White House - Lockerbie bomber welcome "disturbing"

Originally posted by EastCoastElitist
reply to post by john124

 

You continually have used the term "revenge". Revenge has nothing to do with it. Ask the Russian mafia. It's deterrence. Of course prison is no real deterrence either. The entire idea of putting terrorists on trial is bizarre and self-defeating. Okay, Lefties - let the squealing begin!

The man is dying and you see it necessary to keep him in prison based on grounds other than revenge? There are no grounds at all, no Scottish laws have been broken, and so the legal proceedings have all been completely lawful.

And yes many posts here appear revengeful and also hypocritical because of the failure of the US govt. to apologise to the Iranian's for murdering around 290 of their people.

Deterrence doesn't apply here, and so your point is irrelevant.

Are potential terrorists really going to commit terrorism because they may be released if they get cancer??!! I think they are more likely to commit terrorism because of the civilians that the US govt. murdered in 1988, and the other reckless actions.

It is far more useful to demonstrate how civilised we are in the west by releasing a dying man.

Who are the media or any of you here to say that the Libyan's celebrated the man as a hero because he bombed a plane? Human beings are irrational when it comes to celebrities, just because they celebrated his release does not mean they are all evil terrorists in wait plotting against us. They are just as likely to believe he's innocent or see this as progress towards better relations.

The whitehouse says the videos are disturbing - but did we really expect the man and his family not to be happy he was returning home after many years, just because we asked them not to show it! Were they supposed to look upset at his return??? I just do not understand the media's response towards this...... it's brainwashing everybody, and BBC news 24 are one of the worst by showing the video of his return about 20 times in a row as though they were celebrating the scenes over and over again.

So what??? We don't like the fact that Gaddafi hugged and kissed him.... it's their culture..... and our media are blowing it out of proportion! Sometimes we can't get everything we want, and the US govt. has to learn to grow up and not cry over small matters. And then there's the US govt. hypocrisy!!

For christ sake! He's going to die soon!! Is that not good enough for you!? Especially since the US gave peanuts in compensation to the Iranian's and refused to accept responsibility or apologise after 1988. It doesn't matter where people are from, even if you are arch-enemies within that country's govt. If you murder their civilians by mistake, you apologise because that is how we expect others to treat us at the very least. We proclaim to hold such high standards at all times, but yet we frown when others don't keep to those same standards.

The families can never be adequately compensated so it's pointless to accept some of their less than ojective views as anything more than what it is. Of course we listen, we pay respect, but we don't base our values on those who cannot see past their anger. As some of the families have managed to see past anger and aren't controlled by revenge; and see that it's better to let a dying guilty man go home, than let a potentially innocent man die in prison.

It's not like anybody with terminal cancer will ever be free, and to assume so is a moot point.

It is appalling and disturbing how far double-standards can go.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by john124]

So this wouldn't be the moment to mention that NASA 'hacker' Gary McKinnon is Scottish?

I'd hate to think there is a any connection to the McKinnon case, however tenuous. Is Gary getting the Big Stick?

So..who did the deal? Scotland or London..anyone?

Originally posted by janeson
So this wouldn't be the moment to mention that NASA 'hacker' Gary McKinnon is Scottish?

I'd hate to think there is a any connection to the McKinnon case, however tenuous. Is Gary getting the Big Stick?

So..who did the deal? Scotland or London..anyone?

Yeah but the US got what they wanted in that case. It's probably just a coincidence, but you never know!

briefly...

1. THE GUY DIDN'T DO IT.

He was a patsy so Libya could "rejoin the international community" (make more money from its oil). I don't know who did do it, but I'm sure it wasn't him. The verdict was arrived at with rather too much help from our chums in the CIA to be anything like the truth.

I also have to say that I have a friend who actually travelled on that flight and disembarked at Heathrow. He told me that he'd sat next to a US serviceman who was extremely nervous because he'd heard rumours about there being a bomb on the flight.

(That in itself tells you something: it means that the bomb was meant to blow up the plane and its passengers, rather than a specific target who, hearing the rumours, might change his flight. This may seem obvious, but it might have a bearing on theories about the bombing.)

2. HIS RELEASE SERVES AN IMPORTANT PURPOSE.

By releasing him on compassionate grounds, the legal system stopped in its tracks an appeal process that might, at some time, have led to the release of embarrassing information. Embarrassing, that is, for HMG and the USG, and possibly Israel.

al-Megrahi will never clear his name. I don't expect many reading this to care, but it means that information we might like to know about things being done with our tax monies, will never come to light.

Originally posted by john124
Originally posted by EastCoastElitist
reply to post by john124

 

You continually have used the term "revenge". Revenge has nothing to do with it. Ask the Russian mafia. It's deterrence. Of course prison is no real deterrence either. The entire idea of putting terrorists on trial is bizarre and self-defeating. Okay, Lefties - let the squealing begin!

I'm late to the party and I saw this little beauty and thought I'd just jump in...

I wonder if ECE will ever read back that piece of his, er, "thoughts" and realise how many times he contradicts himself? Let's just look at this lovely piece of loopiness...

So, first, ECE is denying there's a revenge motive here. He justifies the legal process of the state by directly comparing it to the Russian Mafia. What kind of a brutal state does he want to live in? Is force the only language he understands?

So no revenge, just the brutal deterrence of a Russian gang leader. But then it's not a deterrent either, apparently. So are we back to revenge? Or is it something else?

Oh, it's a waste of time, apparently... all the messy and expensive business of trying to make sure you've got the right guy that applies to everyone else doesn't apply to terrorists (TM). But how do you tell the terrorists apart from, oh, I don't know, other dusky dudes?

Oh. It's anyone the government says, ok... what about those no-fly lists, though... there's an awful lot of innocent people on there... do we trust them on this?

You might: I don't.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by rich23]

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by john124

It's ridiculous to trash relations with Libya to save face over what is a very small matter that he will actually get to see his family before he dies.

The people he killed in the bombing didn't get a chance to see their families before they died... why should he?

Neither did the families of those on the Iranian flight shot down by the US.

Maybe in a civilised society we feel it more appropriate to treat people the way we wish to be treated.

Or does your brain shout "revenge revenge revenge" when the US govt. could not even be bothered to apologise for killing 290 Iranian's.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by john124]

You artfully dodged my question by asking another question.

What does the US shooting down an Iranian jet have to do with this guy bombing a plane?

Now do you care to answer my question, or are you going to try more deflection?

[edit on 22-8-2009 by craig732]

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by john124

It's ridiculous to trash relations with Libya to save face over what is a very small matter that he will actually get to see his family before he dies.

The people he killed in the bombing didn't get a chance to see their families before they died... why should he?

Neither did the families of those on the Iranian flight shot down by the US.

Maybe in a civilised society we feel it more appropriate to treat people the way we wish to be treated.

Or does your brain shout "revenge revenge revenge" when the US govt. could not even be bothered to apologise for killing 290 Iranian's.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by john124]

You artfully dodged my question by asking another question.

What does the US shooting down an Iranian jet have to do with this guy bombing a plane?

Now do you care to answer my question, or are you going to try more deflection?

[edit on 22-8-2009 by craig732]

Because it's complete hypocrisy to everyone except those who only care about the US and nobody else.

The US govt. never showed compassion to the Iranian families, yet many American's complain that the families didn't receive enough compassion from the scottish justice secretary.

It's not about what he deserves unless you are revengeful, it's about the high morals & standards that we uphold ourselves to treat others how we want to be treated. Compassion is part of Scottish Law, so tough #!

I've answered that question and many others several times already.


[edit on 22-8-2009 by john124]

news.bbc.co.uk...

FBI director Robert Mueller has launched a scathing attack on Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

Mr Mueller wrote: "Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law.

"Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of 'compassion'."

He wrote: "You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand. You have given Megrahi a 'jubilant welcome' in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice?"

A Scottish Government spokesman said the minister had made the right decision for the "right reasons" on the basis of due process, clear evidence, and recommendations from the parole board and prison governor.

He said: "Compassionate release is not part of the US justice system but it is part of Scotland's.

He added that the justice secretary would reply to Mr Mueller in due course.

Full letter : www.channel4.com...

Hmmm.... so a potential terrorist is going to say "oh wait a minute if I blow up a plane and I get caught, and if I get terminal cancer I might be released under compassionate grounds..... so lets go do it....." what planet does this FBI director guy live on!!!? The US law system does not have this, which makes that non-existent potential incentive even more flawed!

I think the terrorist training videos using US-Iraqi & Afghanistan propaganda, terrorist training camps in Iran, Pakistan & Syria, the civilian deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan ,the torturing of detainees by waterboarding, CIA torture involving guns and drills pointed at suspect's heads.... etc etc.... will have a much greater influence on potential terrorists wanting to carry out terrorist attacks! And the irony is that many of these can be avoided by better educating the military and CIA, and resorting to more clever tactics, rather than brute force alone to beat terrorism.

The mess that is being made by the US tantrums are creating a bigger problem from out of nowhere. Just forget it all... and this man that was released will be dead soon from cancer! End of story! But instead you are telling potential terrorists that this man should be a hero and that they will benefit from terrorism.

Was it a hero's welcome really??? Does all those people in Libya think he's a hero for blowing up a plane??? Was Megrahi not supposed to be happy to be home?? Were his family supposed to look upset at his arrival??? I just do not get the media's response that we are supposed to see this as a hero's welcome!!!

Who are the US govt. to suggest that all the 1000 Libyan's see him as anything more than a celebrity figure??? Don't American's also worship celebrities who have murdered because they think he or she is innocent?? Does that make them all potential killers, or just possibly mis-guided or confused young people. If they are angry enough to commit terrorist actions against the west over Megrahi being imprisoned, then letting him die in prison would increase the potential for that.......

I think Mr. MacAskill has made himself perfectly clear for those who are willing to listen with an open mind and not be blinded by pure hatred. To show we are better than he was and show compassion to a dying man shows greater courage and human dignity towards our own values of how we want people to treat us. Rather we see from the American govt. who would show little respect for a sovereign nation's law system, when it is part of Scottish law to show compassion in this way to a dying prisoner.

I hope he tells the FBI director in his reply letter the exact same response he has given over and over again, and maybe someday they will listen and become much more enlightened individuals.

Somebody needs to tell the US govt. what is really breeding new terrorists, because their own actions contribute greatly, and it's not because of releasing a dying man that's for sure!

[edit on 22-8-2009 by john124]

...when did "living in a civilized society" come to mean that we're supposed to forgive and live with vermin rather than remove them from society?... answer: when vermin became the leaders / controllers / handlers and vermin breeders...

...i've heard bbc news a couple times today and it started off (each time) with a report about fbi director robert mueller being angry because whatshisdoodle was released - not a word about obama making a statement about it... imo, mueller is angry because he's afraid the truth might get out now that whatshisdoodle is free...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...when did "living in a civilized society" come to mean that we're supposed to forgive and live with vermin rather than remove them from society?... answer: when vermin became the leaders / controllers / handlers and vermin breeders...

...i've heard bbc news a couple times today and it started off (each time) with a report about fbi director robert mueller being angry because whatshisdoodle was released - not a word about obama making a statement about it... imo, mueller is angry because he's afraid the truth might get out now that whatshisdoodle is free...

He's gone back home to Libya to die! You don't have to live with him, and in fact he has been removed from Britain altogether, therefore is not part of western society. I don't think he will want to visit the west in his last few days anyway.

Obama was throwing his tantrums yesterday along with Clinton, now its the FBI director's turn.

I heard on the radio in Scotland that Libya are saying that they can prove that Mehgari didn't do it.

*_* This can become very very interesting in the later months.

reply to post by MacDonagh


LOL they released him in hopes of keeping it a secret that hes innocent, and because the Libyan govt. are still doing it, they were betrayed.

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by EastCoastElitist
reply to post by john124

 

You continually have used the term "revenge". Revenge has nothing to do with it. Ask the Russian mafia. It's deterrence. Of course prison is no real deterrence either. The entire idea of putting terrorists on trial is bizarre and self-defeating. Okay, Lefties - let the squealing begin!

The man is dying and you see it necessary to keep him in prison based on grounds other than revenge? There are no grounds at all, no Scottish laws have been broken, and so the legal proceedings have all been completely lawful.

And yes many posts here appear revengeful and also hypocritical because of the failure of the US govt. to apologise to the Iranian's for murdering around 290 of their people.

Deterrence doesn't apply here, and so your point is irrelevant.

Are potential terrorists really going to commit terrorism because they may be released if they get cancer??!! I think they are more likely to commit terrorism because of the civilians that the US govt. murdered in 1988, and the other reckless actions.

It is far more useful to demonstrate how civilised we are in the west by releasing a dying man.

Who are the media or any of you here to say that the Libyan's celebrated the man as a hero because he bombed a plane? Human beings are irrational when it comes to celebrities, just because they celebrated his release does not mean they are all evil terrorists in wait plotting against us. They are just as likely to believe he's innocent or see this as progress towards better relations.

The whitehouse says the videos are disturbing - but did we really expect the man and his family not to be happy he was returning home after many years, just because we asked them not to show it! Were they supposed to look upset at his return??? I just do not understand the media's response towards this...... it's brainwashing everybody, and BBC news 24 are one of the worst by showing the video of his return about 20 times in a row as though they were celebrating the scenes over and over again.

So what??? We don't like the fact that Gaddafi hugged and kissed him.... it's their culture..... and our media are blowing it out of proportion! Sometimes we can't get everything we want, and the US govt. has to learn to grow up and not cry over small matters. And then there's the US govt. hypocrisy!!

For christ sake! He's going to die soon!! Is that not good enough for you!? Especially since the US gave peanuts in compensation to the Iranian's and refused to accept responsibility or apologise after 1988. It doesn't matter where people are from, even if you are arch-enemies within that country's govt. If you murder their civilians by mistake, you apologise because that is how we expect others to treat us at the very least. We proclaim to hold such high standards at all times, but yet we frown when others don't keep to those same standards.

The families can never be adequately compensated so it's pointless to accept some of their less than ojective views as anything more than what it is. Of course we listen, we pay respect, but we don't base our values on those who cannot see past their anger. As some of the families have managed to see past anger and aren't controlled by revenge; and see that it's better to let a dying guilty man go home, than let a potentially innocent man die in prison.

It's not like anybody with terminal cancer will ever be free, and to assume so is a moot point.

It is appalling and disturbing how far double-standards can go.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by john124]

"He's going to die soon"? He should have died two minutes after he was captured, face down in a muddy field. Apparently we learn nothing. His medical condition means absolutely nothing, nothing at all.

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by EastCoastElitist
reply to post by john124

 

You continually have used the term "revenge". Revenge has nothing to do with it. Ask the Russian mafia. It's deterrence. Of course prison is no real deterrence either. The entire idea of putting terrorists on trial is bizarre and self-defeating. Okay, Lefties - let the squealing begin!

The man is dying and you see it necessary to keep him in prison based on grounds other than revenge? There are no grounds at all, no Scottish laws have been broken, and so the legal proceedings have all been completely lawful.

And yes many posts here appear revengeful and also hypocritical because of the failure of the US govt. to apologise to the Iranian's for murdering around 290 of their people.

Deterrence doesn't apply here, and so your point is irrelevant.

Are potential terrorists really going to commit terrorism because they may be released if they get cancer??!! I think they are more likely to commit terrorism because of the civilians that the US govt. murdered in 1988, and the other reckless actions.

It is far more useful to demonstrate how civilised we are in the west by releasing a dying man.

Who are the media or any of you here to say that the Libyan's celebrated the man as a hero because he bombed a plane? Human beings are irrational when it comes to celebrities, just because they celebrated his release does not mean they are all evil terrorists in wait plotting against us. They are just as likely to believe he's innocent or see this as progress towards better relations.

The whitehouse says the videos are disturbing - but did we really expect the man and his family not to be happy he was returning home after many years, just because we asked them not to show it! Were they supposed to look upset at his return??? I just do not understand the media's response towards this...... it's brainwashing everybody, and BBC news 24 are one of the worst by showing the video of his return about 20 times in a row as though they were celebrating the scenes over and over again.

So what??? We don't like the fact that Gaddafi hugged and kissed him.... it's their culture..... and our media are blowing it out of proportion! Sometimes we can't get everything we want, and the US govt. has to learn to grow up and not cry over small matters. And then there's the US govt. hypocrisy!!

For christ sake! He's going to die soon!! Is that not good enough for you!? Especially since the US gave peanuts in compensation to the Iranian's and refused to accept responsibility or apologise after 1988. It doesn't matter where people are from, even if you are arch-enemies within that country's govt. If you murder their civilians by mistake, you apologise because that is how we expect others to treat us at the very least. We proclaim to hold such high standards at all times, but yet we frown when others don't keep to those same standards.

The families can never be adequately compensated so it's pointless to accept some of their less than ojective views as anything more than what it is. Of course we listen, we pay respect, but we don't base our values on those who cannot see past their anger. As some of the families have managed to see past anger and aren't controlled by revenge; and see that it's better to let a dying guilty man go home, than let a potentially innocent man die in prison.

It's not like anybody with terminal cancer will ever be free, and to assume so is a moot point.

It is appalling and disturbing how far double-standards can go.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by john124]

"He's going to die soon"? He should have died two minutes after he was captured, face down in a muddy field. Apparently we learn nothing. His medical condition means absolutely nothing, nothing at all.

Originally posted by EastCoastElitist

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by EastCoastElitist
reply to post by john124

 

You continually have used the term "revenge". Revenge has nothing to do with it. Ask the Russian mafia. It's deterrence. Of course prison is no real deterrence either. The entire idea of putting terrorists on trial is bizarre and self-defeating. Okay, Lefties - let the squealing begin!

The man is dying and you see it necessary to keep him in prison based on grounds other than revenge? There are no grounds at all, no Scottish laws have been broken, and so the legal proceedings have all been completely lawful.

And yes many posts here appear revengeful and also hypocritical because of the failure of the US govt. to apologise to the Iranian's for murdering around 290 of their people.

Deterrence doesn't apply here, and so your point is irrelevant.

Are potential terrorists really going to commit terrorism because they may be released if they get cancer??!! I think they are more likely to commit terrorism because of the civilians that the US govt. murdered in 1988, and the other reckless actions.

It is far more useful to demonstrate how civilised we are in the west by releasing a dying man.

Who are the media or any of you here to say that the Libyan's celebrated the man as a hero because he bombed a plane? Human beings are irrational when it comes to celebrities, just because they celebrated his release does not mean they are all evil terrorists in wait plotting against us. They are just as likely to believe he's innocent or see this as progress towards better relations.

The whitehouse says the videos are disturbing - but did we really expect the man and his family not to be happy he was returning home after many years, just because we asked them not to show it! Were they supposed to look upset at his return??? I just do not understand the media's response towards this...... it's brainwashing everybody, and BBC news 24 are one of the worst by showing the video of his return about 20 times in a row as though they were celebrating the scenes over and over again.

So what??? We don't like the fact that Gaddafi hugged and kissed him.... it's their culture..... and our media are blowing it out of proportion! Sometimes we can't get everything we want, and the US govt. has to learn to grow up and not cry over small matters. And then there's the US govt. hypocrisy!!

For christ sake! He's going to die soon!! Is that not good enough for you!? Especially since the US gave peanuts in compensation to the Iranian's and refused to accept responsibility or apologise after 1988. It doesn't matter where people are from, even if you are arch-enemies within that country's govt. If you murder their civilians by mistake, you apologise because that is how we expect others to treat us at the very least. We proclaim to hold such high standards at all times, but yet we frown when others don't keep to those same standards.

The families can never be adequately compensated so it's pointless to accept some of their less than ojective views as anything more than what it is. Of course we listen, we pay respect, but we don't base our values on those who cannot see past their anger. As some of the families have managed to see past anger and aren't controlled by revenge; and see that it's better to let a dying guilty man go home, than let a potentially innocent man die in prison.

It's not like anybody with terminal cancer will ever be free, and to assume so is a moot point.

It is appalling and disturbing how far double-standards can go.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by john124]

"He's going to die soon"? He should have died two minutes after he was captured, face down in a muddy field. Apparently we learn nothing. His medical condition means absolutely nothing, nothing at all.

Well done for demonstrating how show no respect for the rule of law, and that you have no better values than the terrorists themselves.

The FBI director asks at the end of his letter: where's the justice?

The justice was him found guilty by the courts, and his death sentence of cancer.

Even the FBI director wants to take the law into his own hands by the sounds of it..... how many of American's have lost their values like this? I hope it's not too many!

[edit on 22-8-2009 by john124]

Are we even sure he was the one person to kill all those people?? I hate to say it, but i just cant believe anything told to me anymore.

If it was him, he should have been left to rot in jail, i'm just wondering what the propondance of the evidence was...

How can we believe what we're told?????

Originally posted by dgtempe
Are we even sure he was the one person to kill all those people?? I hate to say it, but i just cant believe anything told to me anymore.

If it was him, he should have been left to rot in jail, i'm just wondering what the propondance of the evidence was...

How can we believe what we're told?????

I doubt the British govt. has the guts to take appropriate actions that may embarrass the CIA and bring up the past for an investigation. Iran will not exactly cooperate either. And the US won't want the Iranian's to bring up the 1988 airliner incident either. So I'm afraid this will all end when he dies of cancer.... hoping it's sooner rather than later to end this whole debacle.

I think it took guts for this decision by the scottish, and I doubt the British govt. would have dared make a similar decision, because they just do whatever the American's say.

We may never know the truth about this for a long long time, or maybe we never will...... although he will die a guilty man according to the laws!

[edit on 22-8-2009 by john124]

This guy was completely innocent so you ignorant fools might want to update you info. If you don't believe me then listen to the father of one of the victims. Pretty much all the families believe this guy had nothing to do with it.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I thought we are supposed to deny ignorance on this forum? Yet so many of you hear the word terrorist and think you instantly know everything about everything. You are just embarrassing yourselves so I suggest you get off your lazy ass and do some research.

Look at all the faux rage coming from the Yanks.

They're not interested in his possible innocence only the fact
that Al Megrahi is a "convicted" killer.

Yeah cos the justice system is never wrong.

O.J Simpson anyone.

Originally posted by john124

It's not about what he deserves unless you are revengeful, it's about the high morals & standards that we uphold ourselves to treat others how we want to be treated.
[edit on 22-8-2009 by john124]

Well if I ever blow up a plane and kill a bunch of people, I want to be treated like a criminal and be killed.