Page 6 of 7
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:18 pm
by Pentlandpirate
And Jimcee, let's not forget the Japanese suicide bombers of WWII and the Kawasakis.
Anyhow, back to Al Megrahi. What an absolute farce the British and Scottish governments have concocted over the release of the Al Megrahi release papers. When can we ever trust our politicians to tell the truth?
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:25 pm
by khartoumteddy
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 am
by DiscoClint
[Quote Admin] Yes Longshanks and Clint, you are of course correct. Anti-islamic sentiment is not racist, any more than anti-Christian sentiment would be.
However, you know what I mean - let's conduct our discourse in a civilised manner. Sweeping generalisations about a religious group are likely to be offensive to many and should be avoided if possible."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was saying that religious discrimination is no better than racism in the first place. Not that it's OK.
Not sure why we are on the topic of suicide bombers in this thread anyway. Pan Am flight 103 is thought to have been blown up either by an unaccompanied bag, traced back to Malta or by a a bag slipped into the Pan Am baggage area in Heathrow airport which had been broken into 17 hours prior to the flight took off, so suicide wasn't really involved. Now if we could start a thread about the Taliban......
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:13 am
by Pentlandpirate
Do you mean the Seil Taliban?
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:06 pm
by DiscoClint
Do YOU mean the brave Seil Island mujahideen dedicated to the eradication infidels who are bringing forth un-Seilistic "western" technology, such as the Wind Farm and (more questionably) the Sea-Ranch?
No, I'm afraid not. I'm a bit scared of speaking out against those nutters.
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:20 pm
by spiderman
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:27 pm
by Eric the Viking
No awa tae bide awa Spidey?
Have a word with those nice windfarm people - I'm sure a mast on Raera hill will probably be factored into this development.
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:58 am
by Peter Connelly
Re Mobile phones: there is maybe a wee point about the general lack of mobile phone reception on Seil. You’ve probably all gone through this before, and if so forgive me. This is generally speculation on my part, but I was thinking that considering that a reasonable amount of income in the area comes in from the tourist trade, and maybe some folk have a need, or a perceived need, to be in touch with other folk, e.g. business folk on a day out, or folk that have to be in touch with family for various reasons, etc; and whereas they might find Seil an otherwisely fine day out, there might be a chance that on finding out that there is difficulty getting a mobile signal, they may prefer to go down, or up, the road instead the next time. So, the lack of a signal might be costing the place money. Not that money is the be-all-and-end-all, right enough. The other side is that it’s quite nice not to be encumbered with the things at all, and some folk may like it for that.
I'll just flag myself an
right enough.
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:10 am
by spiderman
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:17 am
by Peter Connelly
Yes indeed Spidey, you bring up other important points, too.
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:49 pm
by khartoumteddy
got to agree that mobile phone reception is crap
or worse
nothing to do with megrahi
but a good point
TEDDY
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:56 pm
by khartoumteddy
[quote=. When can we ever trust our politicians to tell the truth?[/quote]
presumably they will all die eventually and even then we cant trust them
but we can be reasonably sure they wont tell many more lies;except perhaps in posthumous biographies.
Well you know my views on politicians in general
TEDDY
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:31 pm
by Pentlandpirate
Lying in your grave is pretty normal I reckon
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:56 am
by Pentlandpirate
Terminator, can we have a poll/bet on how much longer Al Megrahi will live......nothing too ambitious, say less than three months, 3-6 months, 6-12 months, more than a year, more than 5 years?
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:45 pm
by longshanks
Pentlandpirate wrote:Terminator, can we have a poll/bet on how much longer Al Megrahi will live......nothing too ambitious, say less than three months, 3-6 months, 6-12 months, more than a year, more than 5 years?
Two years and still going strong.
MacAskill and Salmond must be turning to the obituaries page each morning with all fingers crossed.
"compassionate Grounds"
"Three Months To Live"
A disgraceful episode in our history.
BP wants exploitation rights in Libya, Blair toadies to Gaddaffyduck, Brown puts pressure on Salmond, Salmond puts pressure on MacAskill...bingo, Scotland's worse ever mass murderer (tried in a Scottish court under Scottish judges) is sent back to Libya and adulation for his deeds (plus a nice luxury villa).
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:05 pm
by Sandy MacSeil
A pretty sad, uncompassionate comment on an old-hat who-cares topic, Longshanks. Your unforgiving cynicism belongs to the moral low ground while Scots law helped define the moral high ground of international law. Also so childish and annoyingly sad to make an issue of a cancer sufferer's survival. LS, why don't you lighten up & raise your horizons, by choice?!
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:52 am
by longshanks
Sandy MacSeil wrote:A pretty sad, uncompassionate comment on an old-hat who-cares topic, Longshanks. Your unforgiving cynicism belongs to the moral low ground while Scots law helped define the moral high ground of international law. Also so childish and annoyingly sad to make an issue of a cancer sufferer's survival. LS, why don't you lighten up & raise your horizons, by choice?!
Bit harsh, and in my view misguided, Sandy.
You appear to saying :
1. Because the man is suffering cancer he should not suffer the consequences of his actions.
2. Scots law, in releasing him, has helped define the moral high ground globally.
Lets remember.
1. He was charged under Scots law.
2. He was tried in a Scottish court.
3. He was found guilty of murdering over two hundred men, women and children.
4. He showed no compassion towards his victims and their families.
5. Blair brings Libya in from the cold.
6. MacAskill claims the man has severe, late stage cancer and is expected to live no more than three months.
7. He is released form his life sentence, returns to a hero's welcome in Libya.
8. Two years later he is still alive totally nullifying MacAskill's excuse for releasing him.
Now, Sandy, you may think that the episode raises Scotland's moral standing in the world. I don't. I think the total opposite and, as a Scot, am embarrased by the whole affair.
This is not an "old-hat-who-cares-topic". Most certainly not for the vast majority of the mass-murderers victims' families.
Tripoli will fall soon. What happens to Al Megrahi then? He's certainly no friend of the rebels due to his close links to the GadaffyDuck family. Will the CIA rendite him to face trial in the USA? Will he flee and claim asylum in Scotland? Will GadaffyDuck's key men squeel the true facts in exchange for clemency?
"Also so childish and annoyingly sad to make an issue of a cancer sufferer's survival." Get real. The fact that he is a cancer sufferer is no excuse for mass murder. I suffer awful wind. Does that excuse me from shoplifting.
Breezey Shanks (Compassionately flatulant by choice)
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:22 pm
by Sandy MacSeil
Och Longshanks, you just go on and on! Firstly, the guy probably isn't guilty, second, most of the Scots relatives of victims support the release, third it wasn't MacAskill who claimed the guy had 3 months to live, fourth, the fact that the Americans and Cameron/Hague are making an issue of this isn't in the least embarrassing seeing as they're generally a bloody menace to the planet and, fifth, we shouldn't be in Libya supporting a crowd of rebels and, finally, if it's straight out the bible and all right with Nelson Mandela, the Pope and Alex Salmon, it's all right with me!!
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:37 pm
by longshanks
Sandy MacSeil wrote:Och Longshanks, you just go on and on! Firstly, the guy probably isn't guilty, second, most of the Scots relatives of victims support the release, third it wasn't MacAskill who claimed the guy had 3 months to live, fourth, the fact that the Americans and Cameron/Hague are making an issue of this isn't in the least embarrassing seeing as they're generally a bloody menace to the planet and, fifth, we shouldn't be in Libya supporting a crowd of rebels and, finally, if it's straight out the bible and all right with Nelson Mandela, the Pope and Alex Salmon, it's all right with me!!
"the guy probably isn't guilty"....what evidence do you have which the scots courts don't ???
"most of the Scots relatives of victims support the release"...1. can you back that up? 2. relatives don't decide sentences in our legal system. You're confusing scots law with sharia.
"it wasn't MacAskill who claimed the guy had 3 months to live"...sorry, sandy, he made that justification many, many times.
"if it's straight out the bible [sic] and all right with Nelson Mandela, the Pope and
Alex Salmon [sic], it's all right with me!!" ....ah ha; I see where you're coming from now.
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Twoth ... 6818745.jp
Two-thirds of Scots believe Lockerbie bomber should go back to prison
The developments have prompted fresh calls for the SNP government to apologise for the decision to release him on compassionate grounds.
Long Justice (Victims first by choice)
Re: Al Megrahi, correct decision???
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:04 pm
by Sandy MacSeil
Sorry, Longshanks, like I said, this is old-hat stuff and I can't be bothered! But my sources told me you might have something in common with the Justice Minister, no?