Posted on 06/12/2002 10:52:48 PM PDT by kattracks
RIYADH, June 13 (Reuters) - A Saudi official was quoted as saying on Thursday that all of the suspects convicted and sentenced by Saudi Arabia for the 1996 Khobar bombing that killed 19 U.S. servicemen were Saudi nationals.
"There are no non-Saudis among them and I do not remember exactly how many there are but the preliminary legal rulings have been issued," the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA) quoted deputy interior minister, Prince Ahmad bin Abdul-Aziz, as saying late on Wednesday.
Earlier this month, Saudi Arabia announced it had tried, convicted and sentenced some suspects in the bombing but that the main suspects were still at large.
The prince said that before being carried out, the sentences would need to be upheld by an appeals court and a supreme judiciary body before being ratified by the king.
He did not say whether anyone had been sentenced to death and gave no further details.
Saudi Arabia, which has reserved the right to lead the bombing probe, has said some suspects might be in Europe.
The United States in 1999 extradited Saudi dissident Hani al-Sayegh to the kingdom, which suspected he was linked to the bombing, in which a truck exploded outside a U.S. military barracks in Dharan. There were 372 U.S. servicemen wounded.
Washington last year indicted 13 members of an allegedly pro-Iranian group called Saudi Hizbollah and a Lebanese man over the bombing.
The United States has also accused Iran of involvement in the bombing. Iran has dismissed the accusation as "baseless". ((Gulf newsroom, +971 4 391 8301, fax +971 4 391 8335, dubai.newsroom@reuters.com))
© Reuters Limited.
"The official went on to say that the Pope is Catholic. A further comment about bears was garbled in translation."
They were only to the extent that our people protected their interests. I wouldn't trust The Saudis any further than I could throw them.
The United States has also accused Iran of involvement in the bombing. Iran has dismissed the accusation as "baseless".
There it is -- the Iranians confirmed the accusation by calling it "baseless". Which is a total admission, for an Iranian.
Looks like more and more threads run back to Iran. You've probably already seen the newsmagazine article years ago that accused the Libyans of being front men in the Lockerbie bombing for the Iranian mullahs.
Say, isn't there a Shiite prophecy about "the last Imam" ascending to heaven on a pillar of fire? Wonder if Tactical Air Command or COMSUBPAC could help the Iranians achieve a little closure on that one?
All roads lead to Iraq.
Who was in the Khobar Towers, and what did they do ?
Successfully answering that, will tell you all you need to know about who was actually ultimately behind it.
The Dual Embassy Bombings....2 days after Saddam Declares an end to weapons inspections, after repeated threats of Violence if UN Sanctions are not lifted....
This is now news, because the Saudis want or need to show the world that they are "fighting terroism." The heat has gotten too much, and so they are going to cut off a few heads and hope the world looks elsewhere.
I think that a big central point for terrorist and "axis of evil" money is Saudi oil money. I think that the Saudi's have been buying government officals right and left and that supporting terrorism has been a semi=un-official part of the Sauid foreign policy for years.
Once upon a time they may have been afraid of being invaded by the oil consuming nations and wanted the terrorist to retaliate for such an invasion, but things have gotten way out of hand.
It would be interesting to historically look back on the start of the Gulf War to see exactly what may have sparked Irans march into Kuawat and toward Saudi Arabia and why the Saudi's were so scared they called in the US. Did they buy some folks and make Sadam angry? Did they refuse to deliver on a deal they promise? Inquiring minds would like to know.
It works like this. Prior to 1993, all major terrorism was known to be State sponsored. The Clinton Administration, successfully, and subtly shifted that fact to an assumption of loose bands of terrorists, wreaking havoc. This is not now, nor has it ever been the case.
But for the previous Administration, to acknowledge State sponsorship, would mean to risk having to go to war. They would never let that happen. it was always easier (considering the penchant for leaving patsies to get arrested) to nab someone publicly and LOOK like you were doing something about it. No political downside, knowing in advance that the so called investigative media would never think to challenge you....EVERY TERRORIST INCIDENT IN THE LAST 10 Years, has at least some loose threads that point to Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.