wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 07:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
allanbonnetracy wrote:

There=92s a whole magnitude of greater incompetence this time
that=92s going to make even WW2 seem like the good old days.

Quite. Even the Tories at their worst wouldn't have released a mass
murdering terrorist after 8 years just to gain favour with a corrupt
dictator for
some trade.

However, propping up corrupt regimes in the middle east and other foreign
parts WAS something of a speciality for the Conservatives and the American
government of the time.

I rather think that was in the interests of good trading relations at the
time.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
www.imagebus.co.uk/shop

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:33:56 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

Quite. Even the Tories at their worst wouldn't have released a mass murdering
terrorist after 8 years just to gain favour with a corrupt dictator for
some trade. And no , I don't believe the SNP acted alone on this.

If you believe Labour would come to some secret deal with the SNP then
you don't know the first thing about Scottish politics.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:50:54 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 08:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
No one has a good record on Libya, and that patsy's release was just a

Yeah , obviously a patsy. All the evidence was faked and the trial was a
showtrial. The conspiracy theorists have spoken so it must be true.

In this case the conspiracy theorists must include the Scottish
Criminal Cases Review Commission and the official UN observer at his
trial.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:27:33 +0100
Tom Barry wrote:
....in any of which he would have been acting in the capacity of a state
operative of a one party state run by our mate Gaddafi. Anyway, it's
immaterial - the conviction was highly unsound.

Really? Care to fill us in with your profound insights as to why this is so?

As the man said, no one comes out of this well. Except the SNP, whose
dedication to principles of compassion regardless of the PR consequences
does them credit. The rest of them can get ****ed, particularly if they

LOL!

The only thing the SNP came out of it looking like is a bunch of pathetic
limp wristed halfwits under the thumb of westminster who want libya's assets.
"Compassion" - the important keyword for wet feminised guardianistas everywhere.

B2003

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:30:04 +0100
JNugent wrote:
Recliner wrote:
wrote in message
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 08:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
No one has a good record on Libya, and that patsy's release was just
a
Yeah , obviously a patsy. All the evidence was faked and the trial
was a showtrial. The conspiracy theorists have spoken so it must be
true.

Just because the attack couldn't have been done by 1 man alone
doesn't mean he wasn't involved.

Almost certainly, he wasn't (at least in this case). As a Libyan
intelligence officer, he may well have been involved in other terrorist
attacks, of course.

Is he still alive, does anyone know?

Of course he is. Only idiots (ie the SNP) believed that about-to-die BS.
Him and Ronnie Biggs will probably be able to have a release party together
next year some time as their release anniversaries come up.

B2003

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:50:29 +0100
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:33:56 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

Quite. Even the Tories at their worst wouldn't have released a mass murdering
terrorist after 8 years just to gain favour with a corrupt dictator for
some trade. And no , I don't believe the SNP acted alone on this.

If you believe Labour would come to some secret deal with the SNP then
you don't know the first thing about Scottish politics.

Well for a start "Scottish politics" is an oxymoron. That glorified county
council up in edinburgh would have trouble running a tap on its own without
outside help. And when westminster waves the threat of yet another funding
cut of half a billion under their noses they'll do what they're told.

B2003

wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:30:04 +0100
JNugent wrote:
Recliner wrote:
wrote in message
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 08:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
No one has a good record on Libya, and that patsy's release was
just a
Yeah , obviously a patsy. All the evidence was faked and the trial
was a showtrial. The conspiracy theorists have spoken so it must be
true.

Just because the attack couldn't have been done by 1 man alone
doesn't mean he wasn't involved.

Almost certainly, he wasn't (at least in this case). As a Libyan
intelligence officer, he may well have been involved in other
terrorist attacks, of course.

Is he still alive, does anyone know?

Of course he is. Only idiots (ie the SNP) believed that about-to-die
BS. Him and Ronnie Biggs will probably be able to have a release
party together next year some time as their release anniversaries
come up.

Ernest Saunders will be supplying the Guinness.

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:30:04 +0100
JNugent wrote:
Recliner wrote:
wrote in message
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 08:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
No one has a good record on Libya, and that patsy's release was
just a
Yeah , obviously a patsy. All the evidence was faked and the trial
was a showtrial. The conspiracy theorists have spoken so it must be
true.

Just because the attack couldn't have been done by 1 man alone
doesn't mean he wasn't involved.

Almost certainly, he wasn't (at least in this case). As a Libyan
intelligence officer, he may well have been involved in other
terrorist attacks, of course.

Is he still alive, does anyone know?

Of course he is. Only idiots (ie the SNP) believed that about-to-die
BS. Him and Ronnie Biggs will probably be able to have a release
party together next year some time as their release anniversaries
come up.

Ernest Saunders will be supplying the Guinness.

g nice one

On 6 Oct, 09:42, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:27:33 +0100

Tom Barry wrote:
....in any of which he would have been acting in the capacity of a state
operative of a one party state run by our mate Gaddafi. *Anyway, it's
immaterial - the conviction was highly unsound.

Really? Care to fill us in with your profound insights as to why this is so?


You first, let's hear your profound insight as to why it's otherwise.

--
Halmyre

We're gonna need a bigger sigfile...

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 02:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Halmyre wrote:
On 6 Oct, 09:42, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:27:33 +0100

Tom Barry wrote:
....in any of which he would have been acting in the capacity of a state
operative of a one party state run by our mate Gaddafi. =A0Anyway, it's
immaterial - the conviction was highly unsound.

Really? Care to fill us in with your profound insights as to why this is =
so?


You first, let's hear your profound insight as to why it's otherwise.

He was convicted in a court of law. So unless you think the notoriously
lefty judiciary was somehow persuaded to bow to american pressure I can't
see an issue with it.

Still, don't take my word for it - read the original evidence:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2...y-verdict.html

B2003