It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Lockerbie Bomber is being freed tmorro - USA butt out !

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Ulala
 


Seriously? I had a distant cousin on that flight who died...so, you are saying that we should just let this guy go because he has cancer? Who cares? He killed all those people...he should never see the light of day again.




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Well he's gone home so shut up Clinton!


The Whitehouse released a statement saying they regret the decision the Scottish have made. Hmm this made me think, wtf has this got to do with the American govt beyond their requests to keep him in prison? The man was tried under Scottish law and released under Scottish law. It's regrettable that the American govt. cannot respect Scottish Law!!!



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarshMallow_Snake
reply to post by Ulala
 


Seriously? I had a distant cousin on that flight who died...so, you are saying that we should just let this guy go because he has cancer? Who cares? He killed all those people...he should never see the light of day again.



I know the families are angry, but can they have an objective view? By releasing a dying man who has served a long time in prison already we are showing that we are a civilised society and we don't make our decisions based on revenge. His release will go down in history as being the right thing to do, or even better just forgotten altogether.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by phoenix103
The UK isn't barbaric so we do not execute people.


You ought to give it a try sometime.

It's quite liberating.


You're no better than the terrorist if you would enjoy seeing him executed. If he escaped or say resisted arrest then shoot him like he's the taliban, but if in captivity a civilised society should ensure he has the minimum to survive within reason during his prison sentence.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Is this proof he was nothing more than a "Patsy"




PRISONERS at the cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber's jail are praying he doesn't die - so they don't lose their satellite TV.

The Libyan government pays for Setanta and Sky to be piped into Greenock prison so Abdelbaset al-Megrahi can watch Arabic telly.

But the lags fear Colonel Gaddafi will pull the plug if Megrahi dies.

A jail insider told the Record: "The cons are really worried. They've had it so good for the last three years that they're saying, 'For God's sake don't let him die.' "

They are hoping Megrahi makes a miracle recovery and have bombarded him with get well soon messages. "I wouldn't be surprised if they start holding candlelit vigils.

The satellite TV is so important to them - it gives them something to look forward to." Gaddafi forked out s1500 to have satellite telly fitted at the jail when Megrahi was moved there from Barlinnie three years ago. He also provided cash for the channel subscription fees.



Source

I'll wager his family back in Libya have been well looked after too.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The guy was a 'soldier' for want of a better word. Conscripted and ordered to carry out his duty.

Should a US Marine sniper be jailed for murder for taking out a Taliban terrorist?

Essentially the same thing - it's our religion and lifestyle which is different.

I don't sympathise with the bastard - just pointing out the basic truth in the matter.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by kindred
 



What's the connection between Gaddafi, UK's de facto prime minister Peter Mandelson and Lord Rothschild?


Here is how the Lockerbie bombers release was in fact hastened. Rather than Tony Blair, it is now Peter Mandelson who is pulling the strings.

Check the Guardian and the Daily Mail if you don't believe it.

Why him? That's another story, but he's the one who was hanging out with Gaddafi's son at Rothschild's villa in Corfu when he was on vacation there with the Rothschilds and other elite members,


How did this elite meeting lead to the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi?


The Daily Mail claims the following:



Lord Mandelson faces the prospect of a sleaze investigation after he met Colonel Gaddafi's son days before it emerged that the Lockerbie bomber was to be freed.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who is seen as the Libyan dictator's most likely successor, was also a guest of billionaire financiers Jacob and Nat Rothschild at their Corfu villa where the Business Secretary stayed a week.

A spokesman for Lord Mandelson confirmed he and Mr Gaddafi discussed the case of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who is expected to be sent home by the end of the week.

Officials in Scotland, where the final decision will be made, admitted there had been 'contact' with ministers and officials in London.

Lord Mandelson's spokesman said: 'Peter met Gaddafi's son in Corfu. Their stay coincided for one night. It was a fleeting conversation - two or three sentences.


According to the Guardian:



Lord Mandelson met Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's son at a Corfu villa only a week before the announcement that the perpetrator of the Lockerbie bombing could be released from prison, it was revealed today.

Mandelson came under fire following his stay at the Greek property of the Rothschild family in Corfu, where he was invited as part of a wider annual gathering of influential people, according to the Financial Times.

Mandelson's spokesman told the FT that the business secretary and Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, widely seen as the Libyan leader's most likely successor, spoke briefly a fortnight ago during their stay at the Greek property of the Rothschild family and confirmed that they did discuss Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.



Peter Mandelson denies but admits?


The latest update comes from the Financial Times:



Lord Mandelson robustly defended his chance meeting with Colonel Muammer Gaddafi's son at a Greek villa, saying yesterday that it was part of his job to meet foreign businessmen and politicians.

The "coincidental" brief encounter came just days before news broke that the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, might soon be released.

However, Lord Mandelson has pointed out that the decision is solely that of the devolved Edinburgh administration rather than that of London.

The business secretary, who is also de facto deputy prime minister, said through his spokesman that it was "entirely right and appropriate" that he should meet Mr Gaddafi, given the desire for closer trade and investment links between the two countries.



How does the US feel?


The BBC also claimed the following on August 13th:



US officials have said the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should serve out his sentence following reports that he could be released.

The BBC understands Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, is likely to be freed next week.

A US official told the BBC that they had no information that he was set be released on compassionate grounds.

However, he added that the American position remained that Megrahi should complete his jail term in Scotland.



Why are the Rothschilds and Mandelson so interested?


Of course, there's oil, as pointed out in the Melbourne Herald Sun
and many other articles:



The Times reported that Libyan leader Muamma Gaddafi was to send his private jet to collect Megrahi and take him home.

The decision comes amid thawing relations between Libya and Britain, which were arch-enemies in the 1980s and 1990s.

Libya has the largest proven oil reserves of any country in Africa, much of it still untapped, and British firms including BP and Shell have signed major exploration deals in the country in recent years.


Is that why the US is not interested? Because the oil is being tapped by British firms?



[edit on 20-8-2009 by MightyAl]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I cant help feel this is a tit-for-tat with regard to the extradition of the UK hacker?? Also the talk of Tony Blair and oil deals being struck must have something to do with it???

Hmmmmm



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by AlwaysQuestion
 


Read my long article above...

I also don't believe that the Lockerbie bomber is terminally ill. It's all a setup to make the people half way support his release because they believe he's a poor sick man who just wants to die in peace...peace to him, and what about the 280 victims?

Is his illness the best excuse THEY could come up with?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MightyAl
reply to post by AlwaysQuestion
 


Read my long article above...

I also don't believe that the Lockerbie bomber is terminally ill. It's all a setup to make the people half way support his release because they believe he's a poor sick man who just wants to die in peace...peace to him, and what about the 280 victims?

Is his illness the best excuse THEY could come up with?


There was no will or desire in Scotland or the rest of the UK Political or Judicial systems to release him so I'm not sure where you get that idea.

Of course, when he dies you'll just be able to claim you don't believe it, am i right?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I agree about the U.S. butting out. Who are they, our daddy? haha.

Regardless of the theories behind his guilt or not, a country's judicial system said he was guilty. The penalty should be what it was originally set to be. Life in prison. That means he dies there. That is his punishment. Why does that change because of physical condition? Isn't that the point? Should we let all dying criminals out, so they can die with their families in a dignified manner?
You have to be kidding me. hahahaha.

He sure didn't kill 270 family members compassionately or in a dignified manner. He knew the outcome of his orders.

They should put a webcam in his cell, for the families to watch his final days. If they choose to.

I know its wrong to think that way too...but to me this is a bit ridiculous.

But, to the thread's point...I agree that the U.S. should not try to dictate to other countries how to handle their judicial system etc. Opinions are fine. Dictating to a sovereign country is not. Regardless of the circumstances.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Ulala
 


The US sent a letter requesting something. It did not threaten or intimidate, it requested. Scotland will do as it likes and most of us are unconcerned about it.
These interactions occur at high levels of government all the time and are called international politics. No one knows what the actual position of the US is as this request may have been made for other reasons and the US may not actually care whether the bomber is freed or not.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by Majestic23
I am almost at the point of thinking Uk and America will go to war against each other. Why do they keep trying to annoy us and stir us up? If it wasnt enough that (we are talking in uninitiated terms) they got us caught up in a dumbass multi-front war and put us in the firing line for terrorist attacks..................



Remember WWII?

You didn't mind out involvement back then..



Yeah, you really helped out after we had already been bombed to bits. Just a little perspective for you, Pearl Harbour was staged so you could enter the war just like 9/11 and possibly the Lockerbie bombing. Its all power play.

In any case you missed the point of my post, which was, America should be concentrating on its own issues. Clinton is diverting your attention away from something important.

"We saved your ass in dubya dubya two."

You guys really think that dont you?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by phoenix103
 


If he is suffering from cancer, then that doesn't change the fact that he was released in order to improve the relationship between oil-rich Libya and the UK.

I also don't care if he's guilty, as that has nothing to do with the matter that he was freed for the purpose stated above.

If you don't know the Rothschilds and you don't know Mandelson's position, then you will just think he was released because it was time for him to be released. I wish the world were that simple and innocent...



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MightyAl
 




Is that why the US is not interested? Because the oil is being tapped by British firms?


It's the American government who are against him being released. Probably because if he's not released then the BP oil deal is off.
It's not just Peter Mandelson who worked out the deal, it's the entire British government, because at the end of the day they are all Rothschild puppets and they are all corrupt and bought and paid for. Why anyone on this thread would defend the British government is beyond me. Personally I've got more respect for a cockroach.
Which is about the same level of respect the British government has for it's own people.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by kindred]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ulala
No further purpose is served by keeping a dying man in jail.

It's called JUSTICE. He doesn't deserve mercy. He doesn't deserve to be let out. He deserves to rot to death in prison. JUSTICE is the 'further purpose' that would be served by leaving him to the fate that he earned ... rot in jail until death.



[edit on 8/20/2009 by FlyersFan]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I think that's where the difference lies.

Because Justice without Mercy is no Justice at all.

The Justice Minister in his statement said :-


Mr al-Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them. But that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days. Our justice system demands that judgement be imposed, but compassion be available.



Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs the we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people - no matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.


And I think it's right there where the differences between the Western European and US judicial systems lie. Forgiveness forms no part of US justice. Nor is any credit given for the redemptive power of prolonged imprisonment.

Compassionate pity must surely form a pillar of Justice ?

Jesus said, "whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life" (John 4:14).

Yet Jesus, on the cross, himself was parched.

The Roman soldiers thrust a sponge to his mouth bearing sour wine. Some take that as a mockery of Jesus in his suffering. Yet a popular drink of the soldiers was indeed sour wine, a mixture of vinegar, egg & water. I like to think that in his suffering even these soldiers were moved to pity.

I'm surprised so few Americans pity al-Megrahi, a dying man. I pity them.

But I think the decision to release al-Megrahi was the right one and one which demonstrates that a quiet, thoughtful faith does still have a role to play in the administration of Justice.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
You're no better than the terrorist if you would enjoy seeing him executed. If he escaped or say resisted arrest then shoot him like he's the taliban, but if in captivity a civilised society should ensure he has the minimum to survive within reason during his prison sentence.


Yeah, right.


Here's a guy that was in prison for killing how many people? How many innocent travellers were killed in a fiery death, yet this guy is just sitting in prison. I think the death sentence should have been brought down on this guy as soon as his trial was over.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by vonspurter
The guy was a 'soldier' for want of a better word. Conscripted and ordered to carry out his duty.

Should a US Marine sniper be jailed for murder for taking out a Taliban terrorist?

Essentially the same thing - it's our religion and lifestyle which is different.

I don't sympathise with the bastard - just pointing out the basic truth in the matter.


He was a terrorist. Do not even try to compare him with a Marine or a Soldier.

When a Marine sniper kills a Taliban dirtbag, that's not murder. What this ass-hat did when he destroyed that aircraft was just plain and simple murder.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhead57


Oh, and please don't give me the "you don't understand" line. I have had 2 close relatives murdered and was vehemently opposed to seeking the death penalty. One murder does not take the pain away from another.


I'm so sorry to hear that, I'm sure they're in a better place now though and they're watching over you.

I agree though - all the death penalty accomplishes is another grieving family, another heartbroken mother. I know it's not fair that the criminals' family still gets to see them, but it's better than bringing a whole new group of people into grief.

I think of the Star Trek movie where the Romulans destroyed Vulcan so they could feel their pain. To me the death penalty is just like that - a desire not only to punish the criminal, but also to punish their family.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join