On 6 Oct, 11:14, wrote:
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...ckerbie-bomber...


And, as any fule kno, *no-one* has *ever* been wrongly convicted in a
court of law.

--
Halmyre

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 03:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Halmyre wrote:
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...ckerbie-bomber...


And, as any fule kno, *no-one* has *ever* been wrongly convicted in a
court of law.

Perhaps he was , but I've yet to see any evidence as to why from the
tin foil hat brigade. To me it seems they all want him to have been
innocent just so they can stick it to the yanks. The truth isn't
based on the number of braying idiots spouting the same opinion.

B2003

On Oct 5, 3:33*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 07:01:35 -0700 (PDT)

allanbonnetracy wrote:

I'm not saying Labour is great: I AM saying the Conservatives were
considerably worse.
most
I don't think the penny has quite yet dropped as to what a f**king
great hole this Labour government, and Brown in particular, has
dropped us into compared to other tits ups.

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. And no , I don't believe the SNP acted alone on this.

Even if he was guilty, which he wasn't, and the two mainstream UK
political parties who hate each other the very most colluded on the
decision, which they didn't, then "letting out one nearly-dead
terrorist, from a country that's now an ally" in exchange for
"billions of pounds worth of business and thousands of jobs" seems
like a pretty good deal.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Oct 6, 11:37*am, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 03:35:02 -0700 (PDT)





Halmyre wrote:
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...ckerbie-bomber....

And, as any fule kno, *no-one* has *ever* been wrongly convicted in a
court of law.

Perhaps he was , but I've yet to see any evidence as to why from the
tin foil hat brigade. To me it seems they all want him to have been
innocent just so they can stick it to the yanks. The truth isn't
based on the number of braying idiots spouting the same opinion.

See upthread, where Tom rightly cites:
1) the official UN observer at the trial
2) the Scottish Criminal Cases Review board

(also, if you think that getting the bugger let out is an important
enough conspiracy to unite the Scottish government, the Scottish
judiciary and the UK government in EVILDOING, then surely the same
would apply to getting him locked up in the first place?)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"John B" wrote in message

On Oct 5, 3:33 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 07:01:35 -0700 (PDT)

allanbonnetracy wrote:

I'm not saying Labour is great: I AM saying the Conservatives were
considerably worse.
most
I don't think the penny has quite yet dropped as to what a f**king
great hole this Labour government, and Brown in particular, has
dropped us into compared to other tits ups.

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. And no , I don't believe the SNP acted alone on this.

Even if he was guilty, which he wasn't, and the two mainstream UK
political parties who hate each other the very most colluded on the
decision, which they didn't, then "letting out one nearly-dead
terrorist, from a country that's now an ally" in exchange for
"billions of pounds worth of business and thousands of jobs" seems
like a pretty good deal.

Indeed. But what intrigues me is why we don't seem to be pursing the
real bombers more vigorously. Perhaps they've already been bumped off,
or are they protected in some way? Or are they sitting in Gitmo?

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:
On Oct 5, 3:33=A0pm, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 07:01:35 -0700 (PDT)

allanbonnetracy wrote:

I'm not saying Labour is great: I AM saying the Conservatives were
considerably worse.
most
I don't think the penny has quite yet dropped as to what a f**king
great hole this Labour government, and Brown in particular, has
dropped us into compared to other tits ups.

There=3D92s a whole magnitude of greater incompetence this time that=3D9=
2s
going to make even WW2 seem like the good old days.

Quite. Even the Tories at their worst wouldn't have released a mass murde=
ring
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.

Even if he was guilty, which he wasn't,

Got any evidence to back that up or are you just following the guardianista
party line?

political parties who hate each other the very most colluded on the
decision, which they didn't, then "letting out one nearly-dead
terrorist, from a country that's now an ally" in exchange for
"billions of pounds worth of business and thousands of jobs" seems
like a pretty good deal.

Yeah , to hell with the familes of the hundreds who died. Who needs
punishment when money is at stake.

****.

B2003

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:
See upthread, where Tom rightly cites:
1) the official UN observer at the trial
2) the Scottish Criminal Cases Review board

Fell free to point me in the direction of any convincing evidence.

(also, if you think that getting the bugger let out is an important
enough conspiracy to unite the Scottish government, the Scottish
judiciary and the UK government in EVILDOING, then surely the same
would apply to getting him locked up in the first place?)

The courts put him away. The scottish "government" let him out. Nuff said.

B2003

wrote in message


Yeah , to hell with the familes of the hundreds who died. Who needs
punishment when money is at stake.

Absolutely right -- why didn't they pursue the real bombers?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:50:01 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message


Yeah , to hell with the familes of the hundreds who died. Who needs
punishment when money is at stake.

Absolutely right -- why didn't they pursue the real bombers?

And they are ....?

B2003

wrote in message
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:50:01 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message


Yeah , to hell with the familes of the hundreds who died. Who needs
punishment when money is at stake.

Absolutely right -- why didn't they pursue the real bombers?

And they are ....?

Allegedly Syrian terrorists, under contract from the Iranian government
(in revenge for the Iranian Airbus shot down by the US Navy). The bomb
was loaded in Heathrow, not Frankfurt, which would be embarrassing to
the British government, and the Americans were trying to get Syria and
Iran on its side during the Iraq war, so it was more convenient to blame
the Libyans (who certainly had been behind other terrorist attacks).
Almost certainly, the US and British governments know exactly what
happened, but it would be too embarrassing to admit it.

See www.lockerbietruth.com

As for the families, they don't believe the dubious conviction either:
news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-Al-Megrahi-release-welcomed.5574557.jp