Lockerbie bomber released.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:09 pm

Hi Oscar and thank you for your comments.

I don't feel i'm putting myself down, just stating the obvious.

I have much to learn and i'm ok with that. Its only in the last few years i have taken an interest in politics.

Yes, i would very much like to see the information that you have but there is no hurry to receive it, just when you have time.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:16 pm

buttercup;1237084 wrote: Hi Oscar and thank you for your comments.

I don't feel i'm putting myself down, just stating the obvious.

I have much to learn and i'm ok with that. Its only in the last few years i have taken an interest in politics.

Yes, i would very much like to see the information that you have but there is no hurry to receive it, just when you have time.
I'll log off the laptop later and log on the pc. We have had real problems running the three together. :-5

The connection of Lockerbie to the Iran/Contra and the US CIA was something I found fascinating. At first I thought 'Oh right, another conspiricy theory' but the more I read, and I checked many sources, the more alot was explained. I was so fascinated I kept some of It on my favourites on my pc.

As you know, Immediatly after the plane crashed, the whole area was swarming with CIA. Now why would they take such an Interest? On board was one very high profile CIA agent who was dealing with the Iran/Contra Issue.

I will condense the pages of Imfo I have and post it up for you.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:30 pm

Thats very kind of you, thank you.

My eldest daughter does love to debate this topic with me whilst drinking a few bottles of wine. It will certainly be an entertaining evening next time we team up. I will let you know how it goes.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:39 pm

oscar;1237088 wrote: I'll log off the laptop later and log on the pc. We have had real problems running the three together. :-5

The connection of Lockerbie to the Iran/Contra and the US CIA was something I found fascinating. At first I thought 'Oh right, another conspiricy theory' but the more I read, and I checked many sources, the more alot was explained. I was so fascinated I kept some of It on my favourites on my pc.

As you know, Immediatly after the plane crashed, the whole area was swarming with CIA. Now why would they take such an Interest? On board was one very high profile CIA agent who was dealing with the Iran/Contra Issue.

I will condense the pages of Imfo I have and post it up for you.

Oscar, Could you send me a copy also. I'd appreciate it:-6

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Kathy Ellen;1237105 wrote: Oscar, Could you send me a copy also. I'd appreciate it:-6 No Problem. :-6 as I said , I did think 'oh here we go, another conspiricy theory' and of course did not want to believe that the US CIA were Involved. What I kept on my pc is a cross section of reports rather than some-one's theories. It started to become more complicated when coming to the part of why Britain needed to make peace with Gadaffi at that time. Of course, Libia is the wealthiest source of oil In Africa. The plot thickens.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:20 am

oscar;1237114 wrote: No Problem. :-6 as I said , I did think 'oh here we go, another conspiricy theory' and of course did not want to believe that the US CIA were Involved. What I kept on my pc is a cross section of reports rather than some-one's theories. It started to become more complicated when coming to the part of why Britain needed to make peace with Gadaffi at that time. Of course, Libia is the wealthiest source of oil In Africa. The plot thickens.

You can come up with conspiracy theories concerning the actual bombing itself-there are a lot of questions on what was concealed and other issues like the payouts to the one witness that connected that identified him as being on malta-that in itself should have made his evidence suspect-but when it comes to the decision to release him was simply on compassionate grounds. I think you are trying to read too much in to it. If he were not dying it is clear he would still be in prison. There was pressure to release him in 2007-it's clear the UK govt was told to get stuffed (perhaps behind closed doors those very words were used). There are two criteria applied for compassionate release do they pose a further threat and do they have somewhere to go.

That you can show compassion, mercy , clemency call it what you will to someone undeserving you either understand or you don't. That so called christians seem to be the most outraged and the most vindictive is startling. I would suggest they kind of miss the point about the late JC's message and would refer them to things like the lord's prayer but they only turn round and hit you with the bible. We have released IRA and UDA terrorists as part of the peace plan and there is no doubt about their guilt why no complaints about us being soft on terror about that? The USA has consistently refused to allow the extradition of IRA members wanted for questioning-on the grounds they would not get a fair trial while we hand over anyone they ask for even when we are sure they won't get a fair trial.

Time runs out! - Boness Today

NB what they did was not illegal in the UK and they had export licences from the govt. It also shows that macaskill is consistent in his decisions. There's also the case of gary mackinnon who should be offered a job cos he's clearly streaks ahead of the security guys in the pentagon in terms of ability.

I don't think it's the SNP you should be accusing of hypocrisy and grandstanding over this and no one in the UK govt or the US one is in a position to give anyone lectures on morality.

posted by buttercup

I live in Alex Salmond's constituency, i agree with the decision made. I support the SNP. I only wish i was as clever with words and facts as some of the people here on FG to be able to defend that decision to those women better than i am doing at present.

Leaving aside moral arguments-why should we pay for his palliative care? If he was sent to a hospice would you really want to be one of those with relatives there having to out up with the media circus? also he IS about to die. Just because someone else is incapable of being merciful is that any reason why you should copy them? Pity David Cameron does not get so worked up about conspiracies in govt and call for an independent investigation in to why the UK went to war in Iraq in the first place.

Another two scots soldiers coming back in coffins I see and the US calls for a boycott of Scottish goods. Perhaps we should retaliate in turn and boycott the war in afghanistan.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:45 am

gmc: Good point about the PIRA and Loyalist terrorists. The US has never been consistent on this. Anyone who contributed to Noraid has blood on their hands, though I'll grant some may have genuinely thought their contributions were used for charitable purposes.

oscar: My feeling is that the whole release thing is part of a policy of drawing Lybia into the "respectable" international community, which has been going on for some time (maybe 10 years). No terrorism from Lybia recently as far as I am aware - if you know otherwise, please let me know. Would we be so bothered if Lybia wasn't oil-rich? Probably not half as much - but there are both stick (we don't want them invooved in terrorism) and carrot (oil) factors in play.

Sometimes it seems to me it makes little difference who the President is - the massive juggernaut of the US Executive goes its own way regardless.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:40 am

Clodhopper;1237222 wrote: gmc:

Sometimes it seems to me it makes little difference who the President is - the massive juggernaut of the US Executive goes its own way regardless.

Didn't on this occasion though did they? So now they are throwing their toys out the pram.

I see Alex salmond is bringing forward a bill on an independence referendum in scotland. Labour are stuffed if they block it cos-don't know about the rest of my countrymen-but being told can't vote on the issue is like a red rag to a bull so far as I am concerned. no labour apparatchik is going to tell me I can't decide for myself. I think salmond is hoping labour do block it because it's by no means certain the vote would be in favour of independence.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:35 am

So it really does look as though the US overreaction is going to precipitate the breakup of the Union that supports it in Afganistan. This is going to be interesting.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:39 am

Please note that my irritation is with the US executive, not the US people.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:20 am

Clodhopper;1237233 wrote: Please note that my irritation is with the US executive, not the US people.

Never mind, you can all be token scots for four minutes nineteen seconds.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:51 am

Clodhopper;1237222 wrote: .

oscar: My feeling is that the whole release thing is part of a policy of drawing Lybia into the "respectable" international community, which has been going on for some time (maybe 10 years). No terrorism from Lybia recently as far as I am aware - if you know otherwise, please let me know. Would we be so bothered if Lybia wasn't oil-rich? Probably not half as much - but there are both stick (we don't want them invooved in terrorism) and carrot (oil) factors in play.

Sometimes it seems to me it makes little difference who the President is - the massive juggernaut of the US Executive goes its own way regardless.

BC and Kathy.... I have been really pushed for time today so I will get those reports when I get home tonight.

Clodness........ No, of course we wouldn't give a stuff If Lybia was not so oil rich.

I think Gaddaffi really had the wind put up him when the US bombed him and killed his daughter narrowly missing him. It was then he started to want to open talks with Britain again.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:30 pm

oscar;1237285 wrote: BC and Kathy.... I have been really pushed for time today so I will get those reports when I get home tonight.

Clodness........ No, of course we wouldn't give a stuff If Lybia was not so oil rich.

I think Gaddaffi really had the wind put up him when the US bombed him and killed his daughter narrowly missing him. It was then he started to want to open talks with Britain again.

Oh, don't worry about it Oscar. Whenever you have a chance just forward it to us.....I'd appreciate it:-6:p Thank you matey:D

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:21 pm

Well.... what a kerrfuffle this has caused. We have our Lovliness now being called a lying bastard by the Americans yesterday. His Lovliness being accussed at home of stiching up the SNP. Alex Salmond being accussed of having ulterier motives and talking to the Lybians about the release of the alleged bomber in trade talks for Scotland. His Lovliness being accussed now by the Americans of damaging the 'Special relationship' between the US and Britain by going back on an agreement. What a tizzy???

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:03 am

oscar;1237944 wrote: Well.... what a kerrfuffle this has caused. We have our Lovliness now being called a lying bastard by the Americans yesterday. His Lovliness being accussed at home of stiching up the SNP. Alex Salmond being accussed of having ulterier motives and talking to the Lybians about the release of the alleged bomber in trade talks for Scotland. His Lovliness being accussed now by the Americans of damaging the 'Special relationship' between the US and Britain by going back on an agreement. What a tizzy???

I hope it has been damaged cos I don't think it does us any good, it was a delusion anyway.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:28 am

gmc;1238927 wrote: I hope it has been damaged cos I don't think it does us any good, it was a delusion anyway.

I agree with this post.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:59 am

So, basically, the humanitarian aspect makes sense, but the additional circumstances that have come to light recently (after this thread started) are abhorrent.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:05 am

Bill Sikes;1238987 wrote: So, basically, the humainitarian aspect makes sense, but the additional circumstances that have come to light recently (after this thread started) are abhorrent.

As far as I can make out none of the additional circumstances that have come to light recently had any practical effect on the prisoner's release at all. What consequences are abhorrent?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:12 am

spot;1238993 wrote: As far as I can make out none of the additional circumstances that have come to light recently had any practical effect on the prisoner's release at all. What consequences are abhorrent?

Ah, a different question. "Consequences"? The media circus; the effects on international relations. Stuff like that.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:41 am

Bill Sikes;1239000 wrote: Ah, a different question. "Consequences"? The media circus; the effects on international relations. Stuff like that.

What else beside the consequences is abhorrent?