Smirking_Saint Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 I wonder what duty free he will buy ? Matches ?? And some alcohol at plus 60% ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 last time i checked he was convicted and lost an appeal and dropped another... Firstly, his conviction in the first place was shaky to say the very least. I've been doing some research on this today and it appears that the man who positively identified Al Megrahi as the man that bought the clothes which were found in the suitcase which contained the bomb was 'buttered up' by the Scottish police, and that this is pretty much the extent of the evidence against him. Secondly, he did not 'lose' an appeal in 2002 - he was not given permission to lodge one in the first place. Not the same thing at all. The Scottish govt agency that investigates miscarriages of justice reviewed the case in 2007 and agreed that he had very good grounds on which to lodge an appeal, and he was subsequently given the go-ahead. Thirdly, the reason he has dropped his latest appeal is because it meant he would be allowed to go home to Libya to live out his days. He was given the option of dropping the appeal and going home, or continuing it and living out the rest of his life in a Scottish prison... I have been faced with an appalling choice: to risk dying in prison in the hope that my name is cleared posthumously or to return home still carrying the weight of the guilty verdict, which will never now be lifted. What would you have done? Read his full statement from today here Does that sound like the words of a murdering terrorist to any of you? Not me. I thought the whole point of terrorism was to admit to carrying it out so those they oppose, and indeed the rest of the world, know who did it. Don't all islamic terrorists go round screaming things like 'death to the infidels' or similar? I am well aware this is a poor stereotype but just making a point: Al Megrahi clearly does not fit that stereotype in any way. I'm sorry if this offends those who believe strongly in the integrity of the US and UK governments, and in the principle of 'An eye for an eye', but I do not believe this man was guilty at all, and I am saddened that by giving him no choice other than to drop his appeal, the truth will now never be known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 I can't be arsed to type his name, I'd never spell it right anyway, but to think he is the only and most guilty person is ridiculous. One person alone does not organise the biggest terrorist atrocity in the U.K ever. Anyway, if you look at the case carefully it's quite clear that he's Libya's fallman. By letting him take the blame and then giving out the compensation, it allowed Libya to get back onto the world stage. I'm glad we showed compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Should have let the bastard rot, I don't think compassion should be shown to mass murderers. What really stinks is that it was all about oil anyway, the government just want to keep Libya sweet, they don't give a monkeys about the feeling of the victims, it's all about the ££s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Bizzle Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 If i said what I really think then I would be banned. To say he's a f*cking c*nt is and understatement. Absolute scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 If i said what I really think then I would be banned. To say he's a f*cking c*nt is and understatement. Absolute scum. OMG, that's what I think about you!111 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Firstly, his conviction in the first place was shaky to say the very least. I've been doing some research on this today and it appears that the man who positively identified Al Megrahi as the man that bought the clothes which were found in the suitcase which contained the bomb was 'buttered up' by the Scottish police, and that this is pretty much the extent of the evidence against him. Secondly, he did not 'lose' an appeal in 2002 - he was not given permission to lodge one in the first place. Not the same thing at all. The Scottish govt agency that investigates miscarriages of justice reviewed the case in 2007 and agreed that he had very good grounds on which to lodge an appeal, and he was subsequently given the go-ahead. Thirdly, the reason he has dropped his latest appeal is because it meant he would be allowed to go home to Libya to live out his days. He was given the option of dropping the appeal and going home, or continuing it and living out the rest of his life in a Scottish prison... What would you have done? Read his full statement from today here Does that sound like the words of a murdering terrorist to any of you? Not me. I thought the whole point of terrorism was to admit to carrying it out so those they oppose, and indeed the rest of the world, know who did it. Don't all islamic terrorists go round screaming things like 'death to the infidels' or similar? I am well aware this is a poor stereotype but just making a point: Al Megrahi clearly does not fit that stereotype in any way. I'm sorry if this offends those who believe strongly in the integrity of the US and UK governments, and in the principle of 'An eye for an eye', but I do not believe this man was guilty at all, and I am saddened that by giving him no choice other than to drop his appeal, the truth will now never be known. Should have let the bastard rot, I don't think compassion should be shown to mass murderers. What really stinks is that it was all about oil anyway, the government just want to keep Libya sweet, they don't give a monkeys about the feeling of the victims, it's all about the ££s. Bexy, thanks you saved me the trouble of posting that. The biggest thing for me is that he was forced to give up his appeal in order to go home to die. What kind of logic is that? Admit you did it and we'll let you go free to die, carry on saying you're innocent and we'll make you rot? It doesn't make sense, it is in fact saying we only have compassion for people who admit to being mass murderers but not the people who continue to say they are not guilty. Aint forever - You may be right about it being £££'s however it could be the £££'s Libya needed rather than the ones we did - Libya needs the western world more than we need them. Having read what I can about the case I'm undecided - I'm suprised anyone can come to a conclusive judgement but I suppose it's easier to live in a black and white world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 OMG' date=' that's what I think about you!111[/quote'] +1................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 smirking saint wrote What sort of show does this send out to the boys and girls in Iraq and Afghanistan if we are willing to let some c*nt go home who is a CONVICTED TERRORIST Its not the first time the uk has done this look at Martin Mcginness and Gery Adams even further back look at Mr Menachem Begin or archibishop Makarios. What ever the reason for the libyans release today , he should have been advised to say nothing. Clearly he shows no remorse to the victims whether he was involved or not. And now he has returned home to all but a heroes welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Bexy I would be interested in you views of Martin Mcguiness in the context of this statement you made "Does that sound like the words of a murdering terrorist to any of you? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Seems to be a lot of misguided 'champagne lefties' on this fred. You should be utterly ashamed of youselves. Disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Seems to be a lot of misguided 'champagne lefties' on this fred. You should be utterly ashamed of youselves. Disgusting. I have thought this for a long time to be honest, lets gloss it all over and believe all is ok wot wot. Too much lets not annoy anybody unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Bexy I would be interested in you views of Martin Mcguiness in the context of this statement you made "Does that sound like the words of a murdering terrorist to any of you? " I really don't see how you can draw any comparisons between the two men. McGuiness was always open and proud about his involvement with the IRA, and yes I find it pretty sickening that he now finds himself in a position of such power in the NI Assembly because he clearly is a murdering bastard, and he has never denied this. Please could you explain how this relates in any way to the case of Al Megrahi - a man who was convicted on extremely dodgy evidence and has always maintained his innocence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickn Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Seems to be a lot of misguided 'champagne lefties' on this fred. You should be utterly ashamed of youselves. Disgusting. It always makes me laugh actually that the term 'leftie' is used as an insult yet all the reasoned and researched posts on here come from the 'champagne lefties' and the 'let him rot in hell', 'send him home in a box' comments come from people who just accept that anyone convicted of something is guilty. Of course there have never been any miscarriages of justice have there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 I feel like pouring all my Scottish whisky down the sink. I won't, but I feel like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 August, 2009 It always makes me laugh actually that the term 'leftie' is used as an insult yet all the reasoned and researched posts on here come from the 'champagne lefties' and the 'let him rot in hell', 'send him home in a box' comments come from people who just accept that anyone convicted of something is guilty. Of course there have never been any miscarriages of justice have there. Who is to say this is a misscarriage of justice ... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Who is to say this is a misscarriage of justice ... ? From Wiki... Megrahi's appeal against his conviction at the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial in January 2001 was refused on 14 March 2002 by a panel of five Scottish Judges at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. According to a report by the BBC, Dr Hans Köchler, one of the UN observers at the trial, expressed serious doubts about the fairness of the proceedings and spoke of a "spectacular miscarriage of justice". Second appeal On 28 June 2007 the SCCRC (Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) concluded its four-year review and, having uncovered evidence that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred, the Commission granted Megrahi leave to appeal against his Lockerbie bombing conviction for a second time. New information casting fresh doubts about Megrahi's conviction was examined at a procedural hearing at the Judicial Appeal Court (Court of Session building) in Edinburgh on 11 October 2007: 1. His lawyers claim that vital documents, which emanate from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and relate to the Mebo timer that allegedly detonated the Lockerbie bomb, were withheld from the trial defence team. 2. Tony Gauci, chief prosecution witness at the trial, is alleged to have been paid $2 million for testifying against Megrahi. 3. Mebo's owner, Edwin Bollier, has claimed that in 1991 the FBI offered him $4 million to testify that the timer fragment found near the scene of the crash was part of a Mebo MST-13 timer supplied to Libya. 4. Former employee of Mebo, Ulrich Lumpert, swore an affidavit in July 2007 that he had stolen a prototype MST-13 timer in 1989, and had handed it over to "a person officially investigating the Lockerbie case". It would seem that the principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' has been scandalously overlooked in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickn Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Who is to say this is a misscarriage of justice ... ? I don't know, I certainly didn't, I merely pointed out that certain people are more prepared to look into the facts (not that many are available) surrounding this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff leopard Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Seems to be a lot of misguided 'champagne lefties' on this fred. You should be utterly ashamed of youselves. Disgusting. What does champagne leftie mean? Some one that doesn't automatically regergitate tabloid headlines, written by retards for retards? In which case, cheers, that’s a great compliment. I feel like pouring all my Scottish whisky down the sink. I won't, but I feel like it. Scotland should be commended for standing up to the US, we could learn a thing or two from them. Who is to say this is a misscarriage of justice ... ? Just about anyone outside of America. This whole thing is political, the UK and Libya have a struck a trade agreement and the release of matey was obviously a key part of this. Its not right but that’s how it is. Comrade, my flute needs refreshing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Like u have said before... Have read slot of reaction from oher on the web. One common theme to many views who agree with him being released is that it was the opposite to what the yanks want. Nothing more. Clearly not all think that but it is a common theme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Exactly. I admit I don't know the ins and outs of the case, but it has been suggested for many years that his conviction was about as safe as a taxi ride with a blind driver. Yes it's odd how the Maltese shop owner moved to Australia after the trial on the back of the US giving him a shed load of cash....... And I might his part in the conviction was instrumental Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 and for what it's worth, who else on here thinks it's a tad hypocritical of the US and the families of the Lockberbie victims to talk about this being about oil and trade. Cheeky ****s. Gulf war 1 was about freeing poor little Kuwait, my arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Should have let the bastard rot, I don't think compassion should be shown to mass murderers. What really stinks is that it was all about oil anyway, the government just want to keep Libya sweet, they don't give a monkeys about the feeling of the victims, it's all about the ££s. And those cheeky ****s in America don't base all of their decisions on trade and oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 i bet there are a hell of a lot more than want him to rot in prison If the victims relatives can forgive him that says alot to me. I'm sure they don't give a **** what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 August, 2009 If the victims relatives can forgive him that says alot to me. I'm sure they don't give a **** what you think. have they forgiven him..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 have they forgiven him..? Many have, yes. And many also don't believe he is guilty either. That speaks volumes IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Many have, yes. And many also don't believe he is guilty either. That speaks volumes IMO. I just wonder if out of the 270 families...how many have forgiven him and how many want him to rot in prison..? I guess we will never know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 I just wonder if out of the 270 families...how many have forgiven him and how many want him to rot in prison..? I guess we will never know well clearly not all of them have shown any forgiveness. It was depressingly inevitable (although, I admit, understandable) that we would have american relatives on TV yesterday speaking of their outrage at this decision based on their bitter need for revenge and their blind faith in the justice system that convicted him in the first place. One woman who was interviewed said "The people of the UK should be ashamed of themselves" - as if an entire population is at fault and should be condemned for Kenny McCaskill's decision. I find it amazing, but not in the least bit surprising, that people can allow their blinkered hatred to influence them into making such ridiculous generalisations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 August, 2009 One woman who was interviewed said "The people of the UK should be ashamed of themselves" - as if an entire population is at fault and should be condemned for Kenny McCaskill's decision. I find it amazing, but not in the least bit surprising, that people can allow their blinkered hatred to influence them into making such ridiculous generalisations. you just said you could understand their frustrations.. surely, such generalisation is saif in just that...pure anger and frustration.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 surely, such generalisation is saif in just that...pure anger and frustration.. If so, why should be listen to their views? Speaking in the "heat of the moment" almost always involves an unjustified view. I would not go to someone who has just had a family member murdered to ask their view on punishment for murder victims, you would not get a considered response. The fact that many Scottish families have been able to show compassion speaks wonders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 August, 2009 If so, why should be listen to their views? Speaking in the "heat of the moment" almost always involves an unjustified view. I would not go to someone who has just had a family member murdered to ask their view on punishment for murder victims, you would not get a considered response. The fact that many Scottish families have been able to show compassion speaks wonders. again..I reckon (we both dont know either way) that there are far more who would rather he rot and died in prison.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 you just said you could understand their frustrations.. surely, such generalisation is saif in just that...pure anger and frustration.. I can understand why somebody might be so consumed by bitterness towards somebody for something they may or may not have done, that they could not find it within them to show any compassion or forgiveness. I suppose I should consider myself lucky that nobody close to me has ever been murdered, so I can't say for certain that I would not feel the same way if I ever did find myself in that situation. What I cannot understand is why somebody would decide, and state publically, that an entire nation of people should be ashamed of themselves because they disagree with the decision of just one member of that population. No amount of anger or frustration could ever lead me to that conclusion myself. It would be like blaming the entire population of Germany for the actions of the U-boat commander who gave the order to torpedo the ship my great grandfather was serving on when he was killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 but you are not scottish and you never had a plane falling on your head..along with body parts I would be interested to see how many people from lockerbie agree with this ruling They were talking to a Lockerbie resident on Radio 4 this morning. He said that they viewed it as an accident as whoever set the bomb didn't do it so the plane would crash on Lockerbie, that was just a side effect. Most Lockerbie people had no problem with him being sent home to die. Many of them thought he was innocent. I wouldn't discount the hand of the CIA in this. In the 80's Reagan was desperate for an excuse to attack Libya. I saw a very interesting documentary on the shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher which produced evidence that the bullet could not have been fired from the embassy but from another building which had been rented by some secretive american gentlemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 To believe he was solely behind the terrorist act is to believe Bin Laden was solely behind 9/11, the whole thing stinks, from his 'capture' to his release smacks of ulterior motive. I read that a Scottish police chief accused the CIA of planting evidence to tie the explosion to Libya, it revolved around a piece of circuit board from a timing device found in woodland miles away from Lockerbie months later. It stinks that America have the audacity to suggest our Government are alone in making decisions based on trade between nations, you only have to look at after any 'occupation' how American owned companies gain huge contracts in the region, Halliburton is the first one that springs to mind, since the lifting of sanctions after Gadaffi supported the war on terror post 9/11 how many KFC'S, McDonalds are there in Libya, conspiracies huh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 I wouldn't discount the hand of the CIA in this. In the 80's Reagan was desperate for an excuse to attack Libya. It's funny, saw something on the news last night, Iran was always the principal country involved, but just prior to the gulf war the focus moved to Libya. Mmmmm, the US needed Iran onside at the time. Could all be conjecture the Iran did "promise" to down 10 US planes after the navy shot down an Iranian airliner. We'll never get to the truth but I do believe this man was a scapegoat though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 They were talking to a Lockerbie resident on Radio 4 this morning. He said that they viewed it as an accident as whoever set the bomb didn't do it so the plane would crash on Lockerbie, that was just a side effect. Phew, thank god for that. Would you free Rhys Jones' killer (Sean Mercer) as he was not actually trying to kill poor Rhys at the time? The bullet was meant for a rival gang member and unfortunately Sean missed his intended target. Perhaps we should put Sean through counselling to cope with the stress of the whole situation? Or perhaps we should send him on target practice sessions so that when he is released early on compassionate grounds, he won't kill anyone innocent next time? Do I get some champers now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 It always makes me laugh actually that the term 'leftie' is used as an insult yet all the reasoned and researched posts on here come from the 'champagne lefties' and the 'let him rot in hell', 'send him home in a box' comments come from people who just accept that anyone convicted of something is guilty. Of course there have never been any miscarriages of justice have there. Don't we have an appeal process for people that have been wrongly imprisoned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418663325&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull A very interesting read from the Jerusalem Post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418663325&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull A very interesting read from the Jerusalem Post. That is very interesting, and perhaps delldays thinks the US scum that murdered 290 people in an Iranian passenger jet should rot in prison. Hopefully an Iranian one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 (edited) That is very interesting, and perhaps delldays thinks the US scum that murdered 290 people in an Iranian passenger jet should rot in prison. Hopefully an Iranian one? Only if the Labour scum that attacked Iraq illegally (and were ultimately responsible for many more deaths) rot in an Iraqi prison. See where the blame game leads you? Edited 21 August, 2009 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Only if the Labour scum that attacked Iraq illegally (and were ultimately responsible for many more deaths) rot in an Iraqi prison. See where the blame game leads you? Agree, Labour are scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418663325&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull A very interesting read from the Jerusalem Post. That article is just complete ******, the Libyan's appeal would uncover absolutely nothing because he's going to pop his clogs in a couple of months. That undeniable fact blow's their whole theory out the water. The mass murderer was released to help BP get oil contracts (Oh there just happens to be a royal visit planned soon as well), the whole thing stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 That article is just complete ******, the Libyan's appeal would uncover absolutely nothing because he's going to pop his clogs in a couple of months. That undeniable fact blow's their whole theory out the water. The mass murderer was released to help BP get oil contracts (Oh there just happens to be a royal visit planned soon as well), the whole thing stinks. the investigators were convinced that the bomb that brought down Flight 103, killing 270 people, had been concealed in a Toshiba radio-cassette recorder - a bomb highly similar to four devices that had been found in the possession of members of the PFLP-GC arrested in a Frankfurt suburb just weeks before. The cell was said to have been planning attacks on airplanes heading to the US and Israel; the bombs it had built were detonated by a barometric pressure device and timer, designed to activate when a plane reached a certain altitude. It was reported that a fifth bomb had been built and had disappeared - presumably the bomb that blew up Flight 103. It was also reported at the time that American intelligence had established that the PFLP-GC had been paid $10 million by Iran to carry out the Lockerbie bombing. So, let me get this straight. The bomb was similar to those being created by a cell in Frankfurt. The CIA had a link between the cell and Iran via $10m dollars. You think this is all coincedence? The main link to this fella was a circuit board and a dodgy identification by a shop owner in Malta. Who couldn't remember when he sold the clothes to Al Mahgrahi (sp?!) and amazingly managed to see a picture before the ID parade. Oh added to that he managed to emigrate to Australia after being given a large sum of money by the US authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 The mass murderer was released to help BP get oil contracts (Oh there just happens to be a royal visit planned soon as well), the whole thing stinks. Oh please do get in the real world, this sort of **** happens with every nation. Don't you find it amazing that the majority of the rebuilding contracts for Iraq have gone to US companies. I'm not saying it's right, but this is not the first decision made to oil (pardon the pun) the wheels of industry. Tell me gulf war one with thousands killed wasn't for oil? Thats aside from the fact that there is a real doubt about the whole conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 OK, those on here that are for his release seem to be on the grounds of an apparent miscarriage of justice - this is totally different to being released on compassionate grounds. Therefore, let me ask the following question: If he was nailed on guilty, admitted to it and there was no doubt about his conviction, would those in favour of his release still be in favour of releasing a convicted terrorist on compassionate grounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 OK, those on here that are for his release seem to be on the grounds of an apparent miscarriage of justice - this is totally different to being released on compassionate grounds. Therefore, let me ask the following question: If he was nailed on guilty, admitted to it and there was no doubt about his conviction, would those in favour of his release still be in favour of releasing a convicted terrorist on compassionate grounds? I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 OK, those on here that are for his release seem to be on the grounds of an apparent miscarriage of justice - this is totally different to being released on compassionate grounds. Therefore, let me ask the following question: If he was nailed on guilty, admitted to it and there was no doubt about his conviction, would those in favour of his release still be in favour of releasing a convicted terrorist on compassionate grounds? Seeing as his health will have deteriorated to the point that he would no longer be a threat to anybody, and that he will be certain to die a slow and painful death from cancer anyway, yes I would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 That is very interesting, and perhaps delldays thinks the US scum that murdered 290 people in an Iranian passenger jet should rot in prison. Hopefully an Iranian one? Only if the Labour scum that attacked Iraq illegally (and were ultimately responsible for many more deaths) rot in an Iraqi prison. See where the blame game leads you? You guys are seriously deluded comparing the Lockerbie bombing to either Iran Air 655 or the invasion of Iraq. The Lockerbie bombing was a deliberate act of terrorism aimed at killing as may inocent civilians as possible. IR655 was a (very negligent) accident when the USS Vincennes thought it was under attack during the Iran-Iraq war. We could argue until the end of time about the rights and wrongs of the recent invasion of Iraq, but killing innocent civilians was never on the agenda. Oh please do get in the real world, this sort of **** happens with every nation. Don't you find it amazing that the majority of the rebuilding contracts for Iraq have gone to US companies. I'm not saying it's right, but this is not the first decision made to oil (pardon the pun) the wheels of industry. Tell me gulf war one with thousands killed wasn't for oil? Thats aside from the fact that there is a real doubt about the whole conviction. Yes, to stop an evil tyrant with the 4th largest army in the world from controlling half the Wests oil supplies. It wasnt about greed or industrial back-hands at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stax Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Its disgusting the man killed 270 people, and i think he has served 11 years, he should have died in prison instead of flying home to a heros welcome. But thats the soft justice country we live in thanks to 12 years of Labours miss rule. Doesnt the perpetrator of the crime always come before the victims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 OK, those on here that are for his release seem to be on the grounds of an apparent miscarriage of justice - this is totally different to being released on compassionate grounds. Therefore, let me ask the following question: If he was nailed on guilty, admitted to it and there was no doubt about his conviction, would those in favour of his release still be in favour of releasing a convicted terrorist on compassionate grounds? No. If he had admitted to it or it was as nailed on as can be I'd want him to rot. In this case I've always believed him to be a patsy and it's high level real politik at play, and always has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now