posted
You know what, speaking as a Scottish person who is in the unusual position of agreeing with the SNP on something, I'd sooner we lived in a society with the capacity for compassion than the alternative - I'd even go so far as to say I agree with the Church's stance on this one:
"It is not about whether he deserves compassion, it is about whether we have the capacity to give it and it is really important for the fullness of our humanity that we remain capable of showing mercy. This decision has sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish. I understand the deep anger and grief that still grips the souls of the victims' families and I respect their views. But to them I would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy."
Good grief, it feels weird to be talking about the SNP and the Church, and be agreeing with them both.
I also agree with Lee's point - the conviction was never exactly watertight, was it?
So, just to sum up - that's me agreeing with Salmond (yeek), the Church (yikes) and Lee. What one should I be most worried about?
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Funny - people over here are calling Scotland "Terrorist Friendly"
I don't think Scotland is terrorist friendly, at least not at the moment. 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.
Hmm...now that I think about it, I might be in danger of stealing someone's idea. I'm sure some country did that recently...
-------------------- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
It just really depresses me. Thousands of people - from all over the world - are killed in a monstrous attack on US soil. The whole world is united in sympathy and detestation of the act. And then you go and piss it all up the wall to further the lunatic ambitions of a bunch of PNAC cunts. Britain becomes a near-pariah for standing by you, rightly or wrongly, when no-one else would. But then - we let ONE GUY out of prison to die at home, and all of sudden the wingnuts are threading us right onto that Axis of Evil. I'd imagine the very existence of our working-quite-nicely socialised health care system is just adding insult to injury.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: 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]
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: 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.
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 still 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.
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".
So yeah- fuck them. They should pay however possible and their bomber should not recieve any walk- compassion 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 not 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: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.
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.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: 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.
Libyan explosives that the IRA might not have been able to afford - or at least might have had to settle for buying a bit less than they did - if they didn't have that money coming to them in the first place. Considering that a point you yourself made earlier mentioned "...the fallen british soldiers that have died fighting terrorism", the irony positively abounds.
I can see, Jason, from your arguments that you're no wingnut. We disagree, and there is nothing wrong with that, but you're no wingnut. However there are wingnuts having a pop at Scotland and the UK for this, and given that most of them live in a country that has just emerged from an eight-year orgy of doing whatever the fuck it likes to whoever the fuck it likes, whenever the fuck it likes, it's a bit hard to take.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I don't think it was a UK/IRA reference. I think it may have been a US/Israel reference.
Not really, I was talking about the IRA, in terms of a terrorist group receiving financial support from citizens of another country. While I may have my problems with the treatment of the Palestinian people at the hands of the government in Israel, that's a far cry from likening them to a terrorist organization. Now there's a conversational minefield, neatly sidestepped!
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
See, this is where arguments break down- we can go 'round and 'round over terrorism and various shameful instances where the US/UK/USSR/Whoever supported or fought it but the matter at hand is a singular case- and, as far as I know, unprecedented. Maybe I'm just to cynical- I cant buy the notion of a compassionate release while all the other stuff is pointing to a political swap (which would piss on the victim's families, in my opinion). Nor can I accept the notion of the reasons for his release not mattering, as he's terminal anyway.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I don't think it was a UK/IRA reference. I think it may have been a US/Israel reference.
Also : "Libia"? Are you just doing this on purpose now? At least you had all the right letters before.
Well, "labia" would have been funnier, but distracting.
So, today's 9/11 and what have we got? Lots of dead allied forces (over a thousand US casualties between both countries and ten times that many wounded) and islamic extremism seems more prevalant today than eight years ago-though it may be that we are just more aware of it now.
I'm sure some asshole politician will use the day as a soapbox to decry the other party's goals, and even worse- some jackass from overseas will be on TV burning an American flag- which will just alienate the US viewers to the Islamic world more.
I think I'll boycott media today and just enjoy the day instead for those who no longer can.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Jesus Christ. I swear I could lead the massed peoples of the rest of the world in chanting a massive epic on the various reasons why people might not like the USA, in front of the whole population of the USA, and at the end of it you'd all just shrug and mutter something complacently about how we're only jealous of your freedom and your way of life.
Please. PLEASE just explain to me, how I can point out that Gaddafi has REALLY personal reasons to dislike the USA, and therefore might not feel moved to show any sympathy for any misfortune that might befall it, and you just read that as my excusing his (alleged) murder of innocent civilians? All I said was one could hardly expect him to show remorse.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Jesus Christ. I swear I could lead the massed peoples of the rest of the world in chanting a massive epic on the various reasons why people might not like the USA, in front of the whole population of the USA, and at the end of it you'd all just shrug and mutter something complacently about how we're only jealous of your freedom and your way of life.
Please. PLEASE just explain to me, how I can point out that Gaddafi has REALLY personal reasons to dislike the USA, and therefore might not feel moved to show any sympathy for any misfortune that might befall it, and you just read that as my excusing his (alleged) murder of innocent civilians? All I said was one could hardly expect him to show remorse.
I'm not talking about- or even care about- his showing remorse. I certainly dont think you're excusing him in any way- although the international community sure seems to have. I'm talking about his admitting that they blew up the plane. I dont expect any remorse from him- as you pointed out, he has his reasons for hating the US i]government[/i]. Obviously his personal hatred is no excuse to target civillians- as I said, if it were a military thing he attacked, I'd look at it diffrently.
Where do you get this line of "hating out freedom" crap? That's nothing close to what I said- I think you're channeling some general frustrations of percieved American arrogance into this. Ah. I see- that refers to escallum's Glen Beck-ish rantings. i just skip his posts in general. Believe it or not, it's only an extreme minority that agree with his sentiments.
Oh, and the murder of those civillians is no longer "alleged" once a verdict is reached (weither you agree with that verdict or not).
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I suppose, technically, five-thousand-and-something is "over a thousand"...
er...that should have read Ten-thousand.
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: And the war in Afghanistan continues...and NO BIN LADEN!!!
That's only because he's taking refuge in a country friendly to the US. You know, because the Pakistani government are our friends. Right? Yep. Pals. that's why we given them billions each year- as a token of our friendship.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
