View Full Version : *WOW*, England Lets Lockerbie Murderer Go*
chesswarsnow
08-22-2009, 05:08 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. But this is monumental.
2. Erect a monument, for total stupidity amongst the free world.
3. You will be set free after so many years in prison, being convicted of mass murder.
4. One word, *INSANE*.
5. A link and a sample:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208001/Heros-welcome-Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahi-slaughtered-270.html
"
The international furore over the release of the Lockerbie bomber deepened today after he was seen embracing Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi."
6. So watch them get to repeat what happened before.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Righto,
first off it was not the english goverment, Nor the UK goverment. But the Scottish govermet which made the call.
He has not been 'set free' to live his life, he has a terminal illness and will be dead soon.
There is talk that a deal has been cut for cheap oil&gas in return for his compassionate leave, considering he's gonna be dead in a few weeks should we not just milk the money out of Libya?
What I find rather odd is how goverments around the world, including the US are unhappy at one man, with a terminal illness, being released, and yet those same goverments were behind the Northern Irish Good Friday Agreement, which let hundreds of murdering scum out of prision because they were 'political freedom fighters' and not terrorists.
chesswarsnow
08-22-2009, 06:00 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. But did you read the entire link?
2. Mr. Brown okayed this.
3. Sounds British.
4. Gordon first name.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
I don't read the Daily Fail. And nor would you if ya knew what was good for ya.
It doesn't matter if Mr. Brown thinks this was a great decision or a stupid one. It was not his call, the powers are devolved to a Scotish goverment, and it was a Scottish minister that decided and announced the verdict.
Now as I said, what's so wrong in giving him to over, for him to die, when we can possibly get a a good deal out of it?
Where you as outraged when Bill Clinton, and So forth hailed the Good Friday Agreement a success?
Edit- Read the article for the lulz, as I thought it looks like it's been written by a four year old, and there is no mention of G. Brown, other than comments from the Libyan leader, so unless you have another source, Briwn has not said a word on the subject yet.
chesswarsnow
08-22-2009, 07:25 PM
Sorry bout that,
I don't read the Daily Fail. And nor would you if ya knew what was good for ya.
It doesn't matter if Mr. Brown thinks this was a great decision or a stupid one. It was not his call, the powers are devolved to a Scotish goverment, and it was a Scottish minister that decided and announced the verdict.
Now as I said, what's so wrong in giving him to over, for him to die, when we can possibly get a a good deal out of it?
Where you as outraged when Bill Clinton, and So forth hailed the Good Friday Agreement a success?
Edit- Read the article for the lulz, as I thought it looks like it's been written by a four year old, and there is no mention of G. Brown, other than comments from the Libyan leader, so unless you have another source, Briwn has not said a word on the subject yet.
1. It matters to me, and most Americans, I think.
2. Brown could of stopped it.
3. He didn't,..soooooo,........
4. I do like the oil angle, but that would be blood oil, don't think Englanders would approve of it.
5. I didn't approve of anything Clinton did or failed to do.
6. Brown had better pipe in and soon, if only to save face.
7. If even possible.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
I guess Brown *could* of steped in, bu that would of sparked a mini constitutional crisis. Just face the fact that you made a mistake.
I personally don't think he should of been released, however, if there was a deal to be cut then I can understand why it was done.
Mandy has already put for the goverment line, Browns silence is odd, but as it wasn't his decision.
Why does it matter to you if he dies in a cell in Scotland or in a house in Lybia?
chesswarsnow
08-22-2009, 07:47 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. Brown is no Blair.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Kathianne
08-23-2009, 04:16 AM
Obama, Clinton could have stopped it too. The families of those lost believe that and so do many Americans.
@CWN
You know there is a debate to be had here, but if your gonna be so purile as to ignore the debate and make comments like 'Browns no Blair' then there is no debate to be had with you.
@Kathianne
Americas postion has been clear fir some time, I'm sure there were behind the scenes talk, but following the due process of the law he has been released on compassionate leave. I really doubt Obama would hold much sway with Scotland,
Kathianne
08-23-2009, 05:11 AM
@CWN
You know there is a debate to be had here, but if your gonna be so purile as to ignore the debate and make comments like 'Browns no Blair' then there is no debate to be had with you.
@Kathianne
Americas postion has been clear fir some time, I'm sure there were behind the scenes talk, but following the due process of the law he has been released on compassionate leave. I really doubt Obama would hold much sway with Scotland,
UK may have been able to formally disagree, as you said setting off a constitutional maelstrom. Obama administration through state certainly could have implied diplomatic sanctions upon an old friend that US stood with at times of need against another old friend, UK; it didn't.
chesswarsnow
08-23-2009, 08:49 AM
Sorry bout that,
1. Why should any free nation make gestures towards nations stuck in dark dark islam?
2. Do we let mass murderers go free for end of life experiance?
3. I can hear it now, "I'm dieing, let me go home and die in my own bed wil you?!"
4. What about those whom died at their hands?
5. Where's their justice?
6. Those who road down a heap of destroyed plane.
7. To sentence a man for crimes against humanity, then swing wide open the doors, for grave illness is heeping more injustice upon those whom died for the original crime.
8. Ignorance is bliss.
9. In America a free and innocent man when he becones gravely ill, has a right to give up his entire worth, but in Scotland he gets set free from the bonds and shackles that rightly bind him.
10. I couldn't help but draw the comparison, seeing its such a hot topic these days.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
chesswarsnow
08-23-2009, 09:47 AM
Sorry bout that,
1. When ever I or another person in America who becomes gravely ill, instead of taking away my and their rights to own what ever wealth I or they, have gained and reeped, just send myself, and those others who have not proper insurance to prison.
2. This would be more just than what presently takes place all over the fruited plains of America.
3. Lets call it, *Healthcare Prisons*
4. CWN shinning a new light on, *Give Me Freedom Or Give Me Death*.
5. No son't save us from illness, in your hospitals, just send us to prison, to die in agony.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
theHawk
08-23-2009, 10:39 AM
Chalk one up for liberal laws of "compassion". Don't see much compassion being shown towards the families of the victims in this case. I don't see how any murderer should be release just because they are dying. The point of going to jail for the rest of your life is so you die in jail for what you did, illness or no illness.
chesswarsnow
08-23-2009, 11:15 AM
Sorry bout that,
Chalk one up for liberal laws of "compassion". Don't see much compassion being shown towards the families of the victims in this case. I don't see how any murderer should be release just because they are dying. The point of going to jail for the rest of your life is so you die in jail for what you did, illness or no illness.
1. Some say it wasn't compassion, the arab was used as a poker chip, for an oil deal.
2. Thirty pieces of silver for oil.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
chesswarsnow
08-23-2009, 01:48 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. Unknown leaders catching flack for this from USA.
2. Link and sample:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jWGxoGQV0sObX6i9Sv8DvodpQpzQD9A8O78O0
"Hosted by Back to Google NewsScottish leader defends Lockerbie bomber release
By DAVID STRINGER (AP) – 36 minutes ago
LONDON — Scotland's government defended itself Sunday against unrelenting criticism from the U.S. over the decision to free the Pan Am Flight 103 bomber on compassionate grounds.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a Libyan convicted of killing 270 people in the 1988 airline bombing, was released Thursday because he is terminally ill with prostate cancer. He has returned to his native Libya to die.
His release was met with outrage by families of the U.S. victims of the bombing and criticized by President Barack Obama as "highly objectionable."
FBI director Robert Mueller said in a letter to Scotland's government that al-Megrahi's release would give comfort to terrorists all over the world. Speaking Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that releasing the bomber was "obviously a political decision."
But Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond told BBC Radio that it was wrong to assume that all those affected by the bombing were opposed to al-Megrahi's release.
"I understand the huge and strongly held views of the American families, but that's not all the families who were affected by Lockerbie," Salmond said. "As you're well aware, a number of the families, particularly in the U.K., take a different view and think that we made the right decision."
The explosion of a bomb hidden in the cargo hold of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, killed all 259 people on the plane and 11 on the ground in Britain's worst terrorist attack.
Britain and the U.S. have criticized the lavish reception al-Megrahi received Thursday, when a flag-waving crowd of hundreds greeted him at Tripoli's airport. Britain is reconsidering a planned visit to Libya by Prince Andrew, a British trade envoy, in response.
"This is a real setback for the anti-terrorist cause and takes our relations with Libya back to where they were for too long, a bad place," U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Independent, told CNN.
Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi's office said Sunday he would go ahead with a trip to Libya on Aug. 30, despite international protests over al-Megrahi's welcome. Berlusconi had long planned to meet with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to mark the first anniversary of an important immigration accord that has helped stem the tide of illegal migrants reaching Italian shores.
But a Berlusconi ally, Margherita Boniver, told Corriere della Sera that the premier would "find the right words to express how we feel about such a serious episode."
Some bereaved relatives, particularly in Britain, dispute al-Megrahi's 2001 conviction, and a 2007 Scottish judicial review of his case found grounds for an appeal. He was convicted largely on the evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper, who identified al-Megrahi as having bought a shirt — scraps of which were later found wrapped around the bomb.
Al-Megrahi has maintained his innocence, but last week dropped his appeal so that he could be released on compassionate grounds.
The British and Scottish governments have denied that they struck a deal with Libya to free the Lockerbie bomber in return for greater access to the country's oil and gas.
Libyan officials have claimed al-Megrahi's fate had formed part of trade talks in recent years, while the country's leader Moammar Gadhafi on Friday thanked British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Queen Elizabeth II for "encouraging the Scottish government" to take their decision — a claim denied by both Downing Street and Buckingham Palace.
Lieberman said allegations al-Megrahi's fate was tied to British oil interests were shocking, and urged Brown to authorize an inquiry into the circumstances of the release.
"I don't want to believe that they are true, but they are hanging so heavily in the air that I hope that our friends in Britain will convene an independent investigation of this action by the Scottish justice minister to release a mass murderer," he told CNN.
Brown's office insists that the government in London does not meddle in the work of Scotland's administration — which has wide powers over domestic issues, but has no say in areas such as defense or foreign affairs.
"No one I think seriously believes we made any other decision except for the right reasons," Salmond said. "I think it was the right decision. I also absolutely know it was for the right reasons."
He said al-Megrahi's release was consistent with Scotland's legal system, which allows for the release of prison inmates who are terminally ill.
In this photo taken Thursday, Aug. 20, 2009, Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was found guilty of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, gestures on his arrival at an airport in Tripoli, Libya. Britain has condemned the "upsetting" scenes of jubilation in Tripoli at the return of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and considered canceling a royal visit to Libya as a sign of displeasure. "
4. This will get alot more uglier before it gets prettier.
5. Maybe they should just let any and ALL, arab terrorists go, right after conviction!
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Gaffer
08-23-2009, 02:04 PM
The UK needs the death penalty for this kind of thing. Take their compassion and put it in a bullet to his brain.
chesswarsnow
08-23-2009, 06:02 PM
Sorry bout that,
The UK needs the death penalty for this kind of thing. Take their compassion and put it in a bullet to his brain.
1. Sure, but who is killing terrorists?
2. We coddle them, with baked chicken, prayer rugs, and citrus drinks.
3. Its insane what kind of treatment a arab islamic terrorist can draw.
4. If I were put into jail, it would be balony sandwiches, and water.
5. Reality bites for sure on this.
6. Makes me wonder just whos pulling the strings in this world.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
chesswarsnow
08-23-2009, 06:39 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. Then we hear, "Its Inhuman to hold these terrorists in prisons, without a trial.
2. Shoot just let them go FREE!!!!!!
3. More insanity.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
The UK needs the death penalty for this kind of thing. Take their compassion and put it in a bullet to his brain.
Rest assured the UK does not want, never mind need, a death penalty :)
chesswarsnow
09-02-2009, 07:13 AM
Sorry bout that,
1. But some people earned the death sentence.
2. Allowing them to stay alive is a crime in itself.
3. That bullshit Scotland did letting that murderer out for cancer is going to backfire someday.
4. He was told, "Er you have cancer we will let you go".
5. He said, "Oh, I didn't know that, how did you find out, no tests have been done?"
6. Then the jailer says with a wink wink, "You do want to go home don't you?"
7. He coughs, and said,, "Oh yeah my cancer is really killing me."
8. The guys gona live another twenty years.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Sorry bout that,
1. But some people earned the death sentence.
2. Allowing them to stay alive is a crime in itself.
3. That bullshit Scotland did letting that murderer out for cancer is going to backfire someday.
4. He was told, "Er you have cancer we will let you go".
5. He said, "Oh, I didn't know that, how did you find out, no tests have been done?"
6. Then the jailer says with a wink wink, "You do want to go home don't you?"
7. He coughs, and said,, "Oh yeah my cancer is really killing me."
8. The guys gona live another twenty years.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
?
And why would they pretend a guy had cancer to get him released? This was an extraodinary case, and as such has had extraodinary coverage, and about how it's gonna change our laws forever, but in reality it has changed nothing.
chesswarsnow
09-02-2009, 03:57 PM
Sorry bout that,
?
And why would they pretend a guy had cancer to get him released? This was an extraodinary case, and as such has had extraodinary coverage, and about how it's gonna change our laws forever, but in reality it has changed nothing.
1. They told a lie.
2. They said he was ill, to drum up public sympathy.
3. So they could trade him for oil.
4. Simple really.
5. He walked in order to secure a nice whoping oil deal.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Sorry bout that,
1. They told a lie.
2. They said he was ill, to drum up public sympathy.
3. So they could trade him for oil.
4. Simple really.
5. He walked in order to secure a nice whoping oil deal.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Do you have a source to back any of that up?
I say pictures of him during the celebrations in Lybia (which he was unable to attend due to poor health) and he was looking very ill, and will not be surprised to hear that he has died soon.
I think there was an oil deal involved, however, I do also think he is terminally I'll with cancer.
chesswarsnow
09-02-2009, 07:24 PM
Sorry bout that,
Do you have a source to back any of that up?
I say pictures of him during the celebrations in Lybia (which he was unable to attend due to poor health) and he was looking very ill, and will not be surprised to hear that he has died soon.
I think there was an oil deal involved, however, I do also think he is terminally I'll with cancer.
1. Thats what they want you to believe.
2. He's fine.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Sorry bout that,
1. Thats what they want you to believe.
2. He's fine.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
You've said that already, but have given no source to back up your claim
http://i691.photobucket.com/albums/vv275/taylorbell_photo/boxxy-trolling.jpg
chesswarsnow
09-02-2009, 07:45 PM
Sorry bout that,
You've said that already, but have given no source to back up your claim
http://i691.photobucket.com/albums/vv275/taylorbell_photo/boxxy-trolling.jpg
1. Its a gut feeling.
2. I'm still looking!
Regards,
SorJamesofTexas
chesswarsnow
09-02-2009, 08:21 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. I may be wrong with my accessment.
2. But at the same time, I may be right.
3. I can not find any proof he was actually sick either.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
There does seem to be a dispute over just how long he has left to live, the offical report said 3 months, but some docs say, having viewed the records, he could live as long as 8.
But I have t found anything that implies he is not ill.
Except you.
This attack was echoed by the Tories, who said that the most recent medical consensus was Megrahi would live eight months, too long to be eligible for compassionate release.
The row broke out as Gordon Brown finally ended his silence on the controversy, but refused to say whether he agreed with Mr MacAskill's decision.
The Prime Minister stressed he had “no role” in the release and he was “angry and repulsed” at the hero's welcome that greeted Megrahi on his return to Libya.
A storm of international condemnation has met Mr MacAskill's ruling last week to release Megrahi, who is suffering from prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds.
Scottish Prison Service (SPS) guidelines suggest that inmates are only freed if they have less than three months to live.
However, Dr Simpson, who specialised in prostate disease research, said: “It is clear to me from the medical reports and the opinion of the specialists that Megrahi could live for many more months.
”Kenny MacAskill released him apparently on the advice of just one doctor whose status is not clear and who is not named.”
Dr Simpson, a former member of the British Association of Urological Surgeons' prostate cancer working group, said the minister should have sought a second opinion from a specialist in palliative care.
A health assessment compiled by a SPS medical officer for Mr MacAskill, states that last autumn Megrahi was given between 18 months and two years to live.
However, a range of specialists concluded in June and July this year that his condition had deteriorated over the intervening 10 months and the lower end of this scale was more likely.
Megrahi's life expectancy was no longer deemed to be “many months” but the report concluded: “Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist would be 'willing to say'.”
However, his personal physician said his condition “declined significantly” between July 26 and August 3 and a life expectancy of three months was deemed a “reasonable estimate”.
Bill Aitken, Scottish Tory justice spokesman, said: “In June and July, there was a consensus on prognosis of eight months. Where is that consensus now?
”We only have the opinion of one anonymous individual - not the range of medical experts promised.”
The Scottish Executive admitted that Megrahi could live longer than three months, but insisted this prognosis was supported by a wide range of medical experts.
A spokesman said Mr MacAskill had based his decision on a report by the SPS director of health and care, who had access to all Megrahi's medical records.
He said this contained a “clear” clinical assessment that the bomber's life expectancy was three months or less.
Gordon Brown argued that, because Scottish judicial issues are devolved, his Government “could not interfere and had no control over the final outcome”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6089131/Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahi-may-live-for-many-more-months.html
Gaffer
09-03-2009, 11:34 AM
My opinion of the Scots has dropped considerably. There is no reason whatsoever for that man to have been released. He should have been kept in prison until he died.
red states rule
09-06-2009, 06:46 AM
?
And why would they pretend a guy had cancer to get him released? This was an extraodinary case, and as such has had extraodinary coverage, and about how it's gonna change our laws forever, but in reality it has changed nothing.
Looks like the Dr's may have indeed LIED to get this terrorists pig free. Not only did they perhaps lie about how long he had to live - but OIL was a factor in the decision to release this pig
All to close the deal - that is why they may have LIED Noir
British Official Says Oil Was 'Very Big Part' of Lockerbie Talks
LONDON — Trade and oil considerations played a big part in the decision to include the Lockerbie bomber in a prisoner transfer agreement between Britain and Libya, a senior British official said in an interview published Saturday.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw said trade, particularly a deal for oil company BP PLC, was "a very big part" of the 2007 negotiations that led to the prisoner deal. The agreement was part of a wider warming of relations between London and Tripoli.
"Libya was a rogue state," Straw was quoted as saying by The Daily Telegraph newspaper. "We wanted to bring it back into the fold and trade is an essential part of it — and subsequently there was the BP deal."
The British government has faced intense criticism over the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a Libyan convicted in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland. The attack killed 259 people aboard the plane, most of them American, and 11 on the ground.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,546900,00.html
AND:
Three doctors 'paid by Libyan government to say Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi had three months to live'
By Mail On Sunday Reporter
Three doctors were paid by the Libyan Government to conclude that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi had three months to live - the maximum life expectancy to allow him to be freed on compassionate grounds.
Cancer expert Professor Karol Sikora said he had been ‘encouraged’ to reach his findings by the Libyans who commisioned his report.
He told The Sunday Telegraph that ‘the figure of three months was suggested as being helpful’.
Under Scottish law, any prisoner who is thought to have a life expectancy longer than this is not eligible for the early-release scheme.
The three doctors’ findings contrasted with other medical advice which concluded that Megrahi had up to ten months to live.
The claim will add to suspicions
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1211496/Three-doctors-paid-Libyan-government-say-Lockerbie-bomber-Abdelbaset-Al-Megrahi-months-live.html
red states rule
09-06-2009, 08:01 AM
There does seem to be a dispute over just how long he has left to live, the offical report said 3 months, but some docs say, having viewed the records, he could live as long as 8.
But I have t found anything that implies he is not ill.
Except you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6089131/Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahi-may-live-for-many-more-months.html
Noir, the evidence is piling up. Oil was the reason this terrorist pig was let go - and now the Dr's may have lied about how long he had to live
"compassion" was not the reason this terrorist bastard was let go - but OIL
Lets see how long this pig actually does live - or if takes part in more murders of innocent people
Not that any of that may matter to you - after all being a liberal means you do not concern yourself with the results of your actions and policies, only your good intentions
chesswarsnow
09-06-2009, 09:27 AM
Sorry bout that,
Noir, the evidence is piling up. Oil was the reason this terrorist pig was let go - and now the Dr's may have lied about how long he had to live
"compassion" was not the reason this terrorist bastard was let go - but OIL
Lets see how long this pig actually does live - or if takes part in more murders of innocent people
Not that any of that may matter to you - after all being a liberal means you do not concern yourself with the results of your actions and policies, only your good intentions
1. Most those who died were Americans.
2. I wonder how much that had to do with this deal?
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
red states rule
09-06-2009, 09:50 AM
Sorry bout that,
1. Most those who died were Americans.
2. I wonder how much that had to do with this deal?
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Who cares? Another example of liberals appeasing terrorists. Somehow they think this will stop them from wanting us dead, and will stop them from committing more acts of terrorism
Or are you saying this is America's and Pres Bush's fault - as I am sure some on the left will say sooner or later
I see Noir has disappeared from this thread as soon as the facts got in the way of the discussion
chesswarsnow
09-06-2009, 10:11 AM
Sorry bout that,
Who cares? Another example of liberals appeasing terrorists. Somehow they think this will stop them from wanting us dead, and will stop them from committing more acts of terrorism
Or are you saying this is America's and Pres Bush's fault - as I am sure some on the left will say sooner or later
I see Noir has disappeared from this thread as soon as the facts got in the way of the discussion
1. Most Americans should care, if this deal was done because most the victims were Americans, like it makes it easier to swallow this deal to trade the do'er, for oil.
2. Its not just appeasing terrorists, its trading in blood, big difference there.
3. islam isn't about to stop killing non muslims, hell just for fun they kill each other to keep practice.
4. Oh did I say Bush did it? I don't remember writing that, and I don't know how you were able to draw that from what I've said.
5. Sure the libs may try and pin this whole deal for oil on Bush, hey why not make a stab at it, its worked in the past, for the dumb.
6. Noir will be back, he thinks he's right on this matter, he's got plenty to say on it.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
I see Noir has disappeared from this thread as soon as the facts got in the way of the discussion
LOL! So I haven't replied to a thread since you posted 4 hours ago?
I *must* of run away.
If you must know I'm in work ATM, and will be for another 6 hours or so, and thus don't yet have time for a proper response, but rest assured I will reply when I get home later.
Don't miss me too much xoxo
My opinion of the Scots has dropped considerably. There is no reason whatsoever for that man to have been released. He should have been kept in prison until he died.
I'm sure the people of Scottland will have many sleepless nights, knowing that they are no longer looked upon highly by you.
He was released under compassionate grounds, through a Christain ideal, that was how the minister justified his position.
Thus much in the same why that people said 'how dare Jesus di e with tax collectors' folk are now going 'how dare you show compassion to a murderer' that's not to say that I disagree with them, but it does put Christains in a tricky spot.
Noir, the evidence is piling up. Oil was the reason this terrorist pig was let go - and now the Dr's may have lied about how long he had to live
"compassion" was not the reason this terrorist bastard was let go - but OIL
Lets see how long this pig actually does live - or if takes part in more murders of innocent people
Not that any of that may matter to you - after all being a liberal means you do not concern yourself with the results of your actions and policies, only your good intentions
As I have said before in this thread, I think there was and oil deal involved, but I also think he is terminaly ill.
Yes there is a dispute over how long he has left to live, some say a max or 3 moths others say 8. However, given the facts.
1)He will be dead in a few months time
2)He would of died in the UK in a bed having been given the best treatment possible, as is the duty of the NHS, and costing thousands.
3)and the UK would pay standard rates for gas/oil ect.
Or
1)Send him back to Libya, where they can pay for his treatment
2)He'll still be dead in a few months.
3)UK gets cut price oil/gas ect
Personally while I don't like the idea of him being sent home I can understand why the minister did what he did,
chesswarsnow
09-06-2009, 05:45 PM
Sorry bout that,
As I have said before in this thread, I think there was and oil deal involved, but I also think he is terminaly ill.
1. Proof he was really ill?
Yes there is a dispute over how long he has left to live, some say a max or 3 moths others say 8. However, given the facts.
2. Facts could be he isn't even ill.
1)He will be dead in a few months time
3. Don't hold your breath waiting for him to die off, it could take years if not decades.
2)He would of died in the UK in a bed having been given the best treatment possible, as is the duty of the NHS, and costing thousands.
4. Why does he have to be in a hospital bed, can't he just be in a jail cell in his bed there?
3)and the UK would pay standard rates for gas/oil ect.
5. Blood money, should make Englanders sick as hell.
Or
1)Send him back to Libya, where they can pay for his treatment
2)He'll still be dead in a few months.
3)UK gets cut price oil/gas ect
6. To late to worry about it, they screwed up, can't fix stupid.
Personally while I don't like the idea of him being sent home I can understand why the minister did what he did,
7. He failed his duty for justice, I don't get it, 270 Americans died, more or less, I find that number worth death, or is it 300 murdered, then they get to die for their crimes?
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
1. Proof he was really ill?
Erm, doctors reports, what other proof could there possibly be?
2. Facts could be he isn't even ill.
Thats a fact? Gee, how did you find out such facts?
3. Don't hold your breath waiting for him to die off, it could take years if not decades.
Well the Doc who looked after him said 3 months max, and a team of docs who reviewed his notes later said there could be a max of 8 months, so unless you know more than the doctors that have seen his medical files...
4. Why does he have to be in a hospital bed, can't he just be in a jail cell in his bed there?
He would of been put into a secure hospital and treated just like anyone else under the care of the NHS, as it does not discriminate against anything, whether it be Age, Colour, Wealth, Criminal Record ect.
5. Blood money, should make Englanders sick as hell.
Like i said i don't like the idea much, but if the alternitive is for us to pay for his healthcare ect then a don't think a deal is maddness.
6. To late to worry about it, they screwed up, can't fix stupid.
Who screwed up what now?
7. He failed his duty for justice, I don't get it, 270 Americans died, more or less, I find that number worth death, or is it 300 murdered, then they get to die for their crimes?
You can not 'die for your crimes' in the UK, whether you think it worthy or not. We have a law system based on Christain ideals, one of which is compassion, as i have said many times, i don't like the idea of him being released, but if he was going to be, we may aswell of got something out of it, and not only have we gained by not wasting money on his medical treatment (which can now be spent on someone else) but we may have got a good oil/gas price deal aswell.
Kathianne
09-10-2009, 06:23 PM
Erm, doctors reports, what other proof could there possibly be?
Thats a fact? Gee, how did you find out such facts?
Well the Doc who looked after him said 3 months max, and a team of docs who reviewed his notes later said there could be a max of 8 months, so unless you know more than the doctors that have seen his medical files...
He would of been put into a secure hospital and treated just like anyone else under the care of the NHS, as it does not discriminate against anything, whether it be Age, Colour, Wealth, Criminal Record ect.
Like i said i don't like the idea much, but if the alternitive is for us to pay for his healthcare ect then a don't think a deal is maddness.
Who screwed up what now?
You can not 'die for your crimes' in the UK, whether you think it worthy or not. We have a law system based on Christain ideals, one of which is compassion, as i have said many times, i don't like the idea of him being released, but if he was going to be, we may aswell of got something out of it, and not only have we gained by not wasting money on his medical treatment (which can now be spent on someone else) but we may have got a good oil/gas price deal aswell.
Noir, I know you all don't have the death penalty, but this guy should have died in jail. It seems it wasn't Scotland's choice, they were pressured by the extreme Muslim loving Brown. If memory serves, you were 'relieved' that it was Scotland's decision originally, seems it wasn't.
Noir, I know you all don't have the death penalty, but this guy should have died in jail. It seems it wasn't Scotland's choice, they were pressured by the extreme Muslim loving Brown. If memory serves, you were 'relieved' that it was Scotland's decision originally, seems it wasn't.
Should he of died in jail? I think so, however, given the costs that were going to be involved, and the knowledge that he has a terminal illness, and the prospect of economic benefits i think releasing him was a sensible move.
It was Scotlands choice, the British Government may of advised the Scotts on the deal that would be struck if he were released, but at the end of the day it was the Scottish ministers decision
Kathianne
09-10-2009, 09:18 PM
Should he of died in jail? I think so, however, given the costs that were going to be involved, and the knowledge that he has a terminal illness, and the prospect of economic benefits i think releasing him was a sensible move.
It was Scotlands choice, the British Government may of advised the Scotts on the deal that would be struck if he were released, but at the end of the day it was the Scottish ministers decision
It was as much Scotland's decision as Illinois. NOT.
chesswarsnow
09-11-2009, 07:20 AM
Sorry bout that,
Erm, doctors reports, what other proof could there possibly be?
1. Easly forged, you want him to die, I know he will live, two differnt realities, mine is the true one.
Thats a fact? Gee, how did you find out such facts?
2. Instincts.
Well the Doc who looked after him said 3 months max, and a team of docs who reviewed his notes later said there could be a max of 8 months, so unless you know more than the doctors that have seen his medical files...
3. I want an investigation on what the Doctors knew about the *Oil Deal*, before they decided this guy was terminal.
He would of been put into a secure hospital and treated just like anyone else under the care of the NHS, as it does not discriminate against anything, whether it be Age, Colour, Wealth, Criminal Record ect.
4. I guess not, they tend to go over board with compassion to the point of injustice for those who die at these terrorists hands, thats very sad that, maybe instead of sending them to jail, they should just send them to hospitals, and the Docs will send them home.
Like i said i don't like the idea much, but if the alternitive is for us to pay for his healthcare ect then a don't think a deal is maddness.
5. From this day forward, you can expect that other countries will look to this and use it as leverage to get their terroists out, if you have them, you country will wear this a badge of dishonor forever.
Who screwed up what now?
6. Letting him go, how else?
You can not 'die for your crimes' in the UK, whether you think it worthy or not. We have a law system based on Christain ideals, one of which is compassion, as i have said many times, i don't like the idea of him being released, but if he was going to be, we may aswell of got something out of it, and not only have we gained by not wasting money on his medical treatment (which can now be spent on someone else) but we may have got a good oil/gas price deal aswell.
7. How is it that England, Scottland, and Ireland all have the same law? are they that tied at the hip, or is one main country telling the other two, how its going to be, and whom gets out of jail early? I can see whom is actually pulling the strings on you guys like a puppet, and they wear head gear that looks like pillow cases, bunch of lily liver officals.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
It was as much Scotland's decision as Illinois. NOT.
It amazes me how you guys know this stuff for sure,
It was the Minsters call, and btw, the Minster is a member of the Scottish National Party, and trust me he would not take the fall for Brown and the Labour party, he'd leave the labour party out to dry, the fact that he hasn't is very telling, especially when the Scottish Labour Party have been making gains at the expense of the SNP over this issue.
1. Easly forged, you want him to die, I know he will live, two differnt realities, mine is the true one.
Yep, all those doctors, ministers and civil servants, all in on it, and not one has thought to speak out, even anonymously.
2. Instincts.
You know facts by instinct? Interesting.
3. I want an investigation on what the Doctors knew about the *Oil Deal*, before they decided this guy was terminal.
And if it did happen, when the results came back and they were not to your liking you would claim that it is a fact that the investigation was a white-wash, you're instincts would tell you so.
4. I guess not, they tend to go over board with compassion to the point of injustice for those who die at these terrorists hands, thats very sad that, maybe instead of sending them to jail, they should just send them to hospitals, and the Docs will send them home.
Overboard with compassion? Sending someone home who has a terminal illness is overboard?
5. From this day forward, you can expect that other countries will look to this and use it as leverage to get their terroists out, if you have them, you country will wear this a badge of dishonor forever.
The laws for compassionate leave here have been in place for a long time, the only reason it has been dragged into scrutiny now is because this is a high profile case, in reality this case will change nothing, it was merely hyped.
6. Letting him go, how else?
Like ive said, i don't like the idea of him being free, however he will soon be dead, and we may of got a good oil/gas deal out of it, and will not have to pay for his medical bills, i would judge that to be a bittersweet success.
7. How is it that England, Scottland, and Ireland all have the same law? are they that tied at the hip, or is one main country telling the other two, how its going to be, and whom gets out of jail early? I can see whom is actually pulling the strings on you guys like a puppet, and they wear head gear that looks like pillow cases, bunch of lily liver officals.
I will keep this brief but if you wish will go into greater detail.
England, Scotland and Wales form Great Britain, Great Britain and Northern Ireland form the United Kingdom. Ireland is not part of either.
The UK acts as one country for issues such as Foreign policy, economic policy ect. But each of the four states have their own devolved assembly to deal with more local issues such as transport, justice (except for Northern Ireland) and education ect.
So basically the law of the UK is the same throughout, with minor tweaks, for example last year the age of consent in NI was 17, but it was 16 in the rest of the UK, but now NI has also dropped it to 16
The decision of releasing this man was a decision for the Scotish Justice Minister, though he will of been advised by the UK gov, and the US ect.
chesswarsnow
09-11-2009, 09:08 PM
Sorry bout that,
Yep, all those doctors, ministers and civil servants, all in on it, and not one has thought to speak out, even anonymously.
1. Yes, bastards are thicker than thives.
You know facts by instinct? Interesting.
2. Its a talent.
And if it did happen, when the results came back and they were not to your liking you would claim that it is a fact that the investigation was a white-wash, you're instincts would tell you so.
3. Yup, it was a secret oil deal, that got out, now they had to give some reason to turn the bastard loose.
Overboard with compassion? Sending someone home who has a terminal illness is overboard?
4. Prove it, I think he's fine.
The laws for compassionate leave here have been in place for a long time, the only reason it has been dragged into scrutiny now is because this is a high profile case, in reality this case will change nothing, it was merely hyped.
5. Makes it easy to get out of jail then, fake a terminal illness, and the gates open up, don't be a tool, just admit that system is flawed as hell.
Like ive said, i don't like the idea of him being free, however he will soon be dead, and we may of got a good oil/gas deal out of it, and will not have to pay for his medical bills, i would judge that to be a bittersweet success.
6. Dead will be better than what he had in life, I think dieing in a jail cell all alone would be some measure of punishment, but some idoits took that possibility out of the picture.
I will keep this brief but if you wish will go into greater detail.
England, Scotland and Wales form Great Britain, Great Britain and Northern Ireland form the United Kingdom. Ireland is not part of either.
The UK acts as one country for issues such as Foreign policy, economic policy ect. But each of the four states have their own devolved assembly to deal with more local issues such as transport, justice (except for Northern Ireland) and education ect.
So basically the law of the UK is the same throughout, with minor tweaks, for example last year the age of consent in NI was 17, but it was 16 in the rest of the UK, but now NI has also dropped it to 16
The decision of releasing this man was a decision for the Scotish Justice Minister, though he will of been advised by the UK gov, and the US ect.
7. I see England runs everything over there, I always liked the Queen.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
1. Yes, bastards are thicker than thives.
Righto, ofcourse they are.
2. Its a talent.
Maybe you should go on TV and get this talent judged by Mr. Hasslehoff.
3. Yup, it was a secret oil deal, that got out, now they had to give some reason to turn the bastard loose.
What you have said here in point 3 has nothing to do with the point i made, which i assume it was addressing.
4. Prove it, I think he's fine.
Ok, why don;t you prove that he's fine?
If it ever comes down to believing you and your 'talent' over British doctors, civil servants and Ministers, the later would win hands down every time.
5. Makes it easy to get out of jail then, fake a terminal illness, and the gates open up, don't be a tool, just admit that system is flawed as hell.
I'VE ALREADY SAID GOD KNOWS HOW MANY TIMES I DO NOT LIKE THE SYSTEM THAT HAS MEANT HE COULD BE RELEASED
however, the fact is that that is the system we use, and there's not much i can do about that, however, your claims of faking a terminal illness are wilde, and baseless.
6. Dead will be better than what he had in life, I think dieing in a jail cell all alone would be some measure of punishment, but some idoits took that possibility out of the picture.
Likewise i agree, however, under the system we had he could, and was, released.
7. I see England runs everything over there, I always liked the Queen.
England runs everything? can you not read? We have local devolved assemblies to deal with national issues, the system is almost a co-federal system, but not quite.
chesswarsnow
09-11-2009, 10:54 PM
Sorry bout that,
Righto, ofcourse they are.
1. Thats why they pushed to get the oil deal in da bag, who cares they think if some muslim goes free, just give us da oil!
Maybe you should go on TV and get this talent judged by Mr. Hasslehoff.
2. Hehehehe,....good one,........
What you have said here in point 3 has nothing to do with the point i made, which i assume it was addressing.
3. And that was?
Ok, why don;t you prove that he's fine?
If it ever comes down to believing you and your 'talent' over British doctors, civil servants and Ministers, the later would win hands down every time.
4. Proof will be his long life, which will take some time.
I'VE ALREADY SAID GOD KNOWS HOW MANY TIMES I DO NOT LIKE THE SYSTEM THAT HAS MEANT HE COULD BE RELEASED
however, the fact is that that is the system we use, and there's not much i can do about that, however, your claims of faking a terminal illness are wilde, and baseless.
5. Okay so you don't like the system we hear yas, but we Americans can't forgive doing something for oil only, which it will come out, thats what happened.
.
Likewise i agree, however, under the system we had he could, and was, released.
6. This will haunt your nation, or the Scotts, watch and see.
England runs everything? can you not read? We have local devolved assemblies to deal with national issues, the system is almost a co-federal system, but not quite.
7. Okay, maybe not little stuff, but everything big, England has final say it seems to me.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.