FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The truth about Lockerbie - finally!
The truth about Lockerbie - finally!
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So there we have it, much as has been long suspected, Gadaffi personally ordered the Lockerbie outrage.
I hope Gordon Brown, and to a lesser extent his bed chum Tony B Liar, are feeling absolutely ashamed of themselves.
Seeing photographs of the two of them shaking hands with Mad Dog sickens me to the core. It didn't need a former Libyan minister to confirm what MI5/6 probably knew all along, yet Brown & Blair chose to mislead the British public in telling us the truth of it, and instead, negotiated for Magrahi's release in return for trade and oil deals - which in light of recent events over there will be absolutely worthless.
Nice one Brown. Traitor. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Or the minister in question in Libya seeing the regime about to fall and wants to now look like one of the oppressed 'good guys' to save his own skin and is saying what he thinks everyone WANTS to hear? So what is truth in politics? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So there we have it, much as has been long suspected, Gadaffi personally ordered the Lockerbie outrage.
I hope Gordon Brown, and to a lesser extent his bed chum Tony B Liar, are feeling absolutely ashamed of themselves.
Seeing photographs of the two of them shaking hands with Mad Dog sickens me to the core. It didn't need a former Libyan minister to confirm what MI5/6 probably knew all along, yet Brown & Blair chose to mislead the British public in telling us the truth of it, and instead, negotiated for Magrahi's release in return for trade and oil deals - which in light of recent events over there will be absolutely worthless.
Nice one Brown. Traitor."
as far as i have seen and heard the guy claiming thisw has only stated it, has not yet provided the proof he claims to have.
he is defecting from the Linyan goverment and i dont blame him, they are all bailing out. could be its just a ploy to dicredit Gaddafi further
i do beleive it is true though always have done so |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Or the minister in question in Libya seeing the regime about to fall and wants to now look like one of the oppressed 'good guys' to save his own skin and is saying what he thinks everyone WANTS to hear? So what is truth in politics?"
The minister has no reason to lie about it, defecting to the protester's cause is enough to save his neck. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Of course he has no reason to lie - thats why all politicians are so open and honest it doesnt serve their purpose to lie  "
I meant in this particular instance.
Personally, I would trust the guy as far as I could throw him, but I do believe Gadaffi was behind it all along. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Well i'm glad that's all settled then.
The Libyan Govt is still in the process of falling.
Some random guy points the finger at Gadafi, saying 'it was him what done it'.
And finally, after all these years, we know the truth.
Let's not bother with trying to back that up, involve any evidence or anything pesky like facts, or the truth.
Let's just decide that's that.
Jesus.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So there we have it, much as has been long suspected, Gadaffi personally ordered the Lockerbie outrage.
I hope Gordon Brown, and to a lesser extent his bed chum Tony B Liar, are feeling absolutely ashamed of themselves.
Seeing photographs of the two of them shaking hands with Mad Dog sickens me to the core. It didn't need a former Libyan minister to confirm what MI5/6 probably knew all along, yet Brown & Blair chose to mislead the British public in telling us the truth of it, and instead, negotiated for Magrahi's release in return for trade and oil deals - which in light of recent events over there will be absolutely worthless.
Nice one Brown. Traitor."
If this were true, rather than... well lets stick with "unproven", don't you think it would maybe be on the news? Or on the BBC website?
Because it's not on either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
its about time we stopped getting worked up about things said and done by any goverment, they only tell us what they think we want to hear anyway
I just ignore them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course he has no reason to lie - thats why all politicians are so open and honest it doesnt serve their purpose to lie
I meant in this particular instance.
Personally, I would trust the guy as far as I could throw him, but I do believe Gadaffi was behind it all along."
Ah I see.... so whats so special about this particular instance that would make you call Brown and Blair liars and this minister who was part of the Gaddafi regime to be telling the 'truth'? Neither Blair nor Brown were in office when Lockerbie happened. Dodgy deals are the way of the world and its naive for anyone to think that trade in this day and age is done without lying cheating and wool pulling. From buying a piece of ripped off mutton at yer local from a bloke your mates cousins neighbour knows to arms deals to every corrupt regime in the world everybody is at it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Ah I see.... so whats so special about this particular instance that would make you call Brown and Blair liars and this minister who was part of the Gaddafi regime to be telling the 'truth'? Neither Blair nor Brown were in office when Lockerbie happened. Dodgy deals are the way of the world and its naive for anyone to think that trade in this day and age is done without lying cheating and wool pulling. From buying a piece of ripped off mutton at yer local from a bloke your mates cousins neighbour knows to arms deals to every corrupt regime in the world everybody is at it."
let's not stop at brown and blair...what's so different about this guy and any other guy sat in a pub making his opinion known between half time sips? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-12552587
The Libyan minister hs yet toi reveal his proof, but he says he has it. If it turns out he doesn't then he won't have endeared himself to anyone will he. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Ah I see.... so whats so special about this particular instance that would make you call Brown and Blair liars and this minister who was part of the Gaddafi regime to be telling the 'truth'? Neither Blair nor Brown were in office when Lockerbie happened. Dodgy deals are the way of the world and its naive for anyone to think that trade in this day and age is done without lying cheating and wool pulling. From buying a piece of ripped off mutton at yer local from a bloke your mates cousins neighbour knows to arms deals to every corrupt regime in the world everybody is at it.
let's not stop at brown and blair...what's so different about this guy and any other guy sat in a pub making his opinion known between half time sips?"
Yep the ranks of the armchair activists are live and kicking... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Well i'm glad that's all settled then.
The Libyan Govt is still in the process of falling.
Some random guy points the finger at Gadafi, saying 'it was him what done it'.
And finally, after all these years, we know the truth.
Let's not bother with trying to back that up, involve any evidence or anything pesky like facts, or the truth.
Let's just decide that's that.
Jesus.
"
Tell you what, let's see if the guy does have the proof.
This thread is just a thread to discuss the issue.
Got sod all to do with Jesus either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
let's not stop at brown and blair...what's so different about this guy and any other guy sat in a pub making his opinion known between half time sips?
That's no way to talk about the OP...
 "
Don't make it personal. If you cant discuss it try some of the 'would you above/below' threads. ok. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Tell you what, let's see if the guy does have the proof.
This thread is just a thread to discuss the issue.
Got sod all to do with Jesus either."
Unless Jesus really is the Son of God, then everything is to do with him.
And yes, let's see this guys proof before we start excoriating all and sundry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
let's not stop at brown and blair...what's so different about this guy and any other guy sat in a pub making his opinion known between half time sips?
That's no way to talk about the OP...
Don't make it personal. If you cant discuss it try some of the 'would you above/below' threads. ok."
You can't bully me off this thread onto another.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Threads are great if theyre open for debate but when one opinion is stated as 'the truth' then that isnt opening a debate its dictating. Anything posted that follows is widening the debate and giving an indication that some readers are not convinced its 'the truth' so are posting as is the norm in these threads..."
Please forgive my error in putting the wrong piece of grammar at the end of the thread title.
Would it have read differently if I'd said:
The Truth about Lockerbie - finally???
Yeah, I guess it would, but I (and millions of others) believe it was ordered by Gadaffi. Megrahi was definately the bomber (proven in a court of law), and his links to Gadaffi are also proven.
If something looks like shit, smells like shit, tastes like shit - guess what, it's shit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
let's not stop at brown and blair...what's so different about this guy and any other guy sat in a pub making his opinion known between half time sips?
That's no way to talk about the OP...
Don't make it personal. If you cant discuss it try some of the 'would you above/below' threads. ok.
You can't bully me off this thread onto another.
"
You sure don't seem to be able to debate something without making personal remarks. I was merely suggesting it may be better off to post on threads that specifically ASK for personal remarks - about the poster above or below. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Threads are great if theyre open for debate but when one opinion is stated as 'the truth' then that isnt opening a debate its dictating. Anything posted that follows is widening the debate and giving an indication that some readers are not convinced its 'the truth' so are posting as is the norm in these threads...
Please forgive my error in putting the wrong piece of grammar at the end of the thread title.
Would it have read differently if I'd said:
The Truth about Lockerbie - finally???
Yeah, I guess it would, but I (and millions of others) believe it was ordered by Gadaffi. Megrahi was definately the bomber (proven in a court of law), and his links to Gadaffi are also proven.
If something looks like shit, smells like shit, tastes like shit - guess what, it's shit."
In your opinion - which you are reiterating again - I got you first time. I just dont happen to agree with you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Truth about Lockerbie - finally???
Yeah, I guess it would, but I (and millions of others) believe it was ordered by Gadaffi. Megrahi was definately the bomber (proven in a court of law), and his links to Gadaffi are also proven.
If something looks like shit, smells like shit, tastes like shit - guess what, it's shit."
And you, like millions of others, are incorrect in your belief.
Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was not 'the bomber' and was about to be released on appeal after he proved that in court.
Which is why we have a criminal justice system and international law, courts and a judiciary.
Because when guilt or innocence was decided on the basis of ' looks like shit, smells like shit, tastes like shit - guess what, it's shit' we burned witches at the stake.
We've moved on a bit since then.
DO try to keep up with the times.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You sure don't seem to be able to debate something without making personal remarks. I was merely suggesting it may be better off to post on threads that specifically ASK for personal remarks - about the poster above or below."
And I was simply declining to take you up on your suggestion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I deleted this in error so am posting it again as its been quoted by other posters and could cause confusion.
"Threads are great if theyre open for debate but when one opinion is stated as 'the truth' then that isnt opening a debate its dictating. Anything posted that follows is widening the debate and giving an indication that some readers are not convinced its 'the truth' so are posting as is the norm in these threads... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was not 'the bomber' and was about to be released on appeal after he proved that in court."
And where is this piece of evidence then?
I've typed the above statement into Google and it returned nothing about Megrahi appealing his conviction successfully.
Please enlighten us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've got proof Elvis is alive.
I just havent chosen to reveal it yet."
FFS! I knew he sneaked out of the cupboard that night I was on cam. Dammit!
And you said you never saw a thing ...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I personally never believed al-Megrahi was the lockerbie bomber. I believe he was a scapegoat for the Libyan government sent to appease and he agreed to the charade because he thought he would be able to serve his sentence in Libya, not the UK, after he was found guilty and would subsequently be released under Libyan law (oops I mean Gaddafi whim). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've got proof Elvis is alive.
I just havent chosen to reveal it yet.
FFS! I knew he sneaked out of the cupboard that night I was on cam. Dammit!
And you said you never saw a thing ... "
Fight fight fight Fiiiiiiiiiiiight! Its like being back at school with bags littered all over and 2 5th formers pulling hair in the playground! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've got proof Elvis is alive.
I just havent chosen to reveal it yet.
FFS! I knew he sneaked out of the cupboard that night I was on cam. Dammit!
And you said you never saw a thing ...
Fight fight fight Fiiiiiiiiiiiight! Its like being back at school with bags littered all over and 2 5th formers pulling hair in the playground! "
Don't you quote me into no fight, ya hear  I was simply stating that Elvis bombed Lockerbie, I think  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was not 'the bomber' and was about to be released on appeal after he proved that in court.
And where is this piece of evidence then?
I've typed the above statement into Google and it returned nothing about Megrahi appealing his conviction successfully.
Please enlighten us."
It would take a couple of millenia to enlighten you.
If it's not on Google, then it can't exist, must not be true eh?
Where's your friend wikipedia when you need it?
Go and look at the stuff which has been written about the case since the bombing and since his conviction.
As in 'do some research' instead of just typing in todays topic on the net.
His appeal was about to be heard in Scotland, after years of delaying tactics by the Scottish and UK authorities.
The basis of his appeal was on evidence which was disallowed at the original trial at camp zeist in Holland after collusion between the prosecution and the court.
His appeal was going to be successful, there is little doubt about it - again go and READ something about it, don't rely on Google to answer the question.
They were going to have to release him - and his release would have raised far too many questions which the Uk & US govts did not want aired in public.
Hence his release before the case was heard.
I have followed this case in detail for two decades.
Suggest you start with 'Flight from Justice' by Paul Foot -to give you a grounding on the basics of the bombing, the background, the investigation, the arrest and conviction.
And then get into a bit more depth after that
You can't read it on the internet, but you can buy it there.
That way maybe you can come back to us later with a _iew on the topic which has at least some basis in reality.
(p.s - It was the Syrians, on behalf of Iran who did it)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have we established whos cock is the biggest yet? "
Fuck that...I'm waiting for the whose arse is bigger!!! Don't you just love the smell of testosterone!   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was not 'the bomber' and was about to be released on appeal after he proved that in court.
And where is this piece of evidence then?
I've typed the above statement into Google and it returned nothing about Megrahi appealing his conviction successfully.
Please enlighten us.
It would take a couple of millenia to enlighten you.
If it's not on Google, then it can't exist, must not be true eh?
Where's your friend wikipedia when you need it?
Go and look at the stuff which has been written about the case since the bombing and since his conviction.
As in 'do some research' instead of just typing in todays topic on the net.
His appeal was about to be heard in Scotland, after years of delaying tactics by the Scottish and UK authorities.
The basis of his appeal was on evidence which was disallowed at the original trial at camp zeist in Holland after collusion between the prosecution and the court.
His appeal was going to be successful, there is little doubt about it - again go and READ something about it, don't rely on Google to answer the question.
They were going to have to release him - and his release would have raised far too many questions which the Uk & US govts did not want aired in public.
Hence his release before the case was heard.
I have followed this case in detail for two decades.
Suggest you start with 'Flight from Justice' by Paul Foot -to give you a grounding on the basics of the bombing, the background, the investigation, the arrest and conviction.
And then get into a bit more depth after that
You can't read it on the internet, but you can buy it there.
That way maybe you can come back to us later with a _iew on the topic which has at least some basis in reality.
(p.s - It was the Syrians, on behalf of Iran who did it)
"
As we suspected all along - it was the Syrians - nobody ever expects the Syrians!!! You know me well enough by now that I had to start off with a joke but I am extremely impressed by this response and I shall go and have my suspicions that he was never 'the bomber' broadened by the reading you suggest. I just had a niggling feeling while I was watching it unfold way back then.... and thought it was one huge cover up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I just dropped my digestive into my cuppa while dunking it.
It is Blairs and Browns fault !!! the gits."
I believe that the angle you were holding your biscuit was causing too much strain on the shortening agents and because shortening agents are usually MI5 then it is safe to jump to the conclusion it was Blair and Brown that caused the accidental and premature dunking. However they do not have a nuclear digestive biscuit of mass destruction capability.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As we suspected all along - it was the Syrians - nobody ever expects the Syrians!!! cover up.
their two greatest weapons are fear and surprise "
Not forgetting the ruthless efficiency.
(cf. plane falling out of sky...) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
As we suspected all along - it was the Syrians - nobody ever expects the Syrians!!! cover up.
their two greatest weapons are fear and surprise "
and ruthless efficiency hahahahah |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Lol funny how ppl start pointing the finger when the shit hits the fan don't ya think
Maybe the crazy fucker did will we ever really know for sure 100% 
* crEEps RouNd grAveYarD * |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As we suspected all along - it was the Syrians - nobody ever expects the Syrians!!! cover up.
their two greatest weapons are fear and surprise
Not forgetting the ruthless efficiency.
(cf. plane falling out of sky...)"
What's wrong with Simians?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
As we suspected all along - it was the Syrians - nobody ever expects the Syrians!!! cover up.
their two greatest weapons are fear and surprise
Not forgetting the ruthless efficiency.
(cf. plane falling out of sky...)
What's wrong with Simians? "
Nothing I can see.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Truth about Lockerbie ? possibly , possibly someone jumping ship and pointing the finger about a high profile attrocity for means of their own knowing , proof may or may not surface, who knows ?. Although its a good thing that after 40 odd years of tyranny Libya looks to be taking its first tentative steps towards democracy , Gaddafi promises to fight to the last bullet , how many die while the battle to overthrow ? , one thing is true , he wont be doing the fighting , he will be putting countryman against countryman to the death while he sits guarded in his palace counting his fortunes and planning his escape (should he need it).
So , Lockerbie , Libya , truth , who knows , what is truth ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *-and-KCouple
over a year ago
Back of Beyond |
Somebody else who believes in everything printed in the Sun. If only haflf of what that paper printed were true!
The truth will out one day, but why go through life carrying a grudge over something neither you or anyone else can alter?
At the end of the day you may as well bang your head against a wall, noone else will be brought to justice over it. Something else to be swept under the carpet of time and forgotten about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As things stand Megrahi is guilty and will remain guilty. He had the opportunity to remain in Scotland and have his appeal heard in court. He chose not to do so.
It's been suggested he abandoned his appeal so he could return home to die. He didn't die. 18 months later he's still very much alive.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Re_iew Commission referred his case back to the court because of doubts about some of the evidence which had either been led or hadn't been disclosed to Megrahi's defence team.
That ommission might well have been enough for an appeal court to decide that Megrahi's conviction was unsafe but that's a long way from saying he's innocent.
As it happens I don't think he's guilty but I wasn't at Zeist, I didn't hear all the evidence and I haven't seen the SCCRC report. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Somebody else who believes in everything printed in the Sun. If only haflf of what that paper printed were true!
..............."
If The Sun tells you today is Thursday - get a second opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago
glasgow |
"So there we have it, much as has been long suspected, Gadaffi personally ordered the Lockerbie outrage.
I hope Gordon Brown, and to a lesser extent his bed chum Tony B Liar, are feeling absolutely ashamed of themselves.
Seeing photographs of the two of them shaking hands with Mad Dog sickens me to the core. It didn't need a former Libyan minister to confirm what MI5/6 probably knew all along, yet Brown & Blair chose to mislead the British public in telling us the truth of it, and instead, negotiated for Magrahi's release in return for trade and oil deals - which in light of recent events over there will be absolutely worthless.
Nice one Brown. Traitor."
SHOCK HORROR!!!!politician befriends tyrant.to secure trade,and oil deals.
next you'll be telling us,the sun is hot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iewMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Angus & Findhorn |
did the guys from Iraq who defected and told us there was WMD then turn around and say he lied.
maybe this guy from Libya is also trying to mislead.
the facts will prob never be known.
sadly.
wee bit miffed the people who are being rescued are complaining they weren't quickly enough..
bless them.. they work there, I suggest may not pay tax in this country, albeit a they hold a passport... and the tax payer pays for the rescue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"As things stand Megrahi is guilty and will remain guilty. He had the opportunity to remain in Scotland and have his appeal heard in court. He chose not to do so.
It's been suggested he abandoned his appeal so he could return home to die. He didn't die. 18 months later he's still very much alive.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Re_iew Commission referred his case back to the court because of doubts about some of the evidence which had either been led or hadn't been disclosed to Megrahi's defence team.
That ommission might well have been enough for an appeal court to decide that Megrahi's conviction was unsafe but that's a long way from saying he's innocent.
As it happens I don't think he's guilty but I wasn't at Zeist, I didn't hear all the evidence and I haven't seen the SCCRC report."
That's very different from what you said above that he'd successfully appealed his conviction.
You are backtracking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"So there we have it, much as has been long suspected, Gadaffi personally ordered the Lockerbie outrage.
I hope Gordon Brown, and to a lesser extent his bed chum Tony B Liar, are feeling absolutely ashamed of themselves.
Seeing photographs of the two of them shaking hands with Mad Dog sickens me to the core. It didn't need a former Libyan minister to confirm what MI5/6 probably knew all along, yet Brown & Blair chose to mislead the British public in telling us the truth of it, and instead, negotiated for Magrahi's release in return for trade and oil deals - which in light of recent events over there will be absolutely worthless.
Nice one Brown. Traitor.
SHOCK HORROR!!!!politician befriends tyrant.to secure trade,and oil deals.
next you'll be telling us,the sun is hot. "
But you'll still vote Labour won't you - knowing without a shred of doubt they lied to you.
Your argument is you'd rather be lied to by your own people than anyone else.
That's quite defeatist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As things stand Megrahi is guilty and will remain guilty. He had the opportunity to remain in Scotland and have his appeal heard in court. He chose not to do so.
It's been suggested he abandoned his appeal so he could return home to die. He didn't die. 18 months later he's still very much alive.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Re_iew Commission referred his case back to the court because of doubts about some of the evidence which had either been led or hadn't been disclosed to Megrahi's defence team.
That ommission might well have been enough for an appeal court to decide that Megrahi's conviction was unsafe but that's a long way from saying he's innocent.
As it happens I don't think he's guilty but I wasn't at Zeist, I didn't hear all the evidence and I haven't seen the SCCRC report.
That's very different from what you said above that he'd successfully appealed his conviction.
You are backtracking."
I think you're confusing quotes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Somebody else who believes in everything printed in the Sun. If only haflf of what that paper printed were true!
The truth will out one day, but why go through life carrying a grudge over something neither you or anyone else can alter?
At the end of the day you may as well bang your head against a wall, noone else will be brought to justice over it. Something else to be swept under the carpet of time and forgotten about."
The parents and kin of the 270 souls lost that night would beg to differ.
They are still campaigning for the truth and the local Scottish sherrif has requested all new information pertaining to the case to try and give those families some sort of closure.
He's probably banging his head against a brick wall but, hey, nobody cares anymore huh? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As things stand Megrahi is guilty and will remain guilty. He had the opportunity to remain in Scotland and have his appeal heard in court. He chose not to do so.
It's been suggested he abandoned his appeal so he could return home to die. He didn't die. 18 months later he's still very much alive.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Re_iew Commission referred his case back to the court because of doubts about some of the evidence which had either been led or hadn't been disclosed to Megrahi's defence team.
That ommission might well have been enough for an appeal court to decide that Megrahi's conviction was unsafe but that's a long way from saying he's innocent.
As it happens I don't think he's guilty but I wasn't at Zeist, I didn't hear all the evidence and I haven't seen the SCCRC report.
That's very different from what you said above that he'd successfully appealed his conviction.
You are backtracking."
to be fair AV never said that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"As things stand Megrahi is guilty and will remain guilty. He had the opportunity to remain in Scotland and have his appeal heard in court. He chose not to do so.
It's been suggested he abandoned his appeal so he could return home to die. He didn't die. 18 months later he's still very much alive.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Re_iew Commission referred his case back to the court because of doubts about some of the evidence which had either been led or hadn't been disclosed to Megrahi's defence team.
That ommission might well have been enough for an appeal court to decide that Megrahi's conviction was unsafe but that's a long way from saying he's innocent.
As it happens I don't think he's guilty but I wasn't at Zeist, I didn't hear all the evidence and I haven't seen the SCCRC report.
That's very different from what you said above that he'd successfully appealed his conviction.
You are backtracking.
I think you're confusing quotes. "
Read up. Read again. Back track. As usual. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As things stand Megrahi is guilty and will remain guilty. He had the opportunity to remain in Scotland and have his appeal heard in court. He chose not to do so.
It's been suggested he abandoned his appeal so he could return home to die. He didn't die. 18 months later he's still very much alive.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Re_iew Commission referred his case back to the court because of doubts about some of the evidence which had either been led or hadn't been disclosed to Megrahi's defence team.
That ommission might well have been enough for an appeal court to decide that Megrahi's conviction was unsafe but that's a long way from saying he's innocent.
As it happens I don't think he's guilty but I wasn't at Zeist, I didn't hear all the evidence and I haven't seen the SCCRC report."
this was the only post AV made.. you're mistakenly quoting the wrong posr |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As things stand Megrahi is guilty and will remain guilty. He had the opportunity to remain in Scotland and have his appeal heard in court. He chose not to do so.
It's been suggested he abandoned his appeal so he could return home to die. He didn't die. 18 months later he's still very much alive.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Re_iew Commission referred his case back to the court because of doubts about some of the evidence which had either been led or hadn't been disclosed to Megrahi's defence team.
That ommission might well have been enough for an appeal court to decide that Megrahi's conviction was unsafe but that's a long way from saying he's innocent.
As it happens I don't think he's guilty but I wasn't at Zeist, I didn't hear all the evidence and I haven't seen the SCCRC report.
That's very different from what you said above that he'd successfully appealed his conviction.
You are backtracking.
I think you're confusing quotes.
Read up. Read again. Back track. As usual."
You're STILL confusing quotes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have we established whos cock is the biggest yet?
Fuck that...I'm waiting for the whose arse is bigger!!! Don't you just love the smell of testosterone! Turns me on "
And they say women are catty!! I was tempted to go to the kitchen and get them a saucer of milk!!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Have we established whos cock is the biggest yet?
Fuck that...I'm waiting for the whose arse is bigger!!! Don't you just love the smell of testosterone! Turns me on
And they say women are catty!! I was tempted to go to the kitchen and get them a saucer of milk!!!!"
Why? - you'd beat me to it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago
glasgow |
"So there we have it, much as has been long suspected, Gadaffi personally ordered the Lockerbie outrage.
I hope Gordon Brown, and to a lesser extent his bed chum Tony B Liar, are feeling absolutely ashamed of themselves.
Seeing photographs of the two of them shaking hands with Mad Dog sickens me to the core. It didn't need a former Libyan minister to confirm what MI5/6 probably knew all along, yet Brown & Blair chose to mislead the British public in telling us the truth of it, and instead, negotiated for Magrahi's release in return for trade and oil deals - which in light of recent events over there will be absolutely worthless.
Nice one Brown. Traitor.
SHOCK HORROR!!!!politician befriends tyrant.to secure trade,and oil deals.
next you'll be telling us,the sun is hot.
But you'll still vote Labour won't you - knowing without a shred of doubt they lied to you.
Your argument is you'd rather be lied to by your own people than anyone else.
That's quite defeatist."
it would be niave,in the extreme.to think any party,in government,were always totally honest with us.do you remember a party in government,that didn't lie??
i'm sure you'r favourite google,will confirm this.
oh i forgot about,
wishyswishlistoffactsandstatistics.co.uk
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"According to the BBC website, he's blaming Bin Laden?
Who's blaming Bin Laden? Wishy?"
No colonel cadaffy duck for the uprising in his country at the moment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *-and-KCouple
over a year ago
Back of Beyond |
"
He's probably banging his head against a brick wall but, hey, nobody cares anymore huh?"
That is quite correct. The only people that care any longer are the familys. Truth be known as I said, most politiicans would prefer to sweep it under the carpet of time.
Only US politicians keep it festering not because they care, but it gets them more votes come election time. Scottish politicians just wish it would go away.
Then the great unwashed public of the world (with the possible exception of you) are just not interested any longer.
There are far too many newer catastrophes to bother them without dragging up the past. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nope. It was sensual. Same ilk, different name. Apologies."
You've mis-interpreted what I actually said, which was "Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was not 'the bomber' and was about to be released on appeal after he proved that in court."
i.e, once the appeal had taken place, he would have been released, not that the appeal had taken place yet.
A point I re-emphasised several times in my post further down, stating that HAD his appeal taken place he WOULD have been released etc... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
He's probably banging his head against a brick wall but, hey, nobody cares anymore huh?
That is quite correct. The only people that care any longer are the familys. Truth be known as I said, most politiicans would prefer to sweep it under the carpet of time.
Only US politicians keep it festering not because they care, but it gets them more votes come election time. Scottish politicians just wish it would go away.
Then the great unwashed public of the world (with the possible exception of you) are just not interested any longer.
There are far too many newer catastrophes to bother them without dragging up the past."
That's not entirely true.
Scottish National Party politicians wish it would all go away because they, and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in particular, dramatically misjudged the public mood, both at home and abroad, about the release of Megrahi on 'compassionate grounds' when he was released from Greenock Jail to 'go home to die within 3 months'. Some 18 months later, he's very much alive.
The poor decision was bad enough but the scenes of jubilation including the flying of the Saltire at Tripoli Airport on his arrival home will ensure the whole sordid business plays a part in the Scottish Parliament election on May 5th.
Scotland's not a big country and not much happens here. Lockerbie/ Megrahi is still a big story all these years on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nope. It was sensual. Same ilk, different name. Apologies.
You've mis-interpreted what I actually said, which was "Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was not 'the bomber' and was about to be released on appeal after he proved that in court."
i.e, once the appeal had taken place, he would have been released, not that the appeal had taken place yet.
A point I re-emphasised several times in my post further down, stating that HAD his appeal taken place he WOULD have been released etc..."
Again, that's not strictly true. Had the appeal gone ahead AND been successful, Megrahi's conviction would have been considered unsafe and been overturned.
Whether he'd have been released is another matter entirely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
True, but in reality he would have been released after a successful appeal.
None of the parties involved had any stomach whatsoever for a retrial, which would have only made various governments and agencies look even worse than they were looking now - loads of difficult questions which nobody wants to answer -backed up by good evidence.
Whilst I'm no fan of Mr Salmond and his people I do have a certain amount of sympathy for them in this case. It is, to my mind, unthinkable that the Uk govt did not put incredible pressure on the Scottish 'govt' to release him, the wider geopolitical situation being of greater importance than what the man on the street in Possil thinks.
I guess the best litmus test for anyone not familiar with the various ins and outs of the case is too look at what Dr Jim Swire says.
He was/is the head of the Uk families organisation, his daughter flora was killed on Pan Am 103.
He is adamant that Al Megrahi should have been released due to a massive miscarriage of justice.
Check out his letter to Kenny Macaskill, the Scottish justice minister in 2009.
(those of you interested in facts rather than polemic that is)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"True, but in reality he would have been released after a successful appeal.
None of the parties involved had any stomach whatsoever for a retrial, which would have only made various governments and agencies look even worse than they were looking now - loads of difficult questions which nobody wants to answer -backed up by good evidence.
Whilst I'm no fan of Mr Salmond and his people I do have a certain amount of sympathy for them in this case. It is, to my mind, unthinkable that the Uk govt did not put incredible pressure on the Scottish 'govt' to release him, the wider geopolitical situation being of greater importance than what the man on the street in Possil thinks.
I guess the best litmus test for anyone not familiar with the various ins and outs of the case is too look at what Dr Jim Swire says.
He was/is the head of the Uk families organisation, his daughter flora was killed on Pan Am 103.
He is adamant that Al Megrahi should have been released due to a massive miscarriage of justice.
Check out his letter to Kenny Macaskill, the Scottish justice minister in 2009.
(those of you interested in facts rather than polemic that is)
"
I'm not convinced Megrahi would have been released. A retrial might have brought discomfort for a Westminster government but a Scottish Executive of a different complexion from that in office when he was incarcerated might feel theer was mileage in it.
It's possible Westminster put "incredible pressure' on Salmond to release Megrahi but the notion that Salmond would give in is laughable. Salmond's only raison d'etre is to stand up against Westminster.
Jim Swire a bit of a rum chap. Whilst Megrahi was languishing in Greenock, Swire had difficulty getting his face on telly. Most folk accepted it was all over and dusted. Getting Megrahi out, on whatever grounds, allows Swire another day in the limelight. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think that's a bit harsh on Jim Swire, who has campaigned ceaselessly for justice for the death of his daughter.
He's a grieving parent, not some C-list celeb desperate to keep hi TV profile up to date. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Bit debateable if Gaddafi was actually responsible ....it was most probally a coalition t`ween Libya..Iran and Syria ....we`ll probally never really know .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago
glasgow |
"True, but in reality he would have been released after a successful appeal.
None of the parties involved had any stomach whatsoever for a retrial, which would have only made various governments and agencies look even worse than they were looking now - loads of difficult questions which nobody wants to answer -backed up by good evidence.
Whilst I'm no fan of Mr Salmond and his people I do have a certain amount of sympathy for them in this case. It is, to my mind, unthinkable that the Uk govt did not put incredible pressure on the Scottish 'govt' to release him, the wider geopolitical situation being of greater importance than what the man on the street in Possil thinks.
I guess the best litmus test for anyone not familiar with the various ins and outs of the case is too look at what Dr Jim Swire says.
He was/is the head of the Uk families organisation, his daughter flora was killed on Pan Am 103.
He is adamant that Al Megrahi should have been released due to a massive miscarriage of justice.
Check out his letter to Kenny Macaskill, the Scottish justice minister in 2009.
(those of you interested in facts rather than polemic that is)
I'm not convinced Megrahi would have been released. A retrial might have brought discomfort for a Westminster government but a Scottish Executive of a different complexion from that in office when he was incarcerated might feel theer was mileage in it.
It's possible Westminster put "incredible pressure' on Salmond to release Megrahi but the notion that Salmond would give in is laughable. Salmond's only raison d'etre is to stand up against Westminster.
Jim Swire a bit of a rum chap. Whilst Megrahi was languishing in Greenock, Swire had difficulty getting his face on telly. Most folk accepted it was all over and dusted. Getting Megrahi out, on whatever grounds, allows Swire another day in the limelight."
you surprise and disappoint me voyeur.usually you make so much sense.
jim swire,wasn't seeking fame and limelight.
jim swire,didn't want,a,willing scapegoat(megrahi).he wanted,the guilty.we may never know.
time will tell.
what i do know is, so many people.accused of terorist crimes,are later proved to be innocent.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago
glasgow |
"what i do know is, so many people.accused of terorist crimes,are later proved to be innocent
Not proved innocent, just that the evidence against them wasn't strong enough for a conviction  "
in justice,they call that innocent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
