bridge too far 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? Err - it was a Scottish parliament decision. The majority party in Scotland is the SNP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution 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? I honestly don't know. I'd hope procedures and precedents were followed to ensure consistency. As for him personally then I wouldn't really be bothered him but it's not him that would suffer - it's his family and they would be as innocent as the people who died. Add to that the cost of his health care during his final months and you'd maybe start to think "why should we pay for it?" There's already enough on here bemoaning health care for immigrants to make me believe that many would actually be in favour of releasing him on those grounds alone. Or would they make an exception for convicted murderers? As I say, for him alone (if there was no doubt whatsoever and he had admitted it) then it wouldn't bother me if he died in jail but there are other factors to consider and in this case specifically there are very real doubts about his conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stax Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Err - it was a Scottish parliament decision. The majority party in Scotland is the SNP. The SNP would have consulted with Gordon Brown and he would have said release him as he (labour party) love soft justice and small sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 The SNP would have consulted with Gordon Brown and he would have said release him as he (labour party) love soft justice and small sentences. I hope you have proof of that? Otherwise it's opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 The SNP would have consulted with Gordon Brown and he would have said release him as he (labour party) love soft justice and small sentences. Why on earth would the SNP have done what Gordon Brown said? Their respective parties oppose each other :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 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. It was all about greed Arizona. The US didn't like the fact that their oil supply could potentially be disrupted. They entered a war (against a nutter don't get my wrong) for OIL supplies, not because they felt sorry for poor little Kuwait. There have been other invasions or countries ignoring UN directives that the US didn't go in to quash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 The SNP would have consulted with Gordon Brown and he would have said release him as he (labour party) love soft justice and small sentences. Clearly you're not the sharpest tool in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 It was all about greed Arizona. The US didn't like the fact that their oil supply could potentially be disrupted. They entered a war (against a nutter don't get my wrong) for OIL supplies, not because they felt sorry for poor little Kuwait. There have been other invasions or countries ignoring UN directives that the US didn't go in to quash. Exactly, they, and all the other countries in the coalition were protecting their interests, i.e. the Saudi oil wells. They didn't go to war with Iraq the first time to nick their oil, they were protecting their existing supplies in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saddam controlling the lions share of middle eastern oil would have been an ecconomic disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Exactly, they, and all the other countries in the coalition were protecting their interests, i.e. the Saudi oil wells. They didn't go to war with Iraq the first time to nick their oil, they were protecting their existing supplies in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saddam controlling the lions share of middle eastern oil would have been an ecconomic disaster. IIRC Iraq disputed ownership of Kuwait oil fields and claimed Kuwait was nicking it's oil by slant drilling. What isn't in dispute is that Iraq was in hock to the Kuwait and the US following the Iran and Iraq war to a massive amount and they were calling it in. Iraq tried to keep oil prices high so that it could repay that debt but Kuwait wasn't having any of it (backed by the US) and in the eyes of the Iraq administration was guilty of economic aggression. This doesn't excuse the Iraq administration but in my opinion (and that's all it is) America and Kuwait could have avoided the war - they didn't need to push Iraq into that particular corner and they must have known what would happen. Still it all ended nicely for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 The SNP would have consulted with Gordon Brown and he would have said release him as he (labour party) love soft justice and small sentences. Interesting you should mention that, but way off the mark I think. Apparently when Al Megrahi was handed over by Libya, the US was given assurances from the UK govt (not the Scottish parliament) that there would be no transfers and he would spend the rest of his life in a Scottish jail. Kenny Mcaskill claims he was reminded of this fact by the US authorities when they lodged their objection to his release, so he wrote to Westminster for clarification. Being the spineless bunch of cowards our ruling party are they refused to comment, so Mr McCaskill was left to make the decision on his own. Gordon Brown can't even tie his f***ing shoelaces without proper consultation. Why on earth would he feel the need to get involved in a dispute between the Scottish Parliament and the US State Department? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 Exactly, they, and all the other countries in the coalition were protecting their interests, i.e. the Saudi oil wells. They didn't go to war with Iraq the first time to nick their oil, they were protecting their existing supplies in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saddam controlling the lions share of middle eastern oil would have been an ecconomic disaster. It was nothing to do with protecting existing supplies, it's all about control of supply, releasing the Iraqi oil means there is less dependance on the Saudi supply. Agree that Saddam in control means a disaster for the West - that doesn't make it any more right to go to war over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 So it's ok for the Yanks to impose their rules on dodgy Brit businessmen or not all there computer hackers, but when a part of the UK applies the Law they moan about it...... Sorry but the only reaction I have is go stuff yourselves you pompous Yanks.... Even IF I thin it was "morally" wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 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. You seem to be oh so sure that's going to be the scenario that gets played out Who's to say this terrorist, with nothing now to lose, doesn't go out with a 20 pound semtex waistcoat and end it all a little quicker without the slow and painful bit?.....Oh, and taking a few more hundred Infidels with him for good measure. Would be a little ironic if his next victims were the hand wringing liberal compassionate types that got this guy released in the first place.....Never works that way though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 You seem to be oh so sure that's going to be the scenario that gets played out Who's to say this terrorist, with nothing now to lose, doesn't go out with a 20 pound semtex waistcoat and end it all a little quicker without the slow and painful bit?.....Oh, and taking a few more hundred Infidels with him for good measure. Would be a little ironic if his next victims were the hand wringing liberal compassionate types that got this guy released in the first place.....Never works that way though You're a cheery fellow. I bet you're fun down the pub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 You seem to be oh so sure that's going to be the scenario that gets played out Who's to say this terrorist, with nothing now to lose, doesn't go out with a 20 pound semtex waistcoat and end it all a little quicker without the slow and painful bit?.....Oh, and taking a few more hundred Infidels with him for good measure. Would be a little ironic if his next victims were the hand wringing liberal compassionate types that got this guy released in the first place.....Never works that way though Did you see him get off the plane? The guy could barely walk...My Grandad died recently of prostate cancer and trust me your "terrorist" is not capable of doing much damage in that condition. You seem to have a problem with liberal and compassionate though - is the world that bad a place for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 You seem to be oh so sure that's going to be the scenario that gets played out Who's to say this terrorist, with nothing now to lose, doesn't go out with a 20 pound semtex waistcoat and end it all a little quicker without the slow and painful bit?.....Oh, and taking a few more hundred Infidels with him for good measure. Would be a little ironic if his next victims were the hand wringing liberal compassionate types that got this guy released in the first place.....Never works that way though If that happens, I will eat my own testicles. Al Megrahi is about as far removed from the typical profile of an islamic terrorist as my aunt Betty is. At what point have we heard this guy shouting "death to the infidels?" Oh that's right, we haven't. In fact he was full of praise for the people of Scotland in his statement to the press yesterday. Does that seem to you like somebody who is willing to die in the name of Allah so that he can go to paradise and have his 72 virgins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 I'm proud of the fact that I live (next to a) compassionate country. Compassion is lacking in the world these days IMO. The fact that we are trying to move away from Russia to Libya for our oil supplies is purely coincidental, I think. I would have thought the Americans would realise that decisions are never made on the basis of where the oil is. Nice. Can I borrow that, as I couldn't have put it better..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 22 August, 2009 Share Posted 22 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. And to those who said yes, how does the vicarious compassion you feel weigh up against the vile martyrdom he will now be bestowed with and all that's negative with it, the influence he will have to younger wanabee terrorists by being paraded on TV as having "got away" with it and the rift in international relations that have been caused by this weak, insipid decision, dressed up as a triumphant example of human rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 22 August, 2009 Share Posted 22 August, 2009 No. And to those who said yes, how does the vicarious compassion you feel weigh up against the vile martyrdom he will now be bestowed with and all that's negative with it, the influence he will have to younger wanabee terrorists by being paraded on TV as having "got away" with it and the rift in international relations that have been caused by this weak, insipid decision, dressed up as a triumphant example of human rights? How can he be a martyr and get away with it at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 22 August, 2009 Share Posted 22 August, 2009 Well, first day of Ramadan today, great, half day working, as well. Think I'll get into the spirit of the occassion and have a Bacon Sarnie for lunch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 22 August, 2009 Share Posted 22 August, 2009 How can he be a martyr and get away with it at the same time? Ok, the martyrdom will come after he karks it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 22 August, 2009 Share Posted 22 August, 2009 Ok, the martyrdom will come after he karks it. A martyr because he's sacrificed his life to prostate cancer and died in freedom? I think we have a different definition of martyrdom. Martyrs don't tend to proclaim innocence as i recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 22 August, 2009 Share Posted 22 August, 2009 According to the news this morning, Mr Al Megrahi is preparing to release the new evidence which he was going to present at his appeal hearing, and that it will then be up to the people of the world to act as jury and decide whether or not he is guilty. It will be very interesting to see just what this evidence is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 22 August, 2009 Share Posted 22 August, 2009 It was nothing to do with protecting existing supplies, it's all about control of supply, releasing the Iraqi oil means there is less dependance on the Saudi supply. Agree that Saddam in control means a disaster for the West - that doesn't make it any more right to go to war over. But we didn't nick the Iraq oil, we liberated Kuwait then buggered off. How can you say they weren't defending their existing supplies in Saudi Arabia when they were right next door to a massive army, run by a tyrant, who had just invaded Kuwait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junction 9 Posted 22 August, 2009 Share Posted 22 August, 2009 For me, this thread appears to be about two things. Firstly whether his conviction was sound or not and we are not going to get to the bottom of that. More importantly as a discussion is should prisoners get let out on compassionate grounds in they are ill? I'm not exactly sure what the policy is on this. I also don't think that money should be a factor as it's about the principle of it surely? It's very hard to differentiate between different prisoners and different crimes. Should a serial rapist be regarded the same as a bank robber? You are still serving a sentence regardless of your state of health. I suppose each case has to be judged on it's individual merits. Interesting thread though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 22 August, 2009 Share Posted 22 August, 2009 According to the news this morning, Mr Al Megrahi is preparing to release the new evidence which he was going to present at his appeal hearing, and that it will then be up to the people of the world to act as jury and decide whether or not he is guilty. It will be very interesting to see just what this evidence is. Being one of life's sceptics, I wonder if that news is why the Americans are so annoyed? Hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 23 August, 2009 Share Posted 23 August, 2009 A martyr because he's sacrificed his life to prostate cancer and died in freedom? I think we have a different definition of martyrdom. Martyrs don't tend to proclaim innocence as i recall. He will not sacrifice his life, he's just got some bad luck. When he dies he will be, to some people, a martyr. Presumably you saw the reception he got when he landed back in Libya? And of course Martyrs believe their innocence, it's part of their system of justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 August, 2009 What is interesting is how i'm sure many of you will believe evry word of his new eveidence yet question the eveidence that puts him jail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 23 August, 2009 Share Posted 23 August, 2009 What is interesting is how i'm sure many of you will believe evry word of his new eveidence yet question the eveidence that puts him jail Actually, that wouldn't be very interesting, but in any case it's extremely unlikely that anyone would be so dumb as to think that. Aren't you even a little bit curious as to why many of the families of the British victims see his release as an opportunity to prise open the truth? If it turns out that Megrahi was 'the' bomber, there are still large questions to do with motive, who ordered the bombing, etc. And questions- of course - about why the hell, in that case, he was released. If Megrahi was indeed dying - and we'll know soon enough - why was he persisting with his appeal? Why was the appeal brought to a halt? It was clear that pressure from government sources here were brought to bear to do something - anything - to stop it. Even if that meant invoking the ire of the Americans, to whom the UK government has always been so obeisant. And frankly, the 'release-for-oil' argument is pretty thin, given the fallout from this whole affair. There are way too many questions lurking behind this whole affair for us to close our eyes, and rage, Colonel Blimp-like, at the injustice of it all. Here's something to consider. For more than twenty years now, a good friend of mine, a journalist, has made regular visits to a certain inmate in one of our jails. That inmate was the sole survivor among the attackers of the Iranian Embassy in London - the one the SAS famously recaptured, live on television. (In fact, his life was saved by the hostages - the SAS were clearly on a wipe-out mission.) Everyone has assumed what the motives of the attackers were. But all those assumptions are wrong. When my friend's work is made public, you'll see what I mean... I'm sorry I can't say more, but what I would say is that if we make pat assumptions about Middle East politics and terror, we're likely to end up looking a bit foolish. Sometimes, if we're interested in the truth, we have to look beyond the rage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 23 August, 2009 Share Posted 23 August, 2009 For more than twenty years now, a good friend of mine, a journalist, has made regular visits to a certain inmate in one of our jails. That inmate was the sole survivor among the attackers of the Iranian Embassy in London - the one the SAS famously recaptured, live on television. (In fact, his life was saved by the hostages - the SAS were clearly on a wipe-out mission.) Everyone has assumed what the motives of the attackers were. But all those assumptions are wrong. When my friend's work is made public, you'll see what I mean... I'm sorry I can't say more, but what I would say is that if we make pat assumptions about Middle East politics and terror, we're likely to end up looking a bit foolish. Sometimes, if we're interested in the truth, we have to look beyond the rage. Are you saying you're ITK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 23 August, 2009 Share Posted 23 August, 2009 So thats Al Meggahi's game He gets a promise thats hes to be released on compassionate grounds, weeks in advance (The BBC new it was going to happen) Decides to drop his appeal to save the Scottish parliment oodles of cash in legals costs, goes home then gets the opportunity to protest his total innocence. "According to the news this morning, Mr Al Megrahi is preparing to release the new evidence which he was going to present at his appeal hearing, and that it will then be up to the people of the world to act as jury and decide whether or not he is guilty. It will be very interesting to see just what this evidence is". He was after all a libyan agent and was pasing ice cream to members of the public. Was Gadaffi ever convicted, were Martin Mcguiness and Gerry Adams and Paisley ever convicted of their muderous past . No So judging by your definition Bexy , they were also innocent of any form of terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 23 August, 2009 Share Posted 23 August, 2009 Come Come Verbal re the following "For more than twenty years now, a good friend of mine, a journalist, has made regular visits to a certain inmate in one of our jails. That inmate was the sole survivor among the attackers of the Iranian Embassy in London - the one the SAS famously recaptured, live on television. (In fact, his life was saved by the hostages - the SAS were clearly on a wipe-out mission.) Everyone has assumed what the motives of the attackers were. But all those assumptions are wrong. When my friend's work is made public, you'll see what I mean... I'm sorry I can't say more, but what I would say is that if we make pat assumptions about Middle East politics and terror, we're likely to end up looking a bit foolish. Sometimes, if we're interested in the truth, we have to look beyond the rage. I was under the impression that the individual you talk about mingled with the hostages in order to escape. I also think you are way off the mark stating the SAS were on a wipe out mission. I will ask an old mate of mine when I next see him (he was one of the medics supporting the SAS lads on that mission) if that was there intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 23 August, 2009 Share Posted 23 August, 2009 I was under the impression that the individual you talk about mingled with the hostages in order to escape. I also think you are way off the mark stating the SAS were on a wipe out mission. I will ask an old mate of mine when I next see him (he was one of the medics supporting the SAS lads on that mission) if that was there intention. Well, I suppose you could ask the individual yourself, since he's no longer in jail, and has remained in the UK. You could also ask the hostages themselves - who've spoken quite openly about how they protected him, rather than someone who wasn't inside the embassy at the time. In any case, my point is: nothing is at seems when it comes to Middle eastern politics and terror. The Lockerbie story has a lot further to go before we know what really happened - IF we ever know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 23 August, 2009 Share Posted 23 August, 2009 Verbal Your right on one thing nothing is ever what it seems. lots of things are covered up for one reason or another. I find it odd that only one person is charged and convicted of the lockerbie bomb. There were others involved, maybe they have mysteriously disappeared. Did not israeli agents not seek retribution for the massacre of the israeli athletes at the german olympicss I recall when I was based out in Oman we had a soldier who got shot up and died of his wounds. It was reported publicly back in the uk that he had died because of a road accident. The MOD and the UK media were correct that he had died but the cause was so far from the truth Middle eastern politics has so many twists and turns Its been a while since I served out there but even then it was interesting to see what was going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langleysaint Posted 23 August, 2009 Share Posted 23 August, 2009 The man should be left to rot , i `ve fought the big C twice , murdering bastard end off , please shut this down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 24 August, 2009 Share Posted 24 August, 2009 So thats Al Meggahi's game He gets a promise thats hes to be released on compassionate grounds, weeks in advance (The BBC new it was going to happen) Decides to drop his appeal to save the Scottish parliment oodles of cash in legals costs, goes home then gets the opportunity to protest his total innocence. "According to the news this morning, Mr Al Megrahi is preparing to release the new evidence which he was going to present at his appeal hearing, and that it will then be up to the people of the world to act as jury and decide whether or not he is guilty. It will be very interesting to see just what this evidence is". He was after all a libyan agent and was pasing ice cream to members of the public. Was Gadaffi ever convicted, were Martin Mcguiness and Gerry Adams and Paisley ever convicted of their muderous past . No So judging by your definition Bexy , they were also innocent of any form of terrorism. Err, no. Clearly you haven't actually read my earlier response to your question about Martin McGuiness. Be a good boy and go back and read that first before you start making pathetic, ill-informed judgements on my beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 24 August, 2009 Share Posted 24 August, 2009 Don't patronise me Bexy. "Err, no. Clearly you haven't actually read my earlier response to your question about Martin McGuiness. Be a good boy and go back and read that first before you start making pathetic, ill-informed judgements on my beliefs". I did read your post and the point I was trying to make is , that the individuals I mentioned were not convicted of their alledged activities but you call them murdering scum , where as the al megharie fellow was convicted. Just goes to show that the law is an ass. Remember the adage your innocent until proven guilty. Is it not said that one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. I did several tours in NI and Im aware of what mcguiness, adams and co did and as for the former israeli leader he got off scot free when the british troops when to protect them instead he and his henchmen butchered british troops during the palestine crisis all those years ago. Had my dad not been out on patrol that day , then he and his section would have been murdered not the other half of his section who had returned from patrol a couple of hours earlier. So please don't patronise me, I have my veiws and you yours, Only those that were directly involved in the lockerbie bombing will know if al megherie was involved. Lets leave it at that shall we Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 24 August, 2009 Share Posted 24 August, 2009 It's PC gone mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff leopard Posted 24 August, 2009 Share Posted 24 August, 2009 No. And to those who said yes, how does the vicarious compassion you feel weigh up against the vile martyrdom he will now be bestowed with? That's the thing about compassion, it doesn't weigh up against anything, it just is. Compassion can't come with strings attached, its an all or nothing deal. The bible doesn't say 'forgive your brother's sins, as long as you're pretty certain he won't go off and have a party afterwards or sin again'. All of this is brought into sharp relief by comments made by the mother of one of the victims of 7/7. Ever since her son died, she has been publicly asking for people to forgive the suicide bombers. As a Christian she understands compassion and forgiveness, and absolutely rejects the demented cry of 'an eye for an eye'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff leopard Posted 24 August, 2009 Share Posted 24 August, 2009 It's PC gone mad. Its probably a virus. Call IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 25 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 25 August, 2009 an eye for an eye http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8219433.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff leopard Posted 25 August, 2009 Share Posted 25 August, 2009 an eye for an eye http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8219433.stm And I'm guessing that the American administrations and corporations that funded the IRA, back when being a (white) terrorist was romatic and rightious, will be next on their hit list. If Libya does pay up, will the families of troops who died in Iraq start pressing Iran for compensation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 25 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 25 August, 2009 And I'm guessing that the American administrations and corporations that funded the IRA, back when being a (white) terrorist was romatic and rightious, will be next on their hit list. If Libya does pay up, will the families of troops who died in Iraq start pressing Iran for compensation? either way.. wouldnt it be fair if Libya showed some "compassion" in return...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barfy Posted 25 August, 2009 Share Posted 25 August, 2009 an eye for an eye http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8219433.stm I'd be interested to know if those 'irish-americans' who provided financial support to the IRA over the years will also be called upon to pay compensation to the victims of IRA attacks? or is that now a moot point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 25 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 25 August, 2009 I'd be interested to know if those 'irish-americans' who provided financial support to the IRA over the years will also be called upon to pay compensation to the victims of IRA attacks? or is that now a moot point? that is not the issue here is it about irish americans... the issue here is families want libya to REPAY some compassion to these shores.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barfy Posted 25 August, 2009 Share Posted 25 August, 2009 that is not the issue here is it about irish americans... the issue here is families want libya to REPAY some compassion to these shores.. From the article you quoted it is kind of the issue. Did Libya just give the IRA weapons, or were they bought using donated funds (from whatever source)? If Libya are being asked to pay compassion/compensation for the weapons used by the IRA, what about the people who funded the purchase of the weapons? It's a can of worms that is unlikely to ever get resolved, certainly not in a manner that will give any comfort to the families of people killed in IRA attacks. Gaddafi may well agree to a compensation fund for IRA victims in the same way he did for the Lockerbie families, but at the same time why isn't some compassion being shown by our close chums over the other side of the atlantic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 25 August, 2009 Share Posted 25 August, 2009 Don't patronise me Bexy. "Err, no. Clearly you haven't actually read my earlier response to your question about Martin McGuiness. Be a good boy and go back and read that first before you start making pathetic, ill-informed judgements on my beliefs". I did read your post and the point I was trying to make is , that the individuals I mentioned were not convicted of their alledged activities but you call them murdering scum , where as the al megharie fellow was convicted. Just goes to show that the law is an ass. Remember the adage your innocent until proven guilty. Is it not said that one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. I did several tours in NI and Im aware of what mcguiness, adams and co did and as for the former israeli leader he got off scot free when the british troops when to protect them instead he and his henchmen butchered british troops during the palestine crisis all those years ago. Had my dad not been out on patrol that day , then he and his section would have been murdered not the other half of his section who had returned from patrol a couple of hours earlier. So please don't patronise me, I have my veiws and you yours, Only those that were directly involved in the lockerbie bombing will know if al megherie was involved. Lets leave it at that shall we OK Draganov. I apologise for coming across as patronising. But I don't like it when people automatically make assumptions about my views on certain subjects based solely on comments I have made on another totaly unrelated subject. To me that demonstrates an irrational prejudice. I like to read the facts on each individual case and make my own mind up based on the information I have available to me, rather than make sweeping generalistions about people based on whatever pigeon-hole I can fit them in to. Just because McGuiness and Adams were never convicted of murder, does not make them innocent. Accordingly, just because Al Megrahi was convicted does not mean he is actually guilty. As far as I am concerned he was found guilty by a corrupt kangaroo court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 3 September, 2009 Share Posted 3 September, 2009 Now this is what you call compassion!....compassion for the victims that is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1210865/Scotland-note-Manson-Family-killer-Susan-Atkins-loses-18th-bid-release-DESPITE-deathbed.html Btw ...Where are all the libs and lefties who spent he last few years slating Bush and wringing their hands over Iraqi oil?.....Here's darling Gordy, caught red handed up to his elbows in the Oil jar and not a squeak to be heard, nothing, nada,.....Compassion innit! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210830/Group-set-Jack-Straw-begged-Set-Lockerbie-bomber-free.html I was going to put a few more links up .....But just Google "Gordon Brown" and "OIL" lol.....You'll get the picture. Talking of which, it seems Ol'e Gordies upset the Apple cart over here somewhat......65 years of the greatest alliance of the 20th century up in oily smoke...Britains act of betrayal wont be easily forgotten over here thats for sure....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1210485/Lockerbie-U-S-accuses-Britain-breaking-promise-bomber-jail-Brown-denies-double-dealing.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 3 September, 2009 Share Posted 3 September, 2009 Talking of which, it seems Ol'e Gordies upset the Apple cart over here somewhat......65 years of the greatest alliance of the 20th century up in oily smoke...Britains act of betrayal wont be easily forgotten over here thats for sure....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1210485/Lockerbie-U-S-accuses-Britain-breaking-promise-bomber-jail-Brown-denies-double-dealing.html Who cares if we have upset a bunch of isolationist ingrates who always turn up 3 years late for a world war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 3 September, 2009 Share Posted 3 September, 2009 If this the death of the 'special relationship' I'd happily stamp on its grave. 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