Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [the tax for being a Jew or Christian] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Video: Helping Saudis Slip Away
The highly disturbing facts about an eerie evacuation right after 9/11.
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Instagram: @JamieGlazov, Parler: @JamieGlazov and Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
With the 19th anniversary of 9/11 having just passed, Frontpage Mag editors have deemed it vital to run the special Glazov Gang episode in which Clare Lopez discusses Helping Saudis Slip Away, unveiling the highly disturbing facts about an eerie evacuation right after 9/11.
Don’t miss it!
And make sure to watch our 2-Part-Special with Clare on Post-9/11: 9/11 Came From Riyadh & Tehran and Osama’s Post-9/11 Safe Haven in Iran.
[1] 9/11 Came From Riyadh & Tehran.
[2] Revealed: Osama’s Post-9/11 Safe Haven in Iran.
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Instagram: @JamieGlazov, Parler: @JamieGlazov and Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
BEHIND THE SAUDIS INVASION IS THE BUSH FAMILY'S HALF-CENTURY AND TWO WAR DEALS WITH THE SAUDIS.
FOLLOW SAUDIS MONEY INTO THE
BUILDING OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES OF BUSH, CLINTON AND OBAMA AND THE
FUNDING OF THE FRAUDULENT CLINTON FOUNDATION FAMILY SLUSH FUND.
HAVE LOOTED THE COUNTRY AS MUCH AS THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY!
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/12/bush-family-mourns-hw-bush-man-who-did.html
The perilous ramifications of the September 11
attacks on the United States are only now beginning to unfold. They will
undoubtedly be felt for generations to come. This is one of many sad
conclusions readers will draw from Craig Unger's exceptional book House of Bush House of
Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties. As Unger claims in this
incisive study, the seeds for the "Age of Terrorism" and September 11
were planted nearly 30 years ago in what, at the time, appeared to be savvy
business transactions that subsequently translated into political currency and
the union between the Saudi royal family and the extended political family of
George H. W. Bush.
Those terrorists who overstayed their visas include:
- Hani Hasan Hanjour from Saudi Arabia
- Nawaf al-Hamzi from Saudi Arabia
- Mohamed
Atta from Egypt
- Satam al-Suqami from Saudi Arabia
- Waleed al-Shehri from Saudi Arabia
- Marwan
al-Shehhi from the United Arab Emirates
- Ahmed al-Ghamdi from Saudi Arabia
Images of 9/11: A Visual Remembrance
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/11/images-911-visual-remembrance/
Judge orders testimony from Saudi officials in suit over involvement in 9/11 attacks
Chief
Investigative Correspondent,
On the eve of the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, a federal
judge directed the Saudi Arabian government to make as many as 24 current and
former officials available for depositions about their possible
knowledge of events leading up to the airplane attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
which killed almost 3,000 Americans. Those officials include Prince Bandar, the
former ambassador to the United States, and his longtime chief of
staff.
The order was immediately hailed by families of the 9/11 victims
as a milestone in their years-long effort to prove that some Saudi officials
were either complicit in the attacks or aware of the kingdom’s support for some
of the hijackers in the months before they hijacked four American
airliners and crashed three of them into the World Trade Towers and the
Pentagon.
A fourth plane, whose presumed target was the U.S. Capitol, was
commandeered by passengers and crashed in Shanksville, Pa., where President
Trump and possibly Joe Biden are expected at memorial ceremonies Friday .
“This is a game changer,” Brett Eagleson, whose father was
killed in the attacks on the World Trade Towers and who serves as a spokesman
for the families, said of the ruling by Federal Magistrate Judge Sarah
Netburn in New York. “This
is the most significant ruling we’ve had to date in this lawsuit. And to have
this on the eve of the anniversary of 9/11, you couldn’t script this any
better. The families are elated.”
The effect of the ruling may depend on the willingness of the
Saudi government to make its citizens available for testimony — especially
since it includes some high-ranking figures who no longer hold official
positions and therefore cannot be compelled to testify. But any open defiance
of the court ruling by the Saudis, or resistance from some of the figures
named, could further exacerbate a relationship that has already been
strained by the 2018 Saudi assassination of Washington Post journalist Jamal
Khashoggi — an act the CIA has concluded was likely ordered by the country’s de
factor ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
The question is especially fraught for Bandar, a
member of the Saudi royal family who for years maintained a close relationship
with senior U.S. government officials (earning him the nickname “Bandar Bush” because of his ties to the Bush family) and whose
daughter, Princess Reema bint Bandar, serves as the current Saudi
ambassador in Washington. “If he chooses to thumb his nose at a U.S.
court, you better believe there will be political fallout from that,” said
Eagleson.
A lawyer for the Saudis did not respond to a request for comment
Thursday night, and no evidence has surfaced in the case that establishes
Bandar had personal knowledge of what the Saudi hijackers were up to. But
during his tenure in Washington, from 1983 to 2005, he oversaw a
sprawling embassy staff including some, especially those with responsibilities
for Islamic affairs, who have been identified in recently surfaced FBI
documents as suspects who may have helped provide support for the hijackers in
the United States.
The question of possible involvement in the 9/11
attacks by Saudi officials has been a subject of intense
debate for years, dividing officials within the FBI and the U.S.
intelligence community. The Saudis have consistently denied any connection
to the 9/11 hijackers, telling the New
York Times and ProPublica in January: “Saudi Arabia is and has always been a close
and critical ally of the U.S. in the fight against terrorism.”
But lawyers for the families of the 9/11 victims have been
conducting a painstaking investigation that has developed a circumstantial case
that two of the hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, received
financial and other support from individuals associated with the Saudi
government after they arrived in the U.S. after attending an al-Qaida planning
summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
As reported by Yahoo News last May, previously undisclosed FBI
documents show that a foreign ministry official within the Saudi Embassy,
Mussaed Ahmed al-Jarrah, who had duties overseeing the activities of the
Ministry of Islamic Affairs, had repeated contacts with two
figures at the heart of the case and was even suspected of directing them
to assist the hijackers. One was Fahad al-Thumairy, a Saudi Islamic
Affairs official and radical cleric who served as the imam of the King Fahd
Mosque in Los Angeles and met with the two hijackers there. The other was Omar
al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence agent who directly helped the
hijackers, finding them an apartment, lending them money and setting them
up with bank accounts, after they flew into Los Angeles airport on Jan. 15,
2000.
Al-Jarrah, who until last year served in the Saudi Embassy in
Morocco, is among the current and former officials named in the order by
Netburn, directing the Saudis to make available for testimony. Al-Thumairy
and al-Bayoumi were also cited.
But significantly, the list includes other high-ranking royals
who still serve in the government, including Saleh bin Abdulaziz, who served as
Minister of Islamic Affairs at the time and, according to the judge’s ruling,
extended al-Thuimairy’s time in the United States and promoted him.
In her discussion of Bandar, Judge Netburn noted that lawyers
for the Saudi government had persuasively argued that no documents show that he
directly oversaw the work of al-Jarrah and al-Thumairy in the United States.
But, she added, court documents obtained during the course of discovery — much
of which remain under seal — “indicates that Prince Bandar likely has firsthand
knowledge … [of] the role that al-Thumairy was assigned by the Kingdom and the
diplomatic cover” provided to him.
The judge also authorized the deposition of Ahmed al-Qattan,
Bandar’s longtime chief of staff, noting that court documents show that he
“likely has unique firsthand knowledge of al-Jarrah and al-Thumairy’s relevant
pre-9/11 activity and any post-9/11 ratification of their conduct.”
BEHIND THE SAUDIS INVASION IS THE
BUSH FAMILY'S HALF-CENTURY AND TWO WAR DEALS WITH THE SAUDIS.
FOLLOW SAUDIS MONEY INTO THE
BUILDING OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES OF BUSH, CLINTON AND OBAMA AND THE
FUNDING OF THE FRAUDULENT CLINTON FOUNDATION FAMILY SLUSH FUND.
HAVE LOOTED THE COUNTRY AS MUCH AS THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY!
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/12/bush-family-mourns-hw-bush-man-who-did.html
The perilous ramifications of the September 11
attacks on the United States are only now beginning to unfold. They will
undoubtedly be felt for generations to come. This is one of many sad
conclusions readers will draw from Craig Unger's exceptional book House of Bush House of
Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties. As Unger claims in this
incisive study, the seeds for the "Age of Terrorism" and September 11
were planted nearly 30 years ago in what, at the time, appeared to be savvy
business transactions that subsequently translated into political currency and
the union between the Saudi royal family and the extended political family of
George H. W. Bush.
Raymond Ibrahim Interview: Truth About Islam Must Be Acknowledged
How an ideology's teachings are antithetical to Western values.
Note: Journalist Niram Ferretti interviews Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the Freedom Center, for the Italian publication, L’Informale (original here). Pasted below are excerpts from the English version.
Question: How much is the concept of jihad intended as holy war, central to the way Islam has interpreted itself during the centuries?
The concept of jihad was central from the start—at least according to the earliest Muslim historians who often portray the first warriors of Allah as being zealously motivated by the notion of jihad.
Question: The last time that Islam tried to penetrate Europe through war was on the 12th of September 1683 at Kalhenberg, near Vienna, where 65.000 thousand Christians fought against 200,000 Ottoman Turks. For how long after that date did jihad against the West stopped and when and why was it resumed?
Raids continued for some time, particularly by sea, and well into the late 1700s, meaning for about a century after the successful defense of Vienna. Even as the Ottoman Empire was beginning its slow retreat from eastern Europe, the Muslim slavers of the so-called Barbary States of North Africa wreaked havoc all along the coasts of Europe—even as far as Iceland. The United States of America’s first war—which it fought before it could even elect its first president—was against these Islamic slavers. When Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked Barbary’s ambassador why his countrymen were enslaving American sailors, the “ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that … it was their right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners….”
Question: In his seminal book of 1996, Samuel P. Huntington wrote about Islam and the West the following sentence, “Kto? Kovo? Who is to rule? Who is to be ruled? The central issue of politics defined by Lenin is the root of the contest between Islam and the West”. Do you agree?
Yes, inasmuch as that Muslims must always work to make Islam rule over non-Muslims, based on their sharia, which while allowing for truces and times of peace—particularly when Islam is weak vis-à-vis infidels—also sees the spread of Muslim rule as the culmination of the Islamic mission that began in the early 630s.
Question: Let us now talk about your new book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West. What has brought you to write a book focused specifically on the battles which have occurred along the centuries between Islam and the West?
Yes, as indicated by the title, the book is a military history between Islam and the West, narrated around their eight most decisive clashes, the first and last of which occurred more than a millennium apart. But while the eight battles/sieges form the centerpieces of the book’s eight chapters, the bulk of the narrative chronologically traces and tells the general, but much forgotten story of Islam and the West, most of which of course revolved around warfare—with all the attendant death, destruction, slavery, and geopolitical demarcations and map rearrangements. We can say I began working on portions of this book some twenty years ago—since around 1998-99, when I first started doing academic research for what became my MA thesis in History: a close examination, including through the original Arabic and Greek sources, of the battle of Yarmuk—the first major military encounter between Islam and the Eastern Roman Empire in 636, highlighted in Chapter 1 of the Sword and Scimitar.
Question: To what extent is the Islamic terrorism that we are facing today a continuation of the battles between Islam and the West that you describe in Sword and Scimitar?
To a very great extent. Both the motivation and the pattern of terrorist acts are very much mirror reflections of past Islamic motivations and patterns. In other words, from the start to finish, the book pages are full of all the ugly words and deeds committed by modern groups such as the Islamic State—ordering Europeans to convert to Islam or face the sword; the willful destruction of churches; the mass slaughter—including by beheading, crucifixion, or burning—of Christian defenders, and the mass enslavement and rape of Christian women and children—all of these permeate the pages of my book.
Question: Islam is a way of life. It is a complete set of ideas and rules which differs deeply from our Western values. Is there any chance of an accommodation between Islam and Western societies or this is just wishful thinking?
Can water and oil mix? In the same manner, pure Islamic teachings and pure Western values are often antithetical to one another. For example, the West believes in freedom of religion, whereas in Islam those who seek to apostatize are penalized, including by death; the West believes in freedom of speech, whereas in Islam any critical talk concerning Muhammad can get one killed. One can go on and on but the point should be clear. Of course, a nominal/secular Muslim may be able to assimilate in a Western society, but that is not a reflection of Islam, which is hardly nominal but rather a full way of life based on sharia.
Question: According to you what are the ways in which Europe on one side and the United States on the other should face the reality of Islam in such a manner that could be helpful both for Westerners and Muslims? What are the false assumptions that must be rejected?
First, the truth must be acknowledged—including for example the truth that, for well over a millennium, Muslims invaded European/Christian territory on the same logic that Islamic terror groups cite—that it is their right to invade, conquer, butcher, and enslave infidels for no less a reason that because they are non-Muslims. If this is how Muslims have been behaving for centuries, is there really any need to find “reasons” why some of them are behaving so now? Are grievances, territorial disputes, etc., necessary to explain this unwavering hostility? Once these facts are embraced, the rest, including policy—for instance, the question of Muslim immigration—should become self-evident.
Question: How inbred is religious violence in Islam and how it differs from the way in which it is presented in the Bible and has accompanied Christianity in the course of its history?
Many apologist for Islam like to claim that the Bible, especially the Jewish scriptures (or the Old Testament), is just as if not more bloody and violent than the Koran—so why do we insist that Muslim violence is rooted to Muslim scriptures? The problem with comparing violence in the Bible — both Old and New Testaments — with violence in the Koran is that it conflates history with doctrine. The majority of violence in the Bible is recorded as history; a description of events. Conversely, the overwhelming majority of violence in the Koran is doctrinally significant. The Koran uses open-ended language to call on believers to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. See “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?” for my most comprehensive and documented treatment of this tired apologia.
MBS: The
Rise to Power of Mohammed bin Salman
Ben
Hubbard. Random House/Duggan, $28 (384p) ISBN 978-1-9848-2382-3
Journalist Hubbard debuts with an incisive
portrait of modern Saudi Arabia and 34-year-old crown prince Mohammed bin
Salman, better known by his initials MBS. Though much about MBS’s early years
remains unknown, Hubbard details his close relationship with his father, the
governor of Riyadh, following the untimely deaths of two of MBS’s older
half-brothers, and his willingness to threaten with violence those who don’t
fall in line. After his father’s ascension to the throne in 2015, MBS took
control of the royal court and became minister of defense. He implemented
ambitious social and economic reforms, including rolling back the kingdom’s ban
on women drivers, and courted Western investors with plans to build a $500
billion “smart city” near the Red Sea. He also declared war on the Houthi
rebels in Yemen, escalated tensions with Iran and Qatar, detained hundreds of
ministers and royal family members in the Ritz-Carlton hotel in a move billed
as an anti-corruption push, and empowered underlings to aggressively silence
dissidents—a campaign that led to the slaying of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in
Saudi Arabia’s Turkish consulate in 2018, severely damaging MBS’s international
reputation. Hubbard enriches the narrative with informed discussions of Saudi
history and culture, illuminating the kingdom’s complex blend of religious
fundamentalism and technological ambition. This deeply researched and vividly
written account provides essential insight into a figure poised to lead the
region for the next half century. (Mar.)
Saudi Arabia's crown prince responds to coronavirus by getting rid
of enemies
David A. Andelman
Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is facing some
existential problems. He's losing the war in Yemen, the coronavirus has forced him
to scale back visits by millions to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and the plummeting price of oil
on the back of a supply war with Russian President
Vladimir Putin are together shaking the most fundamental underpinnings of his
leadership — not to mention threatening a global recession.
So what does he do? He takes a leaf out of President Donald
Trump's playbook by getting rid of some of his most (allegedly) troublesome
opponents. Instead of a simple purge, however, the crown prince, known
by his initials, MBS, took the far more
dramatic step of arresting his cousin, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef; his uncle, Prince Ahmed bin
Abdelaziz, as well as one of Nayef's brothers and one of Abdelaziz's sons. The
first two have been charged with treason, which carries the death penalty. The
crown prince was already in hot water for allegedly ordering the
execution-style slaying of Washington Post
columnist Jamal Khashoggi. But with this escalation, the Saudi leader is pushing the
boundaries once again to see what exactly he can get away with.
All these issues have been brewing for some time. The crown
prince has given no quarter in five years of war in Yemen, which has turned
very much into a proxy war with
Iran —
each power supporting opposing factions for control of this strategic corner of
the Arabian peninsula.
The Saudis have long been watching anxiously as demand for oil
ratcheted down and
new energy sources, particularly from the United States, have come online. With
the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, demand for oil has plunged even further.
To hold prices in line, the Saudis called an emergency meeting
last week of the OPEC oil cartel to lower production quotas.
Russia balked at OPEC's demand, led by Saudi Arabia, to cut 1.5
million barrels a day in output and stabilize prices at $40 a barrel. Putin has
no problem with low oil prices, since Russia's cost of production is under $20 a barrel. But he would like to see
America's fracking efforts — an already costly proposition to — become
uneconomical.
Without a deal, Saudi Arabia said it would sell oil to China for a discount and
potentially raise its own output by as much as 2 million barrels a day — moves
that would result in flooding the market with oversupply. Oil prices around the
world plummeted more than 25 percent Monday to $31 a barrel. Since oil still
underpins the Saudi economy, accounting for 50
percent of its GDP and
some 70 percent of its export earnings, this is a serious gamble for the crown
prince, who has pledged to modernize and diversify his country's financial
future.
And then along came the coronavirus. Here the crown prince has
been forced to make some of the toughest decisions of his career. The one that
has already sent shock waves through the Islamic world was his decision
to suspend the
year-round umrah pilgrimage
in which as many as 20 million faithful — most from Saudi Arabia itself — take
part every year. This has also raised the question of whether the annual hajj
pilgrimage, which attracts millions Muslims more from every corner of the
globe, would be allowed at the end of July.
Throughout, criticism of the
crown prince has
quietly been mounting at home. He wants desperately to succeed his father on
the throne; King Salman is
now 84 and
said to be frail. Still, the day after the arrest of the four princes stunned
the kingdom, the king was shown in photos released by the royal
palace to be in good health, receiving foreign ambassadors and reading state
documents. Perhaps the king is anxious to remain in power to welcome world
leaders to the G-20 summit in Riyadh in November.
What has allowed the crown prince such a free hand? Certainly he
has benefited from the unalloyed support of his father, who seems to accept his
son's overt power grabs. Unanimity is vital since the next king is not chosen
until the previous one has died. The crown prince clearly wants nothing left to
chance.
But he also has innumerable enablers — world leaders and
business leaders alike — who have repeatedly failed to confront the
leader. Amazon's Jeff
Bezos was
photographed beaming next to him not long before the crown prince was revealed
to have ordered the disastrous hacking of Bezos' cellphone.
Trump is a particularly bad offender. Trump has never
fully accepted the
conclusions of his own intelligence system that the crown prince
personally ordered the savage murder and dismemberment of Khashoggi. Not surprisingly, Trump
said nothing about the arrest of the four senior royals this past weekend.
But the crown prince's manipulations — and Trump's inaction —
have a price. In the early morning hours on Tuesday, the prince and
Trump talked on the phone, according to a White House official. Hours later, the Saudi
prince flooded the oil market, hammering world stock, bond and currency
markets.
This price war, of course, has implications for Trump's own
re-election in November — especially if it threatens the American oil industry,
which employs some 9.8 million
American workers and
is projected to add as many as 1 million more U.S. fracking jobs in the next
five years.
The crown prince and Trump are currently facing a very similar
set of challenges: The coronavirus threatening Americans at home and Muslims in
Mecca and Medina; oil price and supply disruptions affecting the economies of
both nations; unresolved and increasingly expensive wars respectively in
Afghanistan and Yemen.
Perhaps now is the time to begin to break that circle of
dependency before an impending crisis becomes a real crisis.
Khashoggi's
sons forgive Saudi killers, sparing 5 execution
AYA BATRAWY
,
Associated Press•May 21, 2020
ther's killers, sparing
them death sentences
DUBAI, United Arab
Emirates (AP) — The family of slain Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi
announced on Friday they have forgiven his Saudi killers, giving legal reprieve
to five government agents who had been sentenced to death for an operation that
cast a cloud of suspicion over the kingdom's crown prince.
“We, the sons of
the martyr Jamal Khashoggi, announce that we forgive those who killed our
father as we seek reward from God Almighty,” wrote one of his sons, Salah
Khashoggi, on Twitter.
Salah Khashoggi,
who lives in Saudi Arabia and has received financial compensation from the royal court for his father's killing, explained
that forgiveness was extended to the killers during the last nights of the
Muslim holy month of Ramadan in line with Islamic tradition to offer pardons in
cases allowed by Islamic law.
The Saudi
court's ruling in December that the killing was not premeditated paved the way for Friday's announcement by leaving the door open
for reprieve. Additionally, the finding was in line with the government’s
official explanation of Khashoggi's slaying that he was killed accidentally in
a brawl by agents trying to forcibly return him to Saudi Arabia.
The family's
decision to pardon Khashoggi's killers comes as questions continue to linger
over who ultimately ordered the operation and whether his sons have come under
pressure. The trial was widely criticized by rights groups and an independent
U.N. investigator who noted that no senior officials nor anyone in charge of
ordering the operation was found guilty. The independence of the Riyadh
criminal court was also brought into question.
Prior to his
killing, Khashoggi had written critically of Saudi Arabia's crown prince in columns for the Washington Post. He'd been living in exile in the United States for about a year
as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman oversaw a crackdown in Saudi Arabia on
human rights activists, writers and critics of the kingdom's devastating war in
Yemen.
In October 2017, a
team of 15 Saudi agents was dispatched to Turkey to meet Khashoggi in the Saudi
Consulate in Istanbul for what he thought was an appointment to pick up
documents needed to wed his Turkish fiancee. The group included a forensic
doctor, intelligence and security officers and individuals who worked for the
crown prince’s office.
Turkish officials
allege Khashoggi was killed and then dismembered with a bone saw. The body has not been found. Turkey, a rival of Saudi Arabia,
apparently had the Saudi Consulate bugged and has shared audio of the killing
with the CIA, among others.
Khashoggi’s Turkish
fiancee, Hatice Cengiz, said Friday that the “killers came from Saudi with
premeditation to lure, ambush & kill him.”
“Nobody has the
right to pardon the killers. We will not pardon the killers nor those who
ordered the killing,” she wrote on Twitter in response to the family's pardon.
Agnes Callamard,
the U.N. special rapporteur who investigated his killing, said the announcement
of forgiveness was anticipated.
“All of us who,
over the last 20 months, have reported on the gruesome execution of Jamal
Khashoggi, and absence of accountability for his killing, expected this,"
she said in a Facebook post and added that Saudi authorities were “playing out
what they hope will be the final act in their well-rehearsed parody of
justice.”
The grisly killing,
which took place as Khashoggi's fiancee waited for him outside the consulate, drew international
condemnation of Prince Mohammed.
The 34-year-old
prince, who has the support of his father King Salman, denies any involvement.
U.S. intelligence agencies, however, say an operation like this could not have
happened without his knowledge and the Senate has blamed the crown prince for the murder.
After initially
offering shifting accounts of what transpired, and under intense international and Turkish pressure, Saudi
prosecutors eventually settled on the explanation that Khashoggi had been
killed by Saudi agents in an operation masterminded by two of the crown
prince’s top aides at the time. Neither was found guilty in trial, however.
In addition to the
five who had been sentenced to execution, the Saudi trial concluded last year
that three other people were found guilty of covering up the crime and were sentenced
to a combined 24 years in prison. In all, 11 people were put on trial in Saudi
Arabia for the killing.
Saudi media outlet
Arab News sought to clarify Friday that the announcement made by Khashoggi’s
sons may spare the convicted killers from execution, but does not mean they
will go unpunished.
In an interview in
September with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Prince Mohammed said he takes "full
responsibility as a leader in Saudi Arabia.” But he insisted that he had no
knowledge of the operation, saying he cannot keep close track of the country’s
millions of employees.
No comments:
Post a Comment