“Oops!” Most Ridiculous Lie Of The Year: Saudi Mega-Millionaire Ehsan Abdulaziz

Saudi rapeOh, I can’t let this one pass.

Saudi Ehsan Abdulaziz was just tried on a rape charge in London. The alleged victim, an 18 year-old woman, says that she woke up to find him having sex with her. Supporting her accusation, traces of his semen were found in her vagina.

But wait! He can explain!

Abdulaziz says he met two women at a West End  nightclub and took them both to his room,  where they continued to drink. He had sex with one of the women; the other, the eventual accuser, fell asleep on the couch. Abdulaziz testified that he went into the room to see if  she needed anything and she drunkenly pulled at him. He lost his balance and fell on her. His penis accidentally slipped into her, he guesses, and the semen found in the woman’s vagina  must have been a left-over from the earlier sex with her friend.  “I’m fragile, I fell down,” he told the jury, “but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl.”

The jury acquitted him in 30 minutes.


35 thoughts on ““Oops!” Most Ridiculous Lie Of The Year: Saudi Mega-Millionaire Ehsan Abdulaziz

        • Only if you Humpty Dumpty it so sharia means only what you want it to mean. Rigid religious based systems for controlling the populace save their exceptions for the clergy. That’s how authoritarianism works, if it’s religious it benefits the priests, if it’s secular it benefits the kings.

          Which brings us back to the quote attributed to Jean Meslier

          “I would like — and this would be the last and most ardent of my wishes — I would like the last of the kings to be strangled by the guts of the last priest”

          • Erm….I’m not sure if you checked recently or not….but sharia IS authoritarianism and in plenty of muslim countries the “wealthy” (read as this type of Saudi douche) are seen as kings (read as Sheiks)

                • When is religion ever not political?

                  This is a question of who holds the power over the other, the kings or the priests. Both being convenient terms for English speakers. We can call them shielks and imams. You’re positing that Abdulaziz is a king, I’m saying that laws that come from the priests don’t put kings over them, It’s gods over kings and who’s conveniently there to represent the local god?

                  If you made an exception for the rich guy people might start thinking he’s in charge and listen to him over the priests.

                  It’s a question of who’s on the top rung and who’s on the second rung (third rung for bureaucrats.)

                    • Unfortunately you really can’t. The West had the Thirty Years’ War which created the separation of church and state. Islamic society had no such watershed, ALTHOUGH Turkey made a pretty good separation between the two.

                    • I think you overlook how militant members of other religions can be. From people who want the bible in schools and demand things their religion forbids be illegal for that reason. From militant Buddhists in southeast Asia who want to see all Muslims dead to countries outlawing contraceptives and condoms because the pope says they’re wrong. Uganda is 85% christian and passed laws to execute homosexuals.

                      Here’s the right-left divide. The right says we (the left) love Islam, we don’t love it, we don’t even like it. As a Jew living in this culture, I just don’t see a difference (And the bible isn’t particularly woman-friendly, Paul was a dick.) We’re prepared to let them do anything Christians are allowed to do because that’s fair. Seeing the right get all up in arms, it’s satisfying, it’s schadenfreude, it exposes hypocrisy. Now if they would just figure out the easiest way to keep Islam out of schools would be to stop pushing Christianity into them and instead stand for a strict interpretation of the establishment clause…

                      So there’s your answer. Anywhere you want to stop Islam, push to keep all religion away from that place, make that your argument. Not Islam doesn’t belong here, religion doesn’t belong here. When you target one that’s bigotry, as a good little SJW I have to say stop picking on them, when you tell them all to go back to their respective corners and leave schools, or laws, or the grounds of public buildings alone, that’s promoting constitutional principals and we can stand together.

  1. I can think of one rational explanation.

    That part of the world has a lot of cousin marriages. The rate of Intersex conditions due to genetic anomalies is pretty darned high.

    The key is the 20 minutes of private evidence… he may not have had a penis in the usual sense, and his story may actually be true. Now if he was genitally lacking, then it’s not something that any man would want bruted about in open court, and it would also explain why the jury was so quick to return a Not Guilty verdict.

    I could be taking 2+2 and making 79 million, but everything fits too well for this possibility to be dismissed unconsidered.

      • It’s either that or shenanigans… but you never know.

        One lawyer in London did manage to persuade the court in 2008 that even though the defendant had stolen the victim’s money, travel card etc and video showed them to be the only ones entering or leaving the victim’s flat at the time of death… the victim must have strangled herself..

        Though the victim did have time before expiring to cover her own body and face with a throw-rug

        The lawyer in question has since been appointed a circuit court judge – and has proven controversial in that role.

  2. He does look fragile. So sad. Those Middle Eastern men really need a lot of coddling. A whole culture has been formed around keeping them and their fragile savagery protected.
    I’m just horrified that savagery has been allowed to consume a supposedly robust civilization in Europe, and is coming soon for ours. It’s not like we haven’t had warnings.

  3. I would have her stoned. Seems like he operates in the best Kennedy tradition.

    I see the Bill Cosby activities have worldwide traction.

  4. When anyone can offer such a lame excuse for rape- and then be acquitted on its basis!- there can be only one of two explanations. One: That the jury is composed of total imbeciles. Two: That political correctness and appeasement trumps law and reason in the British courts. Both should be chilling to anyone living on those once acclaimed islands.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.