Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Lockerbie Bomber release
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Lee: [qb] Ah, yes, the circuit board. Found months after under dubious circumstances, and with a chain of custody that would get it laughed out of even a US court. The fact that other Libyans have apparently used similar bombs is circumstantial evidence at best - it was hardly a copyrighted design. [/b][/QUOTE]The context of it is that the Libians were the top weapons suppliers and teror suporters in the world- it's pretty hard not to put the bomb and the libians together. certaily the scottish courts thought it was warranted. [QUOTE][b] I myself an rather puzzled as to how Big Al McGrahy came into the frame. And frame it may well have been - his whole implication in the crime rests with the identification of the Maltese shop-keeper. For all that it was the Scottish government who tried him, it was the US and British intelligence agencies keeping evidence out of the trial. Try to remember that. It was the Scottish legal system trying to put him behind bars in the first place. [/QUOTE][/b] Well, I certainly agree that this guy's testimony seems shaky- he's described as "possibly unstable" in one report- and the reward money that the Americans and the UK were offering sure tempted a lot of unsavory characters.. And yet...the inteligence community did not just pick a libian intel officer's name out of a hat and decide to go after him- if that were the case, Libia would never have allowed extradition (as they had denied extradition of terror suspects prior to that- and in this case it [i]still[/i] took years of international pressure). But, if he's not guilty, the scots (and Americans) have gone to extreme lengths to show otherwise. it looks like they had a circumstantial case on the right guy- though it is obvious to anyone that his conviction is a proxy for those that gave the order. [QUOTE] Yes, the 2003 letter failed to show remorse, and accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials. To you that's a clear admission of guilt. But to many others it's exactly the opposite. The letter says they accept responsibility because the agent has been found guilt. Simply that. And yes, they failed to show remorse. Why would they? There are millions of people in the world who. Don't. Like. America. That among their number might be a Dictator who lost an (adopted?) child, in the 1986 US air-strike intended to assassinate him, should be no more surprising (or incriminating) than the notion that a few Iraqis might fancy painting a celebratory 9/11 mural. [/qb][/QUOTE]That is no excuse to murder 270 innocent civillians. If they bombed a military target it would be diffrent- those cowards would not do that, as it would have been an act of war- which Libia would have badly lost. Instead they killed mothers, children and just normal people that had nothing to do with any gripe Libia might have had. And then they admitted it- it's not a letter stating that they accept international law- it's a letter saying the ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for the bombing. That's a whole seperate thing- it's a confession that only now do they recant- now that the internatinal community has embraced them as "reformed". :rolleyes: So yeah- [i]fuck them[/i]. They should pay however possible and their bomber should not recieve any walk- [i]compassion[/i] would be for Sotland to have flown in his family for a visit, not to trade this killer for oil rights in a country that-suprise- is still funding extremism in it's madrassas, media and in the hero's welome this bomber recieved. If this is compassion, I'd really like to see another case like it where cotland let a murderer go free- really. If it's their policy, and there is precedent for murderers to be released if terminal, I'd accept it- but it's not the case and calling this anything but a shady political deal is a farce. But I'm no wingnut- I dont think any boycott is required or even useful: the damage is done and there are plenty in the UK that agree with my POV, I'm sure. I am not adverse to seeing the case opened back up and letting the evidence (or lack thereof) be seen though. I think all cases of terrorism need to be as transparant as possible- and obviously this was not (in part because of Gadafi's insistance that it [i]not[/i] be a jury trial and not be televised). I doubt it will happen- Gordon will want to get this behind him as quickly as possible. As to some of out nuttier wingnuts calling names, dont take that too personally- the Republicans have been trying any crazy thing to avoid an honest debate on healthcare- one jackass just interrupted the President's speach to congress and called the President a liar. Those people are fucking crazy. [QUOTE][b]If we really were aiming to be terrorist friendly, we would pick a terrorist group from some country that some of our citizens fancied they had a connection to, hold fundraisers for that organisation year on year, and pump uncounted millions to them regardless of the ugly uses that money was being put to - after all, why would we care? The bombs wouldn't be going off in our back yard, right? Now that would be terrorist friendly. [/b][/QUOTE]Gee, if you mean that as an IRA reference, it's doubly ironic- as Libia supplied most of their explosives that killed so many in the UK. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3