Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#51
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#52
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#53
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#54
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#55
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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? |
#56
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#57
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#58
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#59
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#60
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Updating "Digital Dave/Doris" | London Transport | |||
Ping Dave Arquati | London Transport | |||
Is Dave unwell? | London Transport | |||
Nice peice of meet | London Transport |