals.

He did not. In the middle of a casual 'hey, where are you?' email, he dropped that comment. Sounds like it wasn't literal to me.

The context was whether this would qualify as calculated evil.

Right, and since we don't have that context, why should we make up wild stories?

 

[Vixen]

@Vixen, you don't seen to have provided evidence supporting this claim yet:



Are you able to?

Let me know if you still don't get it.

 

[Vixen]

aHe did not. In the middle of a casual 'hey, where are you?' email, he dropped that comment. Sounds like it wasn't literal to me.

Right, and since we don't have that context, why should we make up wild stories?

Er, given Bin Suleyam is named as the person who bought Great St. James, with the aim of keeping the goings on at Little St James very private then he surely had an inkling Epstein was up to no good. If you remember, a poster was claiming Epstein's clients would be atheists and thus not into 'satanism'. I simply pointed out that Bin Suleyem was a Muslim on paper but seemed to enjoy torture, which most likely occurred on LSJ in secrecy. I can't see how you can brush it off, if there is a real chance a young person was subjected to torture and filmed for his entertainment. Shouldn't the place have been raided or do you think <shrug> who cares? Especially when this fellow had the means to traffic people via his shipping container business.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

But he admits to enjoying 'the torture' of presumably trafficked individuals. The context was whether this would qualify as calculated evil.

Do you have any good reason to say "presumably"?

S&M is a genre in porn which we might presume contains a great deal of material which might be described as "torture". I don't presume such performances are non-consensual unless there was some reason to believe so. Here there seems to be no more information than the existence of a video shared by Epstein.

 

[Vixen]

Do you have any good reason to say "presumably"?

S&M is a genre in porn which we might presume contains a great deal of material which might be described as "torture". I don't presume such performances are non-consensual unless there was some reason to believe so. Here there seems to be no more information than the existence of a video shared by Epstein.

If they are consenting adults, there is no need to go to enormous lengths to do it in secret on this island, which Bin Suleyman knows about as he owns Great St. James to keep out snoopers.

 

[Vixen]

As if on cue:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2025360945783124172

 

[Thermal]

If they are consenting adults, there is no need to go to enormous lengths to do it in secret on this island, which Bin Suleyman knows about as he owns Great St. James to keep out snoopers.

You are making some fairly grand leaps to connect this email to other unrelated things we know. You know, for instance, that this video comment might have nothing to do with GSJ island? You can't just spin webs of intrigue without actual dots being actually connected with actual evidence, yes?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If they are consenting adults, there is no need to go to enormous lengths to do it in secret on this island, which Bin Suleyman knows about as he owns Great St. James to keep out snoopers.

But if they were consenting adults recording their sex games on a private holiday island then it would be going to enormous lengths to make the video anywhere else.

In any case, so far as I can tell, we have no information about who was in the video or where it was made.

 

[Vixen]

You are making some fairly grand leaps to connect this email to other unrelated things we know. You know, for instance, that this video comment might have nothing to do with GSJ island? You can't just spin webs of intrigue without actual dots being actually connected with actual evidence, yes?

There isn't any evidence as the FBI and the DOJ won't touch it.

 

[Thermal]

As if on cue:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2025360945783124172

You're joking, right? You can't tell from the context that Epstein is being facetious, saying 'yeah you know that 'monster' you're looking for? Yeah, I'm him. Is that funny or what?"

 

[Thermal]

There isn't any evidence as the FBI and the DOJ won't touch it.

Then it's all imaginary. So how bout them Seahawks?

 

[Vixen]

But if they were consenting adults recording their sex games on a private holiday island then it would be going to enormous lengths to make the video anywhere else.

In any case, so far as I can tell, we have no information about who was in the video or where it was made.

IMV if someone reports seeing little children tortured or abused, I'd expect the cops to investigate it.

 

[Axxman300]

The thread title is a topic for debate, hence the question mark. I fully get that few know how to debate these days.

Your idea of a debate is straight out of Monty Python...

But let's face it, Virginia Giuffre's allegations have never been properly investigated. This includes claims of baby farms, torture, trafficking and disappearance of minors.

And? Nobody disputes this. But her claims should be easy to verify.

Given the remote locations these incidents are said to have taken place, with only one person in prison - and Trump wishes her well - you can begin to understand why some believe there is a cult-connected conspiracy to hide it.

No, I do not understand how there is a cult-connected conspiracy. Epstein went to prison...sort of...after taking a plea deal in Florida. His estate in Florida is not in a remote location, and neither is his brownstone in NYC. The only cult any normal person can see behind all this is bureaucracy within the FBI, DoJ, and the relative state justice entities. We can't just arrest people on a whim, ICE not withstanding. You need probable cause, and a warrant. From there you need enough evidence to take a case to a court of law, and this is where sex abuse cases always fall apart, historically.

Nothing is really hidden as we knew most of this stuff in these files already in the broad sense, This was due to investigators leaking, and or coming forward to discuss publicly the things they investigated.

The fact of Andrew systematically passing on state secrets and sensitive information promptly to Epstein, an unofficial foreign national, certainly does point to Andrew being a spy and traitor in a not dissimilar manner to Philby, MacLean and the so-called Cambridge mob.

Andrew will have his day in court. Not sure how that works in the UK, but the press there will be all over it. But you ignore WHAT he passed along to Epstein: financial information.

Andrew shared confidential information with Epstein as trade envoy, files suggest

Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over sensitive, commercial, or political information.

www.bbc.com

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy in 2010 and 2011, according to material in the latest release of files in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam and confidential details of investment opportunities.
Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over sensitive, commercial, or political information about their official visits.

Sir Vince Cable, who was then business secretary, said: "I was unaware of Andrew... sharing information about investment opportunities [in Afghanistan] before, this is the first I've heard of it."
In a further email dated 9 February 2011, Andrew suggests Epstein might invest in a private equity firm he visited a week before.
Official terms of reference for trade envoys state that they "are not civil servants", adding: "However, the role of a Trade Envoy carries with it a duty of confidentiality in relation to information received. This may include sensitive, commercial, or political information shared about relevant markets/visits.
"This duty of confidentiality will continue to apply after the expiry of their term of office. In addition, the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989 will apply."

And this is key to your failure. You imply that there was no way Epstein could have amassed such wealth, and yet here we have a single high-profile source handing him insider information that would be profitable. Epstein would then act on the information, and or pass it along to "clients" for a fee. There are state secrets and there are state secrets. Andrew wasn't passing along launch codes, or submarine route, or SAS activities. He was filling Epstein in on trade meetings. Illegal? Yup. But the information was only useful to other rich people.

But according to you we are not allowed to debate and should just stick to small talk about the garden and the weather.

Not at all. It would be nice if you stuck to the facts of the case, and cited documents which support your claims directly. Either there are documents to support your claims for there are not.