Scottland Releases Terrorist on terms of Compassion ?

Rocco81 says on Aug 20, 2009, 07:19:

Am I really seeing this? Can this be real?

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo (Moderator) (Trustee board) (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 20, 2009, 07:20:

Bill Turley (Moderator) (Trustee board) (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 20, 2009, 07:21:

ConorC says on Aug 20, 2009, 07:23:

I don't know much about the original case as I was about 5 at the time, but many of the victims families do not believe he is responsible for the bombing and believe he should never have been incarcerated in the first place.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 20, 2009, 07:34:

Look it up ConorC

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo (Moderator) (Trustee board) (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 20, 2009, 07:43:

Rocco81 says on Aug 20, 2009, 08:48:

Good article AZ man.. A little different spin on things.

I want to point out the funny waythe media puts things.

1. His "last" days? Ok he has prostate cancer. I mean prostate cancer can kill you quick or take years and years to kill you. This guy could recover and live for quite a while longer as a free man. The way they write it suggests he is already dead.

2. Court of Appeals? It is of course entirelely possible that the man is innocent. Now what is the % of likelyhood? Only the court and lawyers who convicted and defended him know that. What I and most of the rest of you know, is that every single murderer gets appeals. This doesn't make them any less guilty or any more innocent (unless of course they can prove they were wrongly accused) Hell even in cases of DNA proof they appeal. As long as the accussed doesn't 100% admit to the crime they normally have the opportunity to appeal a conviction.

Besides..his max sentence would've only been 27 years? For 270 deaths? Jeez...we give Colombian Drug lords 3x that sentence and not for killing anyone.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Aug 20, 2009, 09:47:

Euros have a lot of compassion for terrorists...

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ConorC says on Aug 20, 2009, 10:23:

Another well considered remark...

I keep forgetting, which nation was it that all the IRA ran to when the SAS were closing in on them?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

britabroad says on Aug 20, 2009, 10:25:

Tasco, that´s un-called-for. And untrue.
I think you mean to say that the left orientated, liberalist governments in Europe appear to have a lot of compassion for terrorists.
Europeans detest, and would like nothing better than to annihilate, all terrorists. After all, we´ve been taking direct hits from a variety of the fellows for decades.

Leave the big stick at home...carry a cannon!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

britabroad says on Aug 20, 2009, 10:35:

As for this particular fellow - as most "Euros" actually think - he should be assisted to shuffle off his mortal coil with a few well aimed blows to the back of the head with a claw hammer.

Leave the big stick at home...carry a cannon!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Aug 20, 2009, 11:06:

"I think you mean to say that the left orientated, liberalist governments in Europe appear to have a lot of compassion for terrorists."

Yep, in general that's what I mean. But not only lefties in Europe like terrorists:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/10/berlusconi-gaddafi-italy-p...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/worldviews/detail?blogid=15&en...

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 20, 2009, 12:51:

Ok let me set a few things straight from my point of view...

Tasco - You and I agree on a lot. One thing I would like to see is you stop atacking "Euros". Attack their government. Dudes like Brit abroad are on "our" side. There are many many European groups popping up that are truly sick of thier Leftist Governments allowing their nations to be torn apart by socialism and immigration.

Britabroad - Again I agree with you that many Euros are a victim of thier government, just as Americans have become in recent times. Some people dont understand the system you guys have and as such assume many things erroneously. I like the claw hammer...nice touch in deed.

ConnorC - You are correct about where a lot of Ex IRA went to. There were a large conglomerate of IRA supporters in NYC and Boston because of where the Irish Catholics settled. Irish and Scottish Protestants tended to settle in the other cities normally South of those two. Anyhow the thing is, the USA didn't really keep track of that conflict as it needed to and the Info we received from accross the pond wasn't all too clear on who did what to who and where. So, as such is was easier for these guys to blend into Irish neighborhoods in these cities...Especially places like South Boston where you cannot spit without it hitting an Irishman. I say this because it wasnt as if our government just welcomed IRA members and hid them from the UK.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Aug 20, 2009, 13:11:

"Tasco - You and I agree on a lot. One thing I would like to see is you stop atacking "Euros". Attack their government. Dudes like Brit abroad are on "our" side."

Hey, as far as I know Brits don't consider themselves part of Europe. You need a different visa to go to the UK from Europe, another currency (the Euro is useless there) etc. Most Brits I know don't want anything to do with Europe...

And I surely do not consider Brit abroad to be a Euro in any way, shape or form...

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ConorC says on Aug 20, 2009, 13:30:

"Hey, as far as I know Brits don't consider themselves part of Europe"

Really depends on who you speak to and your political point of view. I think perhaps the more prevalent view is that we are British/English/Scottish/Welsh first, then European second. Whereas particularly in Western/Central Europe the opposite is true.

As for needing a different visa, if you have a British passport then for 99% of the population there should no issue moving from country to country. I remember reading somewhere that with the introduction of the Schengen zone in Eastern Europe you could travel from the tip of Portugal to the border with Belarus and not be asked for your passport!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ConorC says on Aug 20, 2009, 13:33:

Tasco - fair enough, but particuarly in the 70's and 80's US interest groups were more than happy to pump money into less than pristine organisations, inc. Sinn Fein back in the days when they weren't the nice "clean" organisation they are today...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Aug 20, 2009, 13:50:

Yep but a Colombian with a Shengen visa will not be able to visit London...he or she can not even transit through Heathrow airport with a Shengen visa.

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 20, 2009, 14:24:

Nah man it wasn't Tasco that wrote that it was me...ROCCO.

And yeah it was not US supported Interest groups. It was Commie Red Bastards that also Happened to be Irish Catholics living in the USA. It was US based only by virtue of the fact that they lived on US soil. It wasnt an American thing at all Connor..not sure what you been reading.

Also, of course Sinn Fein was/is a dirty mess. Some people are just fooled by their cry for help. Same with Leftist groups in South America. the ANC of Africa etc ..they all look as if they are the oppressed peace makers but in reality they are the problem most of the time.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 1 helpful.

ColombianoGringo (Moderator) (Trustee board) (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 20, 2009, 23:13:

The most offensive thing about this whole pathetic story is how this convicted mass murderer was received in Libya.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32487856/ns/world_news-terrorism/

This shows the compassion that those celebrating his return have for those innocent victims of flight 103. It's sickening.

I'm so hip, I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kat1 (Moderator) (Trustee board) (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 21, 2009, 07:29:

Rocco81 says on Aug 21, 2009, 08:14:

Look Kat....Gerry Adams atleast in theory stands for peace. Now you know and I know that maybe he was behind a lot of shit in the past and may be he still is. But when he came to the USA it was under the guise of making peace and ammends.

No matter if Gerry Adams is behind things or not, he was not convicted of the things this man I posted about was. We could go on and on about suspected or supossed criminals, but once you are convicted of MURDERING 270 people you deserve the worst fate. No matter where those people are from. This post was not intended to defend the dead because they are Americans. This post was intended to ask why on gods green Earth could any court system let this happen?

I'll say again .. May God have mercy on the UK and the rest of the Western world for such a weak stance against evil.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kat1 (Moderator) (Trustee board) (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 21, 2009, 08:51:

Rocco81 says on Aug 21, 2009, 10:36:

If for Oil then even more shame should be cast for those sick bastards in positions of power.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 21, 2009, 11:12:

Of course Kat, like I said in one of my other posts about the "Appeals" of criminals. Its always the case that someone is thought to be innocent by somoene who really doesn't matter. Plus really if you think about it, 2 people out of the 270 families affected would be 2 too many in my book. So "many" people thought this man innocent could mean 2, 1o , 20, whatever..their oppionions are just that. The cour convicted him. End of story.

And on that note, go to any prison (I can only speak to American prisons) but go to any prison and almost 90% of those guys will tell you they are innocent.."I was framed...I didn't do nuffin'...I aint done shit..." They are all innocent if you ask them. That is why we (like the UK) have a court of Law in which you presenet facts,evidence, and sound reasoning to either provide proof of guilt or innocence.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 21, 2009, 11:14:

Its a bueatiful thing our justice system, one that molded after hundreds of years fighting tyranny in Europe, UK and US....against unfair and unjust accusations from those thought "higher" in status than us. To see if ripped down and disprespected first by a psychopathic Islamic fundamentalist who really shouldnt be allowed out of a cage to start with and then now by some limp writsed c at ck suckers in the Scottish criminal justice system.

Appease Appease....hell send them your first born son as long as it keeps the heat off your backs.

If any of us think that these people in the desert (the terrorists and fundamentalists) actually have compassion and feelings for us, then think again. Unlike civilized and rational people, they will not see this release as an act of kindness...no they will see it as an act of insanity and weakness (which it is) Again...another foot in the Coffin for the UK.

And you all are surprised to find that the most common birth name in Grey Brittain is Muhammed.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ConorC says on Aug 21, 2009, 11:54:

"And you all are surprised to find that the most common birth name in Grey Brittain is Muhammed."

So?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Aug 21, 2009, 13:08:

I do not know about the intricacies of the case (though I have heard that there were several controversies in the investigation and trial), but I do not disagree with your argument, Rocco, that an individual found guilty by a court of law should serve the entirety of his/her sentence (assuming he/she is guilty and the judgment is fitting).

I do, however, recognize that we view everything as "us against them." This makes it easier to downplay "our" misdeeds while exaggerating "theirs." Personally, I question whether or not it was an accident when a US warship took down Iran Air Flight 655, killing 290 people in July of 1988. In response to the controversy, Bush emphasized that he would "never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what the facts are." You will never apologize for the actions of America no matter what the facts are, Mr. President? If they knowingly took out a passenger plane, you do not care? I know that Bush Sr. was terribly offended when everyone called him weak, but this is absolutely ridiculous and terribly offensive. As you probably know, this event took place in July of 1988 and the Pan Am Flight fell from the sky in December of 1988. Well, if no facts could convince the President of any wrongdoing, why wouldn't Muslim's come to a similar conclusion? The question is in no way meant to justify the bombing of the Pan Am flight.

When discussing the terrorists that the US has supported, I don't think peaceful and democratic intentions are a necessary qualification. Generally, they simply have to be willing to respect our interests in the country and/or be the enemy of our enemy and they are christened "freedom fighters," for example.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 21, 2009, 14:39:

Listen bro....I did not start this Thread as a means of us vs. anyone.. I dont care where the victims are from, however I do start to suspect that people shrug this off because the victims happened to mostly be Americans...and well according to some people (on this board and others) we deserve it and they dont give a shit what happens to us..Obviously Americans are bad bad people.Right?

All that stuff asside, the point is this mothefucker killed 270 innocent people. Was found guilty. Period. It makes me sick to know he pulled 8 years for that.

And to all you American haters..fuck you. To all of my fellow proud Americans... don't worry Its always lonely at the top.
We have yet to see our darkest hour since the great depression, but its on its way. We'll bounce back though have faith.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Aug 21, 2009, 15:18:

I did not accuse you of anything. Notice that I said "we view everything as 'us against them,'" meaning humans in general.

I am in absolute agreement that it does not matter where the victims were from. Innocent people were killed and that is always tragic. In addition, you are right about some people shrugging off the atrocity because many of the victims were Americans. Likewise, you would be correct if you said that some people shrugged off the murder of innocent people on Iran Air Flight 655 due to the fact that they were mostly Iranians. Because Iranians are bad, bad people right?

Who are you talking to? I haven't read every comment. Has somebody claimed to hate Americans?

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 22, 2009, 00:48:

Nah I dont mean in this thread necessarily..but re-occuring themes of Americans this and that on this forum and other forums as well.

I know you werent accusing me of anything, just trying to make it clear to all readers about my original intent.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

britabroad says on Aug 22, 2009, 10:53:

You make nice burgers.

Leave the big stick at home...carry a cannon!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 22, 2009, 12:36:

Yeah AZ atleast we have some good food...ever have British food? Hmmm ;)

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

britabroad says on Aug 22, 2009, 13:08:

Chicken Tikka Masala was recently voted the most popular "British" food. And as my daughters are currently visiting and have brought me 3 tins of the stuff, I think that I might partake in one myself tonight.

Az, those beers are still on chill. Anytime, man.

Leave the big stick at home...carry a cannon!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

borat says on Aug 23, 2009, 09:38:

The Independent on Sunday


Christine Grahame: Al-Megrahi is home. And he is innocent

The release of the so-called Lockerbie bomber was long overdue, for the case against him was politically driven




I became involved with Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi quite by accident. Like many people I had been suffering from Lockerbie fatigue. For me, and for you, I suppose, life had moved on from that horrendous crime over 20 years ago and the imprisonment of the Libyan murderer. That was that.


At least it was, until I agreed, by chance, to sponsor the showing of a Dutch documentary about the Lockerbie bombing at Parliament. I invited all MSPs and researchers, and indeed the press corps, to see this film. One MSP and one member of the press came, and I really only saw it because I felt obliged to attend. But that film changed my perspective. From that casual moment, and from much that I have learned since, I am convinced not only that Megrahi was not found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", the test in Scot's law, but that he is an innocent man.


He is not a saint, of course – he had a history with Libyan intelligence – but his hands are clean over Lockerbie. For you should recall that five months before the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 on that dark, wild December night just before Christmas in 1988, an American military cruiser, the Vincennes, shot down an Iranian passenger plane carrying 290 pilgrims. No one has been charged, let alone prosecuted, over that, even though it was all captured on film.

It is reasonable to deduce that when an American plane carrying, as some believed, military personnel back home to their religious festival, is blasted out of the sky, the finger of suspicion should not point first at Libya. Iran, maybe. However, Iran had to be kept on side because of the Iraq/Kuwait conflict. The Iran/Syria connection was soon dropped, and so Libya was indeed blamed. Here was a credible culprit.

To successfully frame a nation, pick one like Libya, in which all the baddies of the Middle East are personified in a recognisable hate figure like Gadhafi. If you want to frame a man, pick one with a feasible track record. Then first sell it to the world through the press and, hey presto!

But back to that film, which has not yet been seen here. After watching this disconcerting documentary, which challenged the reliability of key evidence, I got into conversations that night with Dr Jim Swire, with a forensic police scientist who had to label those bodies scattered across hundreds of acres of dark wintry hillside, with Father Patrick Keegan, the priest who lived in Sherwood Crescent (the only person who survived in that street) and with others. None of them supported the case against al-Megrahi.

Since then I have met the man at the centre of it all on several occasions. Our first meeting took place on a blustery morning some months ago. Afterwards I was confronted by a crowd of reporters who waited until I emerged one hour later from speaking to a man so detested, so reviled by many that death in prison from cancer would be too good for him.

He was sitting in front of a laptop, across the table in a room set aside of lawyers and their clients. His English was excellent and I remember trying to impress upon him that I was there for the duration, and not just this one visit. I told him that if I thought for one minute he was guilty I would walk out of the room. But he was intent on scrolling through the pages of the trial, pausing now and then to emphasise a point. Perhaps he was listening.

On subsequent visits we could go straight to the point, and deal with "prisoner transfer": to qualify he would have to abandon the appeal which could allow him to clear his name. We also talked more of his family and the growing need, as his health worsened, as it clearly was doing, to be with them. It was then that his composure was momentarily lost; the emotion and tension were tangible. But although his priority was to be with them in his last days, he told me he did not want his name to go down in history as the Lockerbie bomber. He told me, in short, that he did not do it. I told him again that I thought he was innocent.

Let me make one thing clear: I understand the hatred some feel for him, particularly the US relatives of the dead. It is, however, misplaced and it is in order to unravel for them the true story of Lockerbie, as much as to liberate an innocent man, that I and others worked hard for his compassionate release. This would have allowed the appeal process to be exhausted and evidence-led. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission considered there was evidence vital enough for it to consider that there might have been a miscarriage of justice. That evidence, particularly relating to the identification of al-Megrahi linking him directly to the bombing has never and will now never be tested in a Scottish court.

My final meeting with him was on 23 July. He requested that it be private and I have kept my word till now. Apart from discussing his deteriorating health, increasing frailty and his family, we discussed at length his compassionate release. He wanted my advice. I told him I thought he had nothing to lose because if it was rejected he could abandon his appeal and take the prisoner transfer route. I advised him to consult his legal team.

The next day he applied for compassionate release. Stupidly, I thought there was a good chance that after his death at home his appeal could still be pursued, by his family. But, like al-Megrahi, I am a tiny cog in an elaborate mechanism. Last week he abandoned his appeal. His counsel advised the court that he believed that to do so would "assist" with his "applications".

The previous week I had received an email from a whistleblower in the Justice Department telling me that the Libyan officials were being told in no uncertain terms that he must drop his appeal or there would be no compassionate release.

Al-Megrahi was a desperate man, but I believe there are other desperate men and women – in the US Justice Department and in Whitehall, – all with their own reasons for wanting that appeal to be ditched. Now he is home, but he is still, officially, a guilty man.

Those who believe him guilty are crying foul. So are those of us who believe him innocent. And then there are those who are happily sipping their claret, their eyes on a comfortable unblemished retirement. As for any inquiry, that's out there in the long grass. They are people in authority who are relying on Lockerbie fatigue setting in again. It mustn't.

The SNP's Christine Grahame is a Member of the Scottish Parliament

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

0 funny, 0 helpful.

borat says on Aug 23, 2009, 09:44:

The American cruiser, the Vincennes, that blasted an Iranian passenger jumbo out of the sky a couple of months before Lockerbie, was so aggressive in it's patroling of the Gulf that it was nicknamed Robo-cruiser by the crews of the other cruisers patrolling the Gulf.

See, The Great War for Civilisation, by Robert Fisk, for more details

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 23, 2009, 14:31:

Again...If anyone wanted, they could go and search through the countless acts of terror that places all through the middle East have performed. I see though that because a convicted terrorist was released and some people are unhappy about it you can use that as a time for you to name a few things the Americans have over time that of course in some people's eyes justify a "pay-back" or some other told you so response to us Americans.I like most other Americans are used to this type of response.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 23, 2009, 14:39:

So Christine Grahame's piece, while interesting .. proves nothing. She is a member of Scottish Government and its obvious she's backing the play of one of her collegueas.

Good find "Borat" it was a good waste of a few minutes, but again it proves nothing. You can go online and find arguments for or against political set ups and conspiracies and so forth..they are a dime a dozen and the fact that this lady wrote her opionion on the matter means nothing at all.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Aug 23, 2009, 16:27:

I am not sure who you are referring to when you insinuate that Americans have only done a few bad things in comparison to terrorist groups: average citizens, politicians, mercenaries, the military, the CIA, corporations - some or all of the above?

I think there are perfectly sound reasons for people in the Middle East to distrust and dislike the US: American interest to control an energy resource on foreign soil, CIA orchestrated overthrows of Middle Eastern governments, US support of brutal dictators and terrorist organizations, continuous interventions in the region post-WWII, and the support of Israel. You can make the argument that we had good intentions in some of those cases (a tough argument), but good intentions or not those issues create ill will towards the US. Frankly, if the opposite were true I would not expect many Americans to be forgiving of a Middle Eastern country responsible for similar actions within the US.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

borat says on Aug 23, 2009, 19:28:

Rocco, you can talk rubbish about whatever you like, and then talk about other people wasting their time, sic! Facts are facts and while your media manages to communicate it's own version of history to the American people, elsewhere we're more priviliged.

If the American military decides to blast an Iranian passenger jumbo out of the sky, and a few months later a jumbo full of Americans is blown up.... 2 + 2...?

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

0 funny, 0 helpful.

borat says on Aug 23, 2009, 20:41:

And Christine Grahame appears not to be backing anyone significant, rather to be confronting those who are significant, which, to anyone, is surely commendable.

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

0 funny, 0 helpful.

borat says on Aug 23, 2009, 20:55:

yes, 'a few bad things that Americans have done', is misleading, first we're not talking about, 'Americans', we're talking about what the 'American military' has done, and secondly the use of the adverb 'few' is highly inappropriate, talk about 'few' to the families of the 6 million dead Indochinese, a consequence of your governments adventures, only 1 example.

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 23, 2009, 21:05:

Lcacique - I have always said that I disagree with our support for Isreal. What about the USS Liberty who here has ever heard of that? Again if we wanted to we could go on talking about who has done what throughout history.

I have also stated many times that there are many reasons that the Muslim world has beefs with us..some of them are justified and others are not. Most of the problem lies in our support of Isreal. But if you want to see the state of relationsips with the Muslim world just look at interactions with other countries. Take out the US and look at the troubles in former Soviet countries, South Eastern Asia, Africa, and Europe. The muslim world is jockying for power pretty much everywhere they are in any sizable numbers at all. It seems to me that people are more increasingly viewing things as an American vs. Muslim conflict, when in actuality its pretty much anyone in close proximity to Muslim populations vs. Muslims.

Borat - everyone comes on here talking rubbish thats what the forums good for pretty much, I was just saying the peice you posted really was a liberal soft hearted chick talking about how she felt for the man who was convicted of the bombings. And facts are facts? What real hard facts did she present? That she "talked" to one of the investigators? Ok yeah lets document that.

And my media? I dont trust American media at all. I dont know what country you're from but if you really think your media tells the truth, then you're mistaken. Modern mass media is all fucked no matter viewpoint you hold politically. Its always been the case (concerning media, public opinions and versions of history) that the truth lies somewhere between the human recorded accounts we read, the political spin placed on it and the more brutal truth of human nature that usually caused the events in the first place.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 23, 2009, 21:13:

But again I'll say as Americans no matter what we do we are wrong to most other countries. Unless of course we are needed in some form or another.

When we chose to bomb white Chrisian Serbs and help out Muslims in Bosnia we never got a thank you from Mulsim world or our normal critics. We didnt back Armenians when the Turkish Muslims were killiung them waay back in the day and again that is forgotten. If we are soo hateful toward the muslim world why didnt we go in and wipe them out since that is our agenda. Our humanitarian efforts in Africa, South East Asia .. places like Mogadishu and Somalia where we lost lives and money simply trying to help their situation..nobdoy really cared. But go attack a Muslim country and its automatic that US is the bad guy.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 23, 2009, 21:24:

Oh and Borat you can stop crying anytime now. If you want to start talking about blood shed and history, be very careful. You bieng from the UK are you really sure you want to talk about wrong doing to the USA? That is the pan calling the kettle black my friend. Where should we start with the great British Empires slaying, torturing and imprisoning countless people all around the world.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

borat says on Aug 23, 2009, 21:53:

Rocco, fistly, I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Christine Grahame is of a liberal persuasion, not from anything posted here anyway.

Secondly, I don't know why you are confused about the facts. I think it is clear from what I wrote above that the facts I was refering to were nothing to do with Christine Grahame, but just facts of history, and if you deny the fact that the Vincennes blasted an Iranian passenger jumbo out of the sky, months before they blew up an American airliner above Lockerbie, then I have nothing else to talk to you about.

The third point is that I am English and while we have dishonest publications, and dishonest jourlalists who work for them, at the same time we have some of the best newspapers in the world who employ journalists that, tell the truth and are given access to the mainstream, which is a world away from what happens in the US.

I think the last point I want to make is that, you don't know me and if you did, you wouldn't suggest 'crying' in the same sentence while talking about me. It doesn't supprise me that you want to drift off topic from that which you posted as you are full of shit and when someone points that out you want to change the subject. I can talk about your governments crimes in Bosnia or elsewhere if you like but this little chat is about the Pan Am flight which was destroyed above Scotland, so you'll have to post another misinformed post on whatever you like and I'll do my best to correct you.

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

0 funny, 0 helpful.

borat says on Aug 23, 2009, 21:58:

Ps. I don't think you will read anything above or elsewhere when I have defended criminal acts that my government has been responsible for in the past.

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Aug 24, 2009, 00:44:

Rocco: I want to emphasize something right off the bat: you probably have positioned me in a nicely labeled box. Human's like to categorize. In addition, I would imagine that your opinion of me was arrived at not only as a result of our encounters but also as a result of the chatter of some of your cyber-buddies. Maybe, maybe not. Regardless - and this is the important part - I have a lot of respect for your ability to keep it civil (w/ me at least). Considering the fact that so many of the topics that we discuss have the potential of exploding into heated arguments, I think it is impressive.

I do know about the USS Liberty.

I was not passing judgment on US support of Israel, I was simply noting that it was one of many reasons that many Muslims would either distrust or dislike the US. Again, I can't help but feel Americans would go nuts if Saudi Arabia told Venezuela that it could have Louisiana's oil resources while it pocketed both Texas and Alaska (like the US and Britain did in the Middle East). I can't help but think American's would go crazy if Iraq overthrew our government only to put in a violent regime (we did it in several countries in the Middle East and elsewhere). I can't help but think that American's would be just a little pissed off if - oh, I don't know...Syria intervened over and over in the US, utilizing their own military, private militias who believe they are on a religious crusade to destroy Christianity, as well as local extremists. What if Libya said "we seem to be responsible for the bombing of the flight, but we will never apologize for the actions of Libya no matter what the facts are. We do not care." How would Americans respond?

Personally, I try to stay away from comparing the US and its actions to terrorist organizations and their actions. It might be healthy and useful in some instances, but more often than not I think the opposite is true. In my opinion, we should spend more time measuring ourselves against our own standards.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 24, 2009, 05:44:

Well LCacique...we've discussed several things and even though we differ on some of our opinions I respect yours and I don't feel a need to try and name call or resort to that kind of behavior with you. We've built a relationship on commenting / friendly debating and agreeing on various issues, so I can read your comments without taking it the wrong way. Some others it might take some time to get used to though ;)

I am kind of curious though, you talk about my 'cyber buddies'...and its almost sort of condesending that you could assume I'm ban wagon enough to change all of my opinions based on something that you might have disagreed with others about. I know the buddies you're talking about and yes I agree with them on many things and even though they remain my friends they get red faced when I go against Isreal as much as I get pissed when people attack my country. At the end of the day we aren't all going to agree on everything and that's fine. Anyhow, Im sure you didnt mean that in a bad way, so its all good.

And maybe you're not passing judgement on US support of Isreal but I am. We are US taxpayers, our money goes there, our troops go to support their agenda and efforts and as such we have a right to scrutinize both Isreal's policies in the middle East as well as our elected leaders support of those policies.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 24, 2009, 06:00:

Borat - The US is the same in its publications. We have good and bad journalism and of course opinions in the news are driven by parties and money from each of the parties. You can get a slightly different sway on things depending on who you read and what channel you watch. The UK is the same. I actually have a few friends in Politics (small parties) in Northern England and they've attempted to explain to me the system there. I'll admit I do admire your system in respect to you guys having multiple parties. Im sick of a 2 party system here.


I never refuted facts about the Airliner being shot down. Never even said there wasn't a link to Lockerbie. But are you saying that makes it ok? An old eye for an eye? Is that your suggestion? If you talked to me about a bombing in London of innocent people on a bus, would it make it ok if I pointed out what England had done weeks before in Ireland?

And how am I driting off topic my friend? And Im full of shit now am I? You are in a tiff because I told you to stop crying. I only said that because you are whining about shit that has nothing to do with this thread. Now you and your other support here can go on and flame me some more. Its ok...perhaps you two could swap emails and plan out what you'll say to me next.

Again, there are a lot of things that are valid here. However the fact remains this man was tried in a court of law was he not? I think we can call agree that he atleast was given a fair shake in things. I mean who would try and say that he or any other man Muslim or not would get as fair of a treatment in his country? Even a hint of guilt there would get you murdered by authorities would it not? If indeed he was convicted he should serve his time. Correct? And if he was innocent that is what appeals are for. After all, that is what this thread is about.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 24, 2009, 06:00:

PS - I wasn't asking you to defend the actions of the UK anymore than you're asking me to defend past actions of the USA. I mean why else would you be talking about dead Indo Chinese? Isn't this thread on Lockerbie? Weren't you the one telling me to stay on topic?

Again if you wanted to bring up past attrocities as a general theme, then you need look no further than Englands backyard.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

borat says on Aug 24, 2009, 08:04:

Rocco, let me apologise for being rude, to say that you are full of shit was arrogant and uncalled for.

Please let me emphasise, that regardless, of any criminal government act, I would never condone a terrorist act that murders hundreds of innocent people.

Only a brainless fool would suggest that the passengers on board the Pan Am flight were in some way responsible for the actions of the Vincennes. I think you can see that, nowhere above have I implied such craziness. Many people around the world are bitter towards your governments actions, but, this bitterness, should not be directed towards the American people themselves.

I'm merely stating how the chain of events unfolded, I think the relatives of everybody involved would welcome the truth.

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 24, 2009, 11:01:

Borat..thanks for the clarification. No worries..

I agree that my government has done some things to irritate the foreign world as has yours, as has any 1st world country really. Its hard to pick and choose our battles without pissing off one half the world. I do know that the USA is not always a friendly peaceful giant that we're not always the good guy. I just get offended because so many people only see the bad things the US has done and so easily forget the good.

Anyhow as we all agree on, this thread is not about USA vs World. This was about terror and what I still call a mockery of justice. I think we can all agree on this at some level.

Later

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Aug 24, 2009, 12:40:

I didn't mean it to sound condescending nor did I intend for it to sound as if I thought you would change all of your opinions in order to align yourself with other like-minded (more or less) individuals. In fact, I expressed uncertainty about whether or not those relationships would influence your overall opinion of me. I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that there is a possibility that one's opinion of another person may be shaped in part by how his/her friends feel about the person.

I realize that there are people who attack the US unfairly; however, I also recognize that people who express logical criticisms of a policy or politician often get labeled by certain individuals as anti-American. My view is this, we have set certain standards for ourselves in the US. They are great standards and - in many ways - we expect and/or hope that others will adopt them. My pet peeve is when I hear something like this: "Who cares that the US employed mercenaries that assassinated "x-number" of innocent Iraqi civilians, Saddam Hussein killed "x y number" of innocent Iraqi civilians" or "Who gives a damn that a few prisoners were abused, we didn't abuse them as much as Saddam did when he controlled the country" or "Yes, we overthrew there government and replaced him with a dictator, but we are the good guys so it doesn't matter." There is something very flawed in that logic if you ask me. Finally, I do not think that one would be bashing the US if he/she pointed out that it does not matter that there are worse perpetrators (violence, corruption, whatever), the US has higher standards and it should measure itself against those standards not the standards set by thugs. Why is it an expression of love for one's country to ignore and/or excuse wrongdoings? I am sorry, but it completely baffles me.

Assuming that he was guilty, I do find it offensive that he didn't serve very much time just as I am offended that Pinochet never did any time.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 24, 2009, 15:46:

Like I said, I didnt take it in a bad way dude..its ok.

I know what you mean about setting standards. I agree that just because another country might slaughter and punish people doesn't mean we should stoop to thier levels. Then again on the flip side of that I mean how do you fight them? These guys dont understand reasoning and peace or fairplay and I know part of that is because they are the underdog they must play dirty but still... I dunno man.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Aug 24, 2009, 17:00:

Cool. It is hard to tell how clear you are being sometimes online.

I know that I gave a bunch of examples that were linked to the war, but I could have just as easily been talking about diplomatic matters or internal politics.

Nevertheless, you raise great points and I am not here to pretend that I have the magic solution.

When you say "them," I am not sure exactly who you are referring to...

With Iraq, I am not even positive why we are there. The reasons have changed several times and it seems very clear that the Bush administration was involved in a lot of manipulation in order to sell it. We rightfully lost a lot of credibility in the world for that blunder if you ask me. I have a serious problem with the use of paramilitary forces (military contractors) there and I think they are a stain on our reputation. I heard somewhere that there are something like 600 different outfits operating in the Middle East. Why is it that we can fund these guys with their 6 figure salaries, but we can't fund our own soldiers. I think it is absolutely disgusting and - as has been proven - it is a recipe for disaster. But, hey, it is easier to sell it politically in many ways because you can keep it hush~hush in comparison to sending soldiers in battle, right?

And to all of the individuals who claim that Obama is my messiah, I'll criticize him all day long for his continued use of Blackwater and other groups like it.

With respect to the terrorists, again, it is complex. As far as a general tactic goes, I am not necessarily interested in reasoning with terrorists (though history has demonstrated that it is not impossible). I am more interested in distancing people from feeling sympathetic to their cause. While it may be a challenge in some respects, I think that it is vital and pretty achievable in many cases; however, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot when - by accident or design - we bomb hospitals, schools or neighborhoods. And all of this is made worse when we act as though we do no wrong.

Look, I am not naive, the Middle East is a clusterf#$k with or without US involvement in the region. Poverty, lack of education, religious fanaticism, and oppressive leadership - amongst other things - will continue to create instability in the region.

So, I don't know either man.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Aug 24, 2009, 23:10:

Rocco: While I may have been uncertain about whether or not your circle of friends had any influence with respect to your opinion of me, I had no doubt that some would try. Case in point. g_s has also demonstrated why I felt like complimenting your tone in our debates. It deserved to be pointed out; however, I have no interest in being a wedge so don't bother responding this comment.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Aug 25, 2009, 04:48:

yessssirrrrreeee!

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 25, 2009, 07:16:

Maybe I missed something...I dont follow you here. I didn't see G_S post.

Anyhow, you and I are different politically in a lot of ways. So what? Any one who has read any number of our posts knows that. In a hypothetical war situation you and I would be on different sides of the battle field. I just don't see a purpose in trying to sling mud at someone who wants to have a normal conversation.

Besides Politics we share some musical interests and other things that are far more interesting to me than politics.

No matter what side of the political spectrum we're on I don't need to try and belittle someone to prove a point. And before someone wants to call me out...I am not above flaming occassionaly, but I dont try and do that unless something is just not worth a serious response. Sometimes a little cage rattling is in order even for those of us that usually agree on things...Right G_S ?

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Aug 25, 2009, 11:46:

Why am I not surprised, g_s?

Here is a summary of what he wrote last night: He asked you "wtf" for discussing something with me. Then he went on to call me an Odrama puta, who - like an ex-girlfriend - would continue to rag on you...so much so, in fact, that I would completely ignore moments when you agreed with me only to keep picking on you.

Why in the hell would you delete your comment, g_s?

Anyway, Rocco, I could not agree more with your last comment.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Aug 25, 2009, 11:49:

yes sirrrree! Rocco*!
You got it.
.... some people never will.
People who are full of philosophizing... with no real experience (like I once was) tend to be quite annoying.

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Aug 25, 2009, 12:11:

Yeah I dunno...Im completely confused with you two and could give a shit less now. Im over this thread.

Im still pissed about what happened in Scottland and Im still sensitve to those posters out there that choose to pick any incident and take cheap shots at Americans.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Aug 30, 2009, 08:55:

UK considered oil deal in Lockerbie case.

The British government allowed the Lockerbie bomber to be covered by a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya because that was in the "overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom" as a major oil deal was being negotiated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090830/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_lockerbie_2

0 funny, 0 helpful.