Thread: The White House says it "deeply regrets'' Scottish government's decision.

Originally Posted by Aarstad

Made my day, Renton.

...[/i].

*chuckle*

I'm sure it did. Anti-American insults are always popular. Pathetic, but popular.

Originally Posted by Tim

The usual parade of idiotic insults, stupid stereotypes and crude anti-American claptrap.

It looks like you included just about every over-used, threadbare insult against Americans that you could find. If the quality of the writing in your post was much higher, it might have been entertaining. As it is, it is just the same old garbage. It sounds like a third rate stand-up routine. But it is a crowd-pleaser on a very, very low level so you will no doubt find gurgles and breathless squeals of approval from some here.

I do agree with one thing: the US will likely retreat into isolationism, and Europe as a whole will move further into the waiting embrace of Muslim dictators. You have a very romantic and idealistic view of these rulers. But that is your business. And as for benefits - Britain is looking at plenty of cash as a direct result of this deal. It's not a secret. You can read about it in any business journal or on any financial site.

And after all that frenzied and pointless abuse and venom, you are still defending a disgraceful, dishonorable and outrageous act that canot be justified under any circumstances. That is what it comes down to.

You might as well have saved all the tired insults.

IOW, he absolutely crushed you, dismantled your ridiculous claims, and, as per your usual, you claim it's all about anti-American insults.

Tim, his has post has nothing to do with Anti-Americanism.

Just because somebody puts you on the floorboards doesn't mean they have anything against your country. Guess what: most of the rest of us are Americans, stop trying to use me as a human shield. Grow a pair.

Originally Posted by Tim

*chuckle*

I'm sure it did. Anti-American insults are always popular. Pathetic, but popular.

Pathetic? I would say a world without antiamericanism would be not so funny as it is:

A German tourist walks into a McDonald's in New York City and orders a beer. (In Germany and many parts of Europe, McDonald's actually does serve beer.) The local guy in the line behind him immediately gives him the jab: "They don't serve BEER here, you MORON!" The German fellow felt pretty stupid, but suddenly turns to the New Yorker with a surprised look, and begins to chuckle. "And what's so funny?!?" the New Yorker demands. "Oh, nothing really, I just realized that you came here for the food."

Originally Posted by Tim

The usual parade of idiotic insults, stupid stereotypes and crude anti-American claptrap.

It looks like you included just about every over-used, threadbare insult against Americans that you could find. If the quality of the writing in your post was much higher, it might have been entertaining. As it is, it is just the same old garbage. It sounds like a third rate stand-up routine. But it is a crowd-pleaser on a very, very low level so you will no doubt find gurgles and breathless squeals of approval from some here.

Count to ten Renton...1,2,3,4,...ok, I'm cool with all of the above now...

Originally Posted by Tim

I do agree with one thing: the US will likely retreat into isolationism, and Europe as a whole will move further into the waiting embrace of Muslim dictators. You have a very romantic and idealistic view of these rulers. But that is your business. And as for benefits - Britain is looking at plenty of cash as a direct result of this deal. It's not a secret. You can read about it in any business journal or on any financial site.

There are a number of other possibilities here:-

Firstly, rather than retreating, perhaps the US will be forced into isolationism, with no significant buddies, no eager ear to wisper into and therefore no diplomatic influence, what else could they do?

or...

Secondly...and the prefered option of virtually every current and potential ally your country has...America wakes up one morning and decides that today's the day we're going to turn over a new leaf, take on board the views and wishes of our allies, give them all due consideration, adopt those we like, respectfully decline those we don't...with all diplomacy, re-visit our past indiscretions and show sorrow for our wrongs (not regret)...and re-take the position of leader of the western world.

As for the romantic view of these leaders...romantic?...British Embassy workers in Terhan have only recently been arrested and tried as subversives and fifth columnists, accused of instigating the Iranian political protests...and Saudi Arabia recently executed how many political openents (as well as terrorists)?

Hardly the romantic image of noble princes, riding their white stallions towards their tented caravan, nestling peacefully under the glorious desert night sky...I think I know as well as anyone what these people are capable of.

...and the deal bit...I've a pretty good knowledge of what is happening in Libya...especially the West's race against Russia (and China) to secure, not the actual oil deals, these were already secured in '07, but the necessary administrative paperwork to access the fields...not to mention the West's worry over the Libyans potential £3billion dollar defence deal with Russia that the US is balking at...if the British can head that off at the pass, then is that bad for the US?

Originally Posted by Tim

And after all that frenzied and pointless abuse and venom, you are still defending a disgraceful, dishonorable and outrageous act that canot be justified under any circumstances. That is what it comes down to. You might as well have saved all the tired insults.

Dear oh dear...Tim...the US brokered the Northern Ireland peace accord...it was ok then to allow the release of hundreds of terrorists of both sides, all heathy young men, more than capable of picking up a weapon and using it against their former enemies, who had shot, bombed, tortured and maimed countless men, women, children, policeman, servicemen and politicians...the outrage amongst the families of those who had suffered was equally as strong as that we see now...but the Americans insisted that this was the price that had to be paid for peace, and it actually seems to have worked...defend that in the context of one dying old man who was in all likelhood a studge anyway!!!!!!!!

I'd love to stay and discuss this more but I'm off now...nearly 4am...up 3 hours...bye.

Originally Posted by anobsitar

Pathetic? I would say a world without antiamericanism would be not so funny as it is:

A German tourist walks into a McDonald's in New York City and orders a beer. (In Germany and many parts of Europe, McDonald's actually does serve beer.) The local guy in the line behind him immediately gives him the jab: "They don't serve BEER here, you MORON!" The German fellow felt pretty stupid, but suddenly turns to the New Yorker with a surprised look, and begins to chuckle. "And what's so funny?!?" the New Yorker demands. "Oh, nothing really, I just realized that you came here for the food."

It is a good joke.

And it's so good for you too.

YouTube - Supersize Me - Morgan Spews

I do wonder myself to what extent, if any, there was backroom dealing behind this release.

Trudy Rubin, a commentator for the Philadelphia Inquirer, has this article in today's paper:

Worldview: How Brits got 'compassion'
Trade interests and threats from Libya probably persuaded U.K. officials to let the Pan Am bomber go home to a hero's welcome.
By Trudy Rubin

Inquirer Opinion Columnist

How could anyone release the only man convicted in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103?

Does anyone really believe that Scottish officials sent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi back to Libya for "compassionate" reasons? Yes, the former Libyan intelligence agent is purportedly dying of cancer. But as a London Times columnist asked: Would the same Scots release Robert Black, the Scottish serial killer of young girls, if he were on death's door?

Clearly something is going on here that has little to do with compassion. Americans, who remember the Lockerbie tragedy with horror, deserve to know the real reason Megrahi was freed.

The most likely possibility falls under the heading "business and blackmail." The Brits have extensive trade interests in Libya, and Megrahi had become an obstacle to them. (No one believes British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's claim that the decision rested solely with Scottish officials).

As Saif Gadhafi, a son of Libya's leader, put it last week, "In all commercial contracts for oil and gas with Britain, Megrahi was always on the negotiating table." His father, the mercurial Moammar, went out of his way to embarrass Brown, along with Queen Elizabeth and her son Prince Andrew (a regular visitor to Libya on trade missions), by thanking them publicly for their alleged role in Megrahi's release.

The British had been seeking to unload Megrahi for some time since Gadhafi's renunciation of terrorism and his scrapping of Libya's weapons of mass destruction in 2003. Gadhafi made clear that lucrative oil deals depended on Megrahi's repatriation.

Moreover, Gadhafi has been using his oil and gas wealth to blackmail Europeans into accepting his unorthodox behavior. Over the past year, the Libyan leader waged economic war against the Swiss after his son Hannibal, a reputed playboy, was briefly arrested by police in a Geneva hotel based on complaints that he had been beating his servants.

In response, Gadhafi cut off crucial oil supplies to Switzerland and made two Swiss citizens living in Tripoli virtual hostages. After the Swiss president made a groveling apology, Libya promised to restore normal relations and to let the hostages go.

British expats were threatened with similar reprisals if Megrahi died in prison, according to the London Times. So home he went.

There is a second but less likely possibile explanation for the Megrahi decision. Some argue the Brits knew that Megrahi wasn't guilty and Iran was the true culprit. So why not release him? (Never mind that a neutral Scottish court found him guilty.)

To lay that one to rest, I spoke by phone with Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counterterrorism at the CIA who directed the agency's Pan Am 103 investigation. Cannistraro told me the evidence at first implicated a Damascus-based Palestinian group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC), which was working on behalf of Iran. Tehran had authorized and funded the bombing, he said, as a reprisal for the accidental U.S. shoot-down of an Iranian civilian airliner over the Persian Gulf in July 1988.

But this operation was foiled in October 1988 by German intelligence, which broke up a PFLP-GC cell in Frankfurt. The Lockerbie bombing happened two months later.

Cannistraro believes the PFLP-GC handed off the operation to the Libyans. The explosive device that destroyed Pan Am 103 was placed in a Toshiba cassette player - just like the bombs found in the Frankfurt bust.

"The methodology of the boom box was very coincidental," said Cannistraro. "To me, this meant that Libya picked up the technology from the PFLP-GC, which had active members in Tripoli." He added firmly: "There is no question in my mind that the Libyans carried this operation off."

Among the other questions that surround the Megrahi affair is what role, if any, the Obama administration had in it. After all, 180 of 270 passengers on Pan Am 103 were Americans. The British press claims Attorney General Eric Holder was informed in advance.

Once Megrahi was released, it was dumb for the Brits or the Americans to expect Gadhafi to refrain from giving him a big public reception. Indeed, the Libyan leader is planning to honor the convicted bomber at next month's 40th-anniversary celebration of the coup that brought him to power.

Obama's engagement policy can't preclude serious consequences for Libya for continuing to glorify Megrahi. "The man who organized the hero's welcome for Megrahi was the one who ordered the Lockerbie bombing - Moammar Gadhafi," says Cannistraro. "He stuck his finger in our eye."

Worldview: How Brits got 'compassion' | Philadelphia Inquirer | 08/26/2009

It's ultimately her personal deductions of course, but it's a good educational guess based on reasonable inferences from facts.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I do wonder myself to what extent, if any, there was backroom dealing behind this release.

Trudy Rubin, a commentator for the Philadelphia Inquirer, has this article in today's paper:



Worldview: How Brits got 'compassion' | Philadelphia Inquirer | 08/26/2009

It's ultimately her personal deductions of course, but it's a good educational guess based on reasonable inferences from facts.

Caught this just before heading off to bed...it is good reading...our press have been saying the same sort of thing as well...the main problem is...the Scottish Government has no devolved powers to negotiate over foreign afairs...and to be brutally honest they don't have the sophistication to deal at that level...it would have to to be the British Government.

As for Black...he's in jail in England, not Scotland...but if he was ill, and the law permitted his release, then there is another factor that would have to be factored in...his personal safety when released...al-Maghrai buggered off to Libya without fear of reprisals against the families of the victims, Black couldn't do that...also...the chances of his (al-MaghraI) re-offending would be vitrulaly nil, others now have that role...Black would probably still pose a threat...same thing happened with Myra Hindley...she qualified, but the public made it be known that they did want her out, so that they could administer their own justice...so she stayed locked up for her own safety.

...another problem with newspapers!...when you use there 'facts' you have to scan each edition for the next five- six years in case you miss the retraction, and your lumbered with egg on your face...

I'll read this tomorrow and comment if I can...cheers

This is a good 'un to:--

Al-Megrahi’s release ‘would free BP’ to join the rush for Libya’s oil - Times Online

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I do wonder myself to what extent, if any, there was backroom dealing behind this release.

Trudy Rubin, a commentator for the Philadelphia Inquirer, has this article in today's paper:



Worldview: How Brits got 'compassion' | Philadelphia Inquirer | 08/26/2009

It's ultimately her personal deductions of course, but it's a good educational guess based on reasonable inferences from facts.

That column contains a level of speculation that I'm not quite comfortable with taking as gospel.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I do wonder myself to what extent, if any, there was backroom dealing behind this release.

Trudy Rubin, a commentator for the Philadelphia Inquirer, has this article in today's paper:



Worldview: How Brits got 'compassion' | Philadelphia Inquirer | 08/26/2009

It's ultimately her personal deductions of course, but it's a good educational guess based on reasonable inferences from facts.

Most european sources that I am aware off rather leave out the iranian track and point directly to the Libyans, interpreting Lockerbie as supposed to be retaliation for the bombing of Tripoli and Bengasi by the US air force in 1986 ( which also left a number of civilians dead), which again was supposed to be retaliation for the allegedly libyan sponsored bombing of a West Berlin Discoteque, that left two Americans and one German dead and a number of visitors injured.
Regarding the article I join Donkey in saying that there is much to much speculation to regard its content as fact and her conclusions may be reasonable but there is no way to verify them. We could as well speculate that Ghaddafi would not have gone very far to get this guy back, simply because the reapprochment with the US and Europe, that is vital to the survival of his regime and was also kicked off by the Bush administration ( for example investions and transfer of technology) is much more important than al Megrahi, who was supposed to rot for his master in prison anyway.
So this could as well be a case of possibly misguided compassion, since the supporters of the "Megrahi for oil" theory have failed to produce any evidence why scottish judges would have to follow orders from London and would have personal interest in that.

Originally Posted by Voland

Most european sources that I am aware off rather leave out the iranian track and point directly to the Libyans, interpreting Lockerbie as supposed to be retaliation for the bombing of Tripoli and Bengasi by the US air force in 1986 ( which also left a number of civilians dead), which again was supposed to be retaliation for the allegedly libyan sponsored bombing of a West Berlin Discoteque, that left two Americans and one German dead and a number of visitors injured.
Regarding the article I join Donkey in saying that there is much to much speculation to regard its content as fact and her conclusions may be reasonable but there is no way to verify them. We could as well speculate that Ghaddafi would not have gone very far to get this guy back, simply because the reapprochment with the US and Europe, that is vital to the survival of his regime and was also kicked off by the Bush administration ( for example investions and transfer of technology) is much more important than al Megrahi, who was supposed to rot for his master in prison anyway.
So this could as well be a case of possibly misguided compassion, since the supporters of the "Megrahi for oil" theory have failed to produce any evidence why scottish judges would have to follow orders from London and would have personal interest in that.

Some good, reasoned argument over the last few posts...

I believe that one of the problems here is the US's people's interpretation of the use of the term Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government is similar to a devolved local assembly, responsible for local afairs such as health, education and law enforcement, it does not have the power of embassy, or is represented in Europe or at the UN, it's local...in many ways similar to the individual legal powers devolved at US State level.

Suggesting that the Scottish Government has undertaken secret negotiations with Libya involving trade agreements over oil is like suggesting that the State of Arizona has secretly agreed with Russia for the supply of two hundred Migs, five hundred tank and drilling rights in Outer Mongolia...

If, one day, Charles Manson attended a parole board and they decided, "yup, your a go for release", and Roman Polanski accused Obama, the US Senate, The House of Representatives, every person alive in America, of being involved in the decision of the State of Calirornia to release him, would that be justfied? Would calling for trade embargoes on American exports such as...such as...can't think at the moment what you export...be fair?

As for who did the bombing...since Libya have accepted responibility, applying Ochams Razor would suggest that they did it.

ps...According to some Americans Scots Law is fundamenatly flawed if it has the ability to grant release on compassionate grounds to a murderer, what does the concept of parole boards in the US that the likes of Manson can apply to say about the integrity of your laws...a convicted murderer - albiet through the joint-responsibilty rule. Don't convicted muderers get out on parole in the US?...healthy one's who can and do re-offend? Yes, many are life without the possibilty of parole ( I get your Crime & Investigation Channel here...great stuff)...but the possiblity of parole does nevertheless exist in the statutes.

...and isn't clemency also a concept at the discretion of your parole board system, and even your President? Doesn't an outgoing President usually tidy up his mess with a few key pardons of former staff members, business associates, etc, using this method...seems totaly perverse to me, but it's your system and none of my business to try and change...

Please, this isn't anti-American...it's a genuine line of argument.

Just had a chance to look into the Inquirers story...interesting reading indeed...

The story about the Swiss Libyans crisis seems to have two very different sides.

First - playboy bully Hannibal decides he's untouchable and slaps around some petty servants at will in his hotel room and when the cops turn up expects them to bow down in humble suplication to the fact that he's the son of the King of Africa...the cops have a good laugh amongst themselves, hoick him off to the clink, and have him up in front of a beeck in the morning. When realesed after two days in the gaol Hannibal sulks home to daddy who throws the dummy out of the pram by declaring economic war against Switzerland and throws a couple of token Swiss in jail to show he means business. Brave Switzerland buckles after a year, and an embarassing apology is delivered in person in by the Swiss PM.

This is the version chosen by the Inquirer journalist...

Other side...now changed man Hannible returns to his hotel room with his wife after a quite night entertaining only to discover two of his trusted aids rummaging threw their personal belongings. Being non too happy a violent confrontation ensues, and the coppers are called. Despite calmly explaining that he was only defending his wife and property the cops choose to believe the blood spaterred servants, and huckle Hannible. Playing the full Diplomatic Immunity Joker Hannible states that even if he'd pulled out a pistol and clipped the bad guys in the back of the head the cops couldn't arrest him, and that they should get someone from the Diplomatic Service there immediately to sort things out. The cops don't listen, there is a scuffle, Hannible gets a thick ear, busted lip, bloody nose and two days in the jail.

When Gadhafi finds out about this blatent breach of the tenents of Diplomatic Immunity contained within the Geneva Convention he asks for an apology...the Swiss refuse...the Libyans take action, threatening an oil embargo (which doesn't seem to have amounted to much as the Swiss plant that processed the fuel was actually Libyan owned, and the Swiss stated that any loss of supply would easily be made up off the international markets anyway, at limited inconvenience), threatened to remove all Libyan deposits in Swiss Banks (which again never seems to have amounted to much - where were they going to deposit all that oil money anyway...New York or London?) arrested two people and threw them in the nick for two days, same time as Hannible, and then released them with the provisio that they couldn't leave the country. After Hannible started legal procedings in Switzerland sueing the Swiss Government for breaching the Geneva Convention, the Police for false arrest and not investigating the robbery report, anyone, everyone...the Swiss come to their senses, admit that they are wrong, and aplogise...

What one is the correct version, if either, is up to you.
Personally I couldn't give a flying, as it's over and done with now, and was between Libya and switzerland.

She also states that the case against the bomber being guilty is less likely...how did she figure that out? Asking someone from the CIA to comment,especially the man in charge of the investigation, on how strong is the evidence that YOU uncovered in the case against the man YOU identified, in the case that YOU were instrumental in bringing, isn't exactly getting an independant viewpoint. She should also have asked the defence team what their views were...that would have balanced things up and provided a better perspective of things.

As for the British seeking to unload Megrahi for some time since Gadhafi's renunciation of terrorism and his scrapping of Libya's weapons of mass destruction in 2003?...where does that come from? If Gadhafi was insisting on the release of al-Maghrai before any negotiations, then why were the deals already done years before he developed cancer?

To me, the likely answer is that al-Magrahi being released was totaly independent of any deal, but, seeing an opportunity, is now being capitalised upon by all sides...