or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scotland releases terrorist to die.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scotland releases terrorist to die. - Page 2

Poll Results: Is it good that the Lockerbie bomber has been released?

 
  • 52% (9)
    No it's not.
  • 29% (5)
    It's a good law but shouldn't have been used in this case.
  • 17% (3)
    It's a good law and was used wisely.
17 Total Votes  
post #41 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

mpw, I'll continue this discussion...

Don't bother
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

...when you discontinue the making of strawmen...

I haven't
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

...If you want to know what I think, ask...

I have, but you haven't answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

...Making shit up is stupid...

I agree, which is why I haven't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

...Stop...

As I've said I haven't made anything up, except my opinion. Care to point out what you're talking about? if I'm wrong I'm big enough to admit my mistakes; I trust you will be too.
post #42 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Hands, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. There was unanimous agreement by the panel of 3 judges, listed here directly from the verdict - "There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused [al Megrahi], and accordingly we find him guilty of the remaining charge in the Indictment as amended."

So, do you have better evidence ... or perhaps you're a better judge of the issue than the 3 judges who convicted al Megrahi? I'm not sure why you made that entire post. The case is over, the guy is guilty. That fight is done.

Then you post about proposed policy statement changes...these haven't been approved by Congress, and given the attention this particular "compassionate release" issue has brought to the attention of Congress, I'd not be surprised to see the whole thing canned.

Other than an attempt to obfuscate the situation (which is the only thing I can guess you're trying to do), is there anything specific you're trying to accomplish?

I was apprehended and interrogated by the Carabiniere over terrorism concerns alongside an off duty British military officer thanks to a dumb ass American tourist in Italy about 15 years ago. We were all released after a couple of hours but it sort of helps me to understand how easily the law could make wrong conclusions.

I don't know if this guy didn't do the bombing, but any rational person would have to say the trial was unacceptable, unless you like letting the real culprits go free. I would hope that there will be much more coming out about this now he's out. This whole thing is far from over and indeed you may find that someone you'd like to have had blown-up becomes someone you're quite happy to see die peacefully.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #43 of 112
I think we need to ask the question, "What would the US and Israel gain from such a bombing". The answer is obvious, "A lot". Therefore we can conclude that the CIA and Mossad had a hand in this.
post #44 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I think we need to ask the question, "What would the US and Israel gain from such a bombing". The answer is obvious, "A lot". Therefore we can conclude that the CIA and Mossad had a hand in this.

No, you can not.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #45 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

No, you can not.

You're ignoring the obvious.
post #46 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

You're ignoring the obvious.

No, I am not.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #47 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

No, you can not.

I think Floorjack's reply was sarcastic....

But....perhaps, never a truer word was spoken in jest. I am not suggesting that this was the case here, although there was sworn testimony given in the Megrahi case that pointed to such.

Those who gain by terrorism have on countless times in history used such, even against their own people or nation, while blaming an established enemy, in order to gain public support for a program, agenda, or war(s) that would otherwise be a no-go in the minds of the public of that nation.

"False flags" are very commonplace. Whenever there's a major terrorist case (or other "funny business" that leads to war), they should be considered as one of the more likely scenarios; they are a common modus operandum in politics, and many nations have tried such methods sometime in their histories.

"False flags" sometimes don't even require actual violence to get the public support for an agenda. 3 of the US recent major wars all started as a result of a variant on the false flag principle, by solely using deception:

(a) Gulf of Tonkin Incident. A public not keen on a military involvement in south east Asia were swayed by this report of North Vietnamese military aggression, splayed all over the US media, which never checked into the accuracy of the story. It never happened.

(b) 1991 Gulf War. The US public was split 50:50 on whether to support a US led coalition to respond to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The GHWB admin, itching for military action, hatched a plot with the PR firm Hill Knowlton and the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador: Along comes came the outrageous, emotionally sapping, tear-jerking story of Kuwaiti babies being tossed out of incubators by Saddam's army to die on the unheated hospital floors. The US mainstream media lapped up the story and gave it blanket coverage (again without checking their sources' credibility), and spoon-fed the gullible US public. Overall support for military action rocketed to 90%, and other nations bought into it as well. Mission accomplished, indeed. The problem being, the Kuwaiti babies story was 100% bogus.

(c) 2003-2XXX Iraq War. The GWB admin. was busting for war, and had been planning it since well before 9/11. The neocons got Colin Powell to lie to the world in his UN speech all about WMDs, including mobile bioweapons labs which could launch biological and chemical weapons at 45 minutes notice. The US public was scared near shitless by Fox, CNN and the rest, with stores quickly selling out of plastic sheeting and duct tape. None of this stuff was true, ad the admin knew it all along...., but the media, as usual never checking the veracity of this material and sources, did their part in persuading the public to support the invasion. (This case is slightly different, as GWB was going ahead with the war, no matter what).

Floorjack mentioned Israel (probably in jest), but really, that nation would probably not exist today if it wasn't for the terrorist activities of the Irgun and Stern Gang etc.... and being a very small nation in an area surrounded by larger and hostile nations, they had had to pull every trick in the book. Mossad even has as their motto "By Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War". (I am not justifying the way that Israel got started, but the circumstances of WWII did make for a special case in the minds of most).

Its not wild conspiracy speculation to suggest alternative realities to the often fabricated fairy tales presented by government(s) of all stripes and political persuasions, all over the world, with mainstream media always dutifully in tow. Governments (including ours) have lied and pulled so many stunts like the above (and on occasions far, far worse), on so many occasions, that we really have shaky grounds to believe their versions of such events, as regards the motivation and/or perps behind major events relating to terrorism and the motivation for wars that often follow.

Perhaps our blanket denial is expected: we all feel disbelief and outrage when told unacceptable news, for example, 'I am sorry, but your favorite uncle just happens to be a child molester".
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #48 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

You're ignoring the obvious.

Unless you were being hugely sarcastic. If so you were short a few smileys. Otherwise the sure thing attitude with only speculation does not fly in any serious argument.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #49 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I think Floorjack's reply was sarcastic....

But....perhaps, never a truer word was spoken in jest. I am not suggesting that this was the case here, although there was sworn testimony given in the Megrahi case that pointed to such.

Those who gain by terrorism have on countless times in history used such, even against their own people or nation, while blaming an established enemy, in order to gain public support for a program, agenda, or war(s) that would otherwise be a no-go in the minds of the public of that nation.

"False flags" are very commonplace. Whenever there's a major terrorist case (or other "funny business" that leads to war), they should be considered as one of the more likely scenarios; they are a common modus operandum in politics, and many nations have tried such methods sometime in their histories.

"False flags" sometimes don't even require actual violence to get the public support for an agenda. 3 of the US recent major wars all started as a result of a variant on the false flag principle, by solely using deception:

(a) Gulf of Tonkin Incident. A public not keen on a military involvement in south east Asia were swayed by this report of North Vietnamese military aggression, splayed all over the US media, which never checked into the accuracy of the story. It never happened.

(b) 1991 Gulf War. The US public was split 50:50 on whether to support a US led coalition to respond to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The GHWB admin, itching for military action, hatched a plot with the PR firm Hill Knowlton and the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador: Along comes came the outrageous, emotionally sapping, tear-jerking story of Kuwaiti babies being tossed out of incubators by Saddam's army to die on the unheated hospital floors. The US mainstream media lapped up the story and gave it blanket coverage (again without checking their sources' credibility), and spoon-fed the gullible US public. Overall support for military action rocketed to 90%, and other nations bought into it as well. Mission accomplished, indeed. The problem being, the Kuwaiti babies story was 100% bogus.

(c) 2003-2XXX Iraq War. The GWB admin. was busting for war, and had been planning it since well before 9/11. The neocons got Colin Powell to lie to the world in his UN speech all about WMDs, including mobile bioweapons labs which could launch biological and chemical weapons at 45 minutes notice. The US public was scared near shitless by Fox, CNN and the rest, with stores quickly selling out of plastic sheeting and duct tape. None of this stuff was true, ad the admin knew it all along...., but the media, as usual never checking the veracity of this material and sources, did their part in persuading the public to support the invasion. (This case is slightly different, as GWB was going ahead with the war, no matter what).

Floorjack mentioned Israel (probably in jest), but really, that nation would probably not exist today if it wasn't for the terrorist activities of the Irgun and Stern Gang etc.... and being a very small nation in an area surrounded by larger and hostile nations, they had had to pull every trick in the book. Mossad even has as their motto "By Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War". (I am not justifying the way that Israel got started, but the circumstances of WWII did make for a special case in the minds of most).

Its not wild conspiracy speculation to suggest alternative realities to the often fabricated fairy tales presented by government(s) of all stripes and political persuasions, all over the world, with mainstream media always dutifully in tow. Governments (including ours) have lied and pulled so many stunts like the above (and on occasions far, far worse), on so many occasions, that we really have shaky grounds to believe their versions of such events, as regards the motivation and/or perps behind major events relating to terrorism and the motivation for wars that often follow.

Perhaps our blanket denial is expected: we all feel disbelief and outrage when told unacceptable news, for example, 'I am sorry, but your favorite uncle just happens to be a child molester".

Thanks for a great post sammi jo. Floorjack...well, not so much. Obama recently apologized for the US role in the Iran coup, does that mean he hates the US and Israel?....well if your Floorjack it probably does. Sheesh!

"The 1953 Iranian coup d’état deposed the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq.[1][2][3]
Several years earlier, Mossaddeq, backed by his nationalist supporters in the Iranian parliament, had angered Britain with his argument that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves instead of allowing profits to continue to flow to Britain through its control of Iran's oil industry. In 1951, Mossaddeq nationalised Iran's oil industry which had been controlled exclusively by the British government-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company,[4][5] the UK's largest single investment overseas.[6] The ejection of Western oil companies from their Iranian refineries triggered the Abadan Crisis and nearly caused a war. Britain accused Mosaddeq of violating the legal rights of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and mobilized a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil that plunged Iran into financial crisis. The British government tried to enlist the United States in planning a coup, but President Harry S. Truman refused. However, his successor Dwight D. Eisenhower allowed the CIA to embark on its first covert operation against a foreign government.[7] The British and U.S. spy agencies, in what the CIA called Operation Ajax, replaced the government of the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq with an all-powerful monarch, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who ruled for the next 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.


US support and funding continued after the coup, with the CIA training the Shah's feared and hated secret police, SAVAK. Originally, the Eisenhower Administration considered Operation Ajax a successful secret war, but, given its blowback, it is now considered a failure, because of its "haunting and terrible legacy".[13] The anti-democratic coup d’état was a "a critical event in post-war world history" that replaced Iran’s post-monarchic, native, and secular parliamentary democracy with a dictatorship.[14] The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the Shah and replaced the pro-Western monarchy with the anti-Western Islamic Republic of Iran."
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

Got to love how some profit no matter what the risks might be, even to their own citizen's. Much of Iran hates the UK and US still over this.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #50 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

<snip>
Got to love how some profit no matter what the risks might be, even to their own citizen's. Much of Iran hates the UK and US still over this.

Nooo.... Our culture and our democracy is better than what you have. Join the borg, be an American. It is the only way of life that is good for you; because we say so! Oh wait, you don't have any natural resources that we can plunder? Go hump a camel like the rest of Africa you piece of shit, you uncouth ingrate!
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #51 of 112
Thread Starter 
Oooops! Too late.

"Next..."

"The state forensic commission in Texas is still finishing its work on Willingham's case, but David Grann's New Yorker article examines the entire case, including the jailhouse informant who plainly gave false testimony and the circumstantial evidence, flimsy in the first place, that was not what it appeared to be to the jury. After reading Grann's report, fair-minded people will know beyond a reasonable doubt that an innocent person was executed."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_272490.html
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #52 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Oooops! Too late.

"Next..."

"The state forensic commission in Texas is still finishing its work on Willingham's case, but David Grann's New Yorker article examines the entire case, including the jailhouse informant who plainly gave false testimony and the circumstantial evidence, flimsy in the first place, that was not what it appeared to be to the jury. After reading Grann's report, fair-minded people will know beyond a reasonable doubt that an innocent person was executed."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_272490.html

Wow, simply wow. (Disturbing to say the least.)
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #53 of 112
So, the media should replace the judiciary. Yeah, that makes sense.
post #54 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

So, the media should replace the judiciary. Yeah, that makes sense.

No, but the media, like say a private detective or lawyer can play a vital role. I think the death penalty is a bad idea. States that have it, have higher murder rares than states that don't. The list goes on.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #55 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

No, but the media, like say a private detective or lawyer can play a vital role.

There's a prosecutor and a defender in court, ethically bound to represent the respective sides of a legal argument. They are committed to those roles by law. The media is committed to ... well, perhaps once upon a time in a land far, far away they were committed to the truth, but these days they're committed to "selling papers", so to speak.
Quote:
I think the death penalty is a bad idea.

It's a hot topic and I respect folks opinions on it, but there is a certain logic in the fact that someone can't re-offend afterward.
Quote:
States that have it, have higher murder rares than states that don't. The list goes on.

There's no obvious correlation between those facts - It's just as likely that there would be even higher murder rates if capital punishment was not an option. In my opinion, the best argument against capital punishment is that it isn't a behavioral deterrent, it's a solution to a logistical issue - "what to do with a murderer"?
post #56 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

So, the media should replace the judiciary. Yeah, that makes sense.

They have, to an extent, or have become a part of the "justice" system. People are "tried by media" on a regular basis.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #57 of 112
Thread Starter 
"An investigation by a Chicago-area journalism class and an Associated
Press reporter is raising questions about a Texas death penalty case.

Northwestern University Professor David Protess said he believes the
evidence his eight students uncovered exonerates Henry W. Skinner for
the 1993 murders of his live-in girlfriend and her two mentally-
impaired sons in the Panhandle city of Pampa."
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #58 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

They have, to an extent, or have become a part of the "justice" system. People are "tried by media" on a regular basis.

Recently there was a case being made against a woman named "Lori Drew", who lived minutes away from my house. If the media (especially in my area) could have tried the case, the woman would have been put away for a long time.

As it was, the case was thrown out. Sure, not before a lengthy battle which I'm sure cost her an arm and a leg, but still...

What she did was stupid, but not illegal, and that's what the court basically decided.
post #59 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

It's a hot topic and I respect folks opinions on it, but there is a certain logic in the fact that someone can't re-offend afterward.
There's no obvious correlation between those facts - It's just as likely that there would be even higher murder rates if capital punishment was not an option. In my opinion, the best argument against capital punishment is that it isn't a behavioral deterrent, it's a solution to a logistical issue - "what to do with a murderer"?

The death penalty (excuse the euphemism) would be easier" to swallow (but still imho utterly unacceptable) if we had a "perfect" justice system, where there was a 100% certainty that everyone who was convicted happened to be actually guilty. The system is light years from being "perfect" (because human beings are involved) .... and that's being really generous.

Re. the old "deterrent" argument; See statistics here In 2007, the average murder rate of death penalty states was 5.5, while the average murder rate of states without the death penalty was 3.1. (a 77% difference). From these figures, it seems as if the death penalty is an "inverted deterrent".
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #60 of 112
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #61 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The death penalty (excuse the euphemism) would be easier" to swallow (but still imho utterly unacceptable) if we had a "perfect" justice system, where there was a 100% certainty that everyone who was convicted happened to be actually guilty. The system is light years from being "perfect" (because human beings are involved) .... and that's being really generous.

Re. the old "deterrent" argument; See statistics here In 2007, the average murder rate of death penalty states was 5.5, while the average murder rate of states without the death penalty was 3.1. (a 77% difference). From these figures, it seems as if the death penalty is an "inverted deterrent".

There's also the fact that the US spends billions of dollars more than it otherwise would because it has the death penalty. California alone would save about $1 billion over the next five years if it abolished the death penalty today. That's a lot of money that could go to the police in helping to catch criminals and thereby help to save lives, instead of California laying off hundreds of police officers as it is today.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #62 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

...Re. the old "deterrent" argument; See statistics here In 2007, the average murder rate of death penalty states was 5.5, while the average murder rate of states without the death penalty was 3.1. (a 77% difference). From these figures, it seems as if the death penalty is an "inverted deterrent".

Do you believe that the abolition of the death penalty in those States currently operating with it would result in a fall in the averge murder rate of 40%+?

If not then what you're saying is that those murders are not because of the use of the death penalty in those states, and therefore your last sentence is a total red-herring.

I'd love to see a survey conducted of all prisoners on death-row which asked(those that admit guilt); "Did you murder because this state had a death penalty?" then ask all all those serving life for murder in the other states; "Did you murder because you knew the state would not pass the death sentence?"

I'm guessing that the answers would prove your statistics prove nothing.
post #63 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpw View Post

I'm guessing that the answers would prove your statistics prove nothing.

If so, it would simultaneously show that the death penalty is no deterrent.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #64 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

If so, it would simultaneously show that the death penalty is no deterrent.

Or, most likely, there's no correlation between the two.
post #65 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

This thing is heating up:

Lockerbie paper trail leads to Gordon Brown

I think it's fair to say the US has already heated up over this. Good for Gordon, I'm glad some folks have some sense!
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #66 of 112
This story got some airing in the UK Daily Express, a very mainstream and traditionally moderately conservative (by world, not US standards) national daily paper.

Quote:

(extract)

However, Christine Grahame MSP, who visited Megrahi in Greenock prison and campaigned for his release, is believed to be considering naming the man in the Scottish Parliament chamber.
\t
She said: “It is apparent that US intelligence has known or must have known the primary suspect of the Lockerbie bombing was alive and living safely in Washington.

“There has been a suggestion made that he is in some way an ‘intelligence asset’ for the US and that is why he has been allowed to live in peace.

“He must be deeply relieved that Megrahi was forced to drop his appeal and that he will never face justice for this atrocity.”

Yesterday, Megrahi promised that before he dies he will present new evidence gathered for the appeal which will exonerate him. He said he will call on the British and Scottish people “to be the jury”.

The man Megrahi believes was Abu Elias now lives in a suburban neighbourhood near Washington’s Dulles airport, just a few miles from the White House and the Lockerbie memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. He even has his own Facebook social network page.

He is the nephew of Syrian terror warlord Ahmed Jibril, the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC).

Wake up and smell the patsy?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #67 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

This story got some airing in the UK Daily Express, a very mainstream and traditionally moderately conservative (by world, not US standards) national daily paper.



Wake up and smell the patsy?

There's no way in hell that Gordon Brown would have wanted Megrahi released if he didn't think that he is innocent. He must also know why he is innocent and I suspect he knows who's the protagonists are in covering it up.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #68 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

If so, it would simultaneously show that the death penalty is no deterrent.

Er, no; you're wrong... and I note you didn't bother to try and answer my question.
post #69 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

There's no way in hell that Gordon Brown would have wanted Megrahi released if he didn't think that he is innocent. He must also know why he is innocent and I suspect he knows who's the protagonists are in covering it up.

What's Brown's favorite color? How 'bout his favorite ice cream flavor?

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100 - what is it?
post #70 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

What's Brown's favorite color? How 'bout his favorite ice cream flavor?

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100 - what is it?

Red
Blackberry
Ten
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #71 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Red
Blackberry
Ten

OMG! You ARE psychic!
post #72 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

There's no way in hell that Gordon Brown would have wanted Megrahi released if he didn't think that he is innocent. He must also know why he is innocent and I suspect he knows who's the protagonists are in covering it up.

Now that's the common sense inference. Of course, there are always those who prefer to take leave of their common sense in order to preserve their comfort zones ... and/or the status quo should they be in a position to do that, and blow fuses at the mere suggestion that "mistakes have been made" or "they even got the wrong guy" or "they got a person so now the case is completely solved" or worst of all, there might have been "complicity on the part of officials or government agencies".....

.... because we all know that people in positions of power are, by default, angelic, singularly benevolent, and terminally incorruptible, don't we.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #73 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpw View Post

Er, no; you're wrong... and I note you didn't bother to try and answer my question.

No, because you won that round of the argument. But the factor that explains the universally higher murder rate in death penalty states remains at large. How about we put it down to bizarre, anomalous, improbable coincidence. After all, that kinda explanation seems to get a fair bit of traction these days.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #74 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

No, because you won that round of the argument. But the factor that explains the universally higher murder rate in death penalty states remains at large. How about we put it down to bizarre, anomalous, improbable coincidence. After all, that kinda explanation seems to get a fair bit of traction these days.

What is the historical murder rate in those states? Has it always been higher than the national average? If so, perhaps that is why they kept the death penalty, as a response to the fact that there is a greater need for it?

The above is all conjecture, but it approaches the issue from the reverse perspective, crime rate mandates need for death penalty rather than death penalty causes higher crime rate.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #75 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

...But the factor that explains the universally higher murder rate in death penalty states remains at large. How about we put it down to bizarre, anomalous, improbable coincidence...

I don't think there is 'a factor', I think there's a number of factors; some probably related, some not.

I think that if you're looking for one, simple, neat answer you're never going to find it. Your previous post you appear to imply that some people are taking leave of common sense because they refuse to believe, as you appear to, that "There's no way in hell that Gordon Brown would have wanted Megrahi released if he didn't think that he is innocent. He must also know why he is innocent and I suspect he knows who's the protagonists are in covering it up."

Are there no circumstances under which you believe a national leader could allow the release of a convicted criminal he knew/believed to be guilty? Is it really common sense to say that a national leader must know these things? Do you believe that Gordon Brown is really part of an international cover-up of mass-murder?
post #76 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Now that's the common sense inference

How is it "common sense" to ignore that Brown himself said about the issue?

Quote:
Speaking in Birmingham, Mr Brown said: "There was no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to instruct Scottish ministers, no private assurances by me to Colonel Gaddafi."
...
"It is in all our interests and Britain's national interest that Libya rejoins the international community. So it was the duty of those responsible to look at all possible outcomes of the Megrahi case and their effect on our relations with Libya and on international terrorism and nuclear proliferation."

Seems "common sense" took a left hand turn and ended up ....

in the PO Twilight Zone!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...kerbie-release
post #77 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

How is it "common sense" to ignore that Brown himself said about the issue?

Speaking in Birmingham, Mr Brown said:

"There was no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to instruct Scottish ministers, no private assurances by me to Colonel Gaddafi."
...
"It is in all our interests and Britain's national interest that Libya rejoins the international community. So it was the duty of those responsible to look at all possible outcomes of the Megrahi case and their effect on our relations with Libya and on international terrorism and nuclear proliferation."

Of course he's going to say that, or words to that effect! (!)
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #78 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Of course he's going to say that, or words to that effect! (!)

'Of course' because it's the truth; or 'Of course' because it's a lie?

You don't know what you're talking about.
post #79 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Now that's the common sense inference. Of course, there are always those who prefer to take leave of their common sense in order to preserve their comfort zones ... and/or the status quo should they be in a position to do that, and blow fuses at the mere suggestion that "mistakes have been made" or "they even got the wrong guy" or "they got a person so now the case is completely solved" or worst of all, there might have been "complicity on the part of officials or government agencies".....

.... because we all know that people in positions of power are, by default, angelic, singularly benevolent, and terminally incorruptible, don't we.

LOL, ain't that the truth!

Have you seen "Lockerbie and the CIA", amongst others- http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk..._cover-ups.htm
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #80 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Of course he's going to say that, or words to that effect! (!)

Then "common sense" is when you totally ignore what someone says and make up a conspiracy theory?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scotland releases terrorist to die.