Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi

[MrFrost]

While we're at it, defending everyone and everything other than Tories and Thatcher, lets pay our respects to this guy.
Released on compasionate grounds as he only has months to live.
Still going strong now, and could have years left in him.

Discuss.

[BobG]

Just like the ex Chairman of Distillers who feigned sick to get out of prison after stealing millions and millions of other people's money. That t**t got away with it. He was rich. He stole a lot more. And he only did a few months in the nick. So don't go saying that, even if it's true, this guy is unworthy to live here because he's different. He's f**king not. He's a human being, just like all the toffee nosed t**ts of England with their snouts in the troughs that you won't let those poor buggers even approach. You make me sick.

BobG

[MrFrost]

I make you sick? This guy was responsible for the deats of how many people.
But here you are in another thread quite openly admitting you would dance on someone's grave. Now that makes me sick.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

While we're at it, defending everyone and everything other than Tories and Thatcher, lets pay our respects to this guy.
Released on compasionate grounds as he only has months to live.
Still going strong now, and could have years left in him.

Discuss.

Grow up. It's called \"real-politik\".

Gadaffi played a very skilfull political hand over the 70s and 80s. He bigged himself up as the Muslim world's attack dog against the infidel. His tactics included supporting the IRA and supporting a bombing of an airliner carrying innocent people. That's what happens in global conflicts. We cry \"Foul\" because it was our people who were the victims. But do you think WE have never done anything similar? We, the Brits, the Americans, the French etc are all angels? How many innocents did we kill in Iraq? How many did America kill in Laos? How many did France kill in Algeria? We all had good reasons for doing so - it served our strategic aims. Libya would say exactly the same about Lockerbie.

Gadaffi's real skill has been to read the tea leaves over the last few years. The Iraq invasion scared the living shite out of him. He's calmed down, toned down, started to toe the line. He's given up his nuclear weapons programme. He needed a quid pro quo to show to his own people and that was the release of al-Megrahi.

al-Megrahi's conviction was highly questionable in the first place. There is sgtrong evidence that he was a sacrificial lamb at the time that Gadaffi was trying to make up to the West. If his release is the price we pay for continued good relations with Libya, then fine. I'll live with that.

As I say, you need to grow up a bit. Start seeing the world in all its infinite shades of grey, instead of this infantile black-white, good-bad, us-them.

[nice one rovers]

MrFrost wrote:

I make you sick? This guy was responsible for the deats of how many people.
But here you are in another thread quite openly admitting you would dance on someone's grave. Now that makes me sick.

Dancing never hurt anyone!

[MrFrost]

Jesus Christ. I really didn't think anyone would actually defend this guy.
Good relations with Libya rather than justice for everyone killed. Yep ok then.

How you can sit there and try and justify the Lockerbie bombing is unbelievable. Next it will be 9/11 and 7/7. I'd like to see you convey your opinions to the families involved!

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

Jesus Christ. I really didn't think anyone would actually defend this guy.
Good relations with Libya rather than justice for everyone killed. Yep ok then.

How you can sit there and try and justify the Lockerbie bombing is unbelievable. Next it will be 9/11 and 7/7. I'd like to see you convey your opinions to the families involved!

Ah well. The lecture continues.

1) Look at it from the other side and there are clear and obvious justifications for Lockerbie, 9/11 and 7/7. They are all about changing the terms of the argument to the benefit of the perpetrators. In the case of Lockerbie, that meant putting Libya/Gadaffi up as the hero of the Muslim World against the West. In the case of 9/11 and 7/7, it was all about stirring up inter-race/religion hatreds. All three attacks were successful in their own way.

2) Muslims are not the only bad lads who do naughty stuff like this and justfy it. America had good reasons for bombing Laos and Cambodia back to the Stone Age in the Vietnam War. They saw themselves as being perfectly justified in military action that resulted in 750,000 civillians dying (kind of puts 9/11 and Lockerbie into perspective eh?) because they had higher moral purpose in what they were trying to achieve.

3) Now, that dispassionate assessment does not in any way reflect on my own moral attitude. I find all these arguments morally repugnant, and I long for the day that an Intergalatic Solomon arrives and kicks the living shite out of all the bas**rds who justify killing innocent people. In the absence of such a referee, I'll try to maintain an even approach when assessing Crimes Against Humanity. I'll try to be a bit more grown-up than simply saying that the nasty lads on the other side are doing bad things and we are just doing what we have to. All sides do it. Picking on one set to justify a personal bigotry is another option, but I choose not to take it.

[RobTheRover]

Excellent post, and a design for life, BST.

I used to be an angry young man once.  Frosty will grow up one day and give it a huge .

[bobjimwilly]

I would vote for you BST as Intergalatic Solomon. Go on, you might aswell give it a go?  

[coventryrover]

bobjimwilly wrote:

I would vote for you BST as Intergalatic Solomon. Go on, you might aswell give it a go?  

+1

Dont think I'd fancy arguing against BST but I dont even like arguing with the missus.

[Thinwhiteduke]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

 We, the Brits, the Americans, the French etc are all angels? How many innocents did we kill in Iraq? How many did America kill in Laos? How many did France kill in Algeria? We all had good reasons for doing so - it served our strategic aims. Libya would say exactly the same about Lockerbie.

You missed the Boar War out.

Frosty would do well to study how the Brits murdered Man, woman and child there - mainly Farmers at that.

[MrFrost]

The only point I was trying to make is whether he should have been released on compasionate grounds, especially now as it seems he may have a long time left to live. Whilst I may accept, he acted in the interests of Libya, does this mean, that because through history we have killed innocent people in acts of war, he shoudn't have to face justice? Should we show him any compasion?
Why cant we all just be pacifists?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

How many people did this guy kill again?

I'm sure if it was your son/daughter/mother/father etc BST that you'd be quite as compassionate as you are and quite happy he got released for political reasons?

I find it quite sick whatever the nationality, religion etc that terrorists are released quite so easily.

[vaya]

He was released on compassionate gorunds following an independant medical review by a British consultant, if memory serves me correctly.

Anyone looking for ethics in International Relations is going to have a long search. The end will almost always justify the means.

Consider this - The Cold War. The ultimate outcome of this would have been global destruction, but it didn't happen. The conflict was instead played out by proxy in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Angola, et al.

The world wasn't destroyed, and the vast majority of the population of the planet are still here.  Justifies everything that went on, doesn't it?

[Glyn_Wigley]

And if anybody looked at the evidence that was suppressed at his trial, they might just say that there would have been enough doubt not to have convicted him in the first place. I'm not saying I think he's innocent, but I'm far from convinced he's guilty.

[BillyStubbsTears]

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

How many people did this guy kill again?

I'm sure if it was your son/daughter/mother/father etc BST that you'd be quite as compassionate as you are and quite happy he got released for political reasons?

I find it quite sick whatever the nationality, religion etc that terrorists are released quite so easily.

I couldn't possibly say how I'd feel if it was my family involved. However, personal involvement doesn't automatically equate to a blood-lust response that fails to see the bigger picture. Go look at what Jim Swire has done over the last decade to campaign on Megrahi's behalf. That's Jim, the father of Flora Swire who WAS killed at Lockerbie.

Of course, in realpolitik, all these moral and personal issues are utterly irrelevant. All that matters is whether a practical benefit comes from a given action, regardless of how morally or personally distasteful that action might be. Therefore, if the release of Megrahi (even if he WAS guilty) helps keep Libya on board and prevent more deaths in the future, then so be it.

That sort of distasteful, unpleasant deal making is probably inherent in the human condition. If it wasn't, there'd be a lot more idealistic and morally upright political leaders. But since we get the political leaders we deserve, and since every last one of them is prepared to do distasteful deals and commit immoral actions when they see it as benefitting the country, that probably says as much about us as it does about them.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

The only point I was trying to make is whether he should have been released on compasionate grounds, especially now as it seems he may have a long time left to live. Whilst I may accept, he acted in the interests of Libya, does this mean, that because through history we have killed innocent people in acts of war, he shoudn't have to face justice? Should we show him any compasion?
Why cant we all just be pacifists?

I'll set you a little thought experiment just to establish the principle of realpolitik.

Imagine an al-Qaeda operative goes into the centre of New York with a suitcase nuclear bomb. He demands the release of the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as his price for not incinerating 1 million people. As President, do you accept his demand or take the moral high ground and shrug your shoulders as the mushroom cloud ascends?

Hypothetical and extreme but it illustrates a point. All our leaders have to do pragmatic, unpalatable things when they judge it to be in the interests of their country. Megrahi's release was exactly one if those unpleasant things.

[nightporter]

nice one rovers wrote:

Dancing never hurt anyone!

You've never seen Flashdance then.

[MrFrost]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

The only point I was trying to make is whether he should have been released on compasionate grounds, especially now as it seems he may have a long time left to live. Whilst I may accept, he acted in the interests of Libya, does this mean, that because through history we have killed innocent people in acts of war, he shoudn't have to face justice? Should we show him any compasion?
Why cant we all just be pacifists?

I'll set you a little thought experiment just to establish the principle of realpolitik.

Imagine an al-Qaeda operative goes into the centre of New York with a suitcase nuclear bomb. He demands the release of the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as his price for not incinerating 1 million people. As President, do you accept his demand or take the moral high ground and shrug your shoulders as the mushroom cloud ascends?

Hypothetical and extreme but it illustrates a point. All our leaders have to do pragmatic, unpalatable things when they judge it to be in the interests of their country. Megrahi's release was exactly one if those unpleasant things.

I'd give Jack Bauer a call.

[wilts rover]

MrFrost wrote:

While we're at it, defending everyone and everything other than Tories and Thatcher, lets pay our respects to this guy.
Released on compasionate grounds as he only has months to live.
Still going strong now, and could have years left in him.

Discuss.

Wont bother discusing whether or not he was actually involved, plenty of theories out there about it, but a morally repugnant and horrible crime and al-Megrahi is only one of many prisoners for whom life should have meant life.

But remind me agian how many people were brought to justice tried and for the first mass air bombing of civilians in peace time?

www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/World.war.2/Air.Control.htm

[BobG]

Thinwhiteduke wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

You missed the Boar War out.

Frosty would do well to study how the Brits murdered Man, woman and child there - mainly Farmers at that.

Quick PS. Do you happen to know, Mr Frost, who it was that invented the concentration camp? and who it was hat first put innocent people in them? Well surprise, surprise. It was us. The Brits. The English. Lord KITChener invented them in about 1900 (it might have been 1901) as a means of incarcerating hundreds of thousands of Boer women and children. And guess what? Rather a lot of them died. Not much food, sanitation and medical help you see. Far too busy chasing that pesky Boer all round the veldt.

Realpolitik is here. It's always been here. When I see something like 9/11, I don't rush to judgement. I make it a policy to ask myself 'Why did they do that?' It's an instructive question. It opens up avenues and avenues of moral judgements, of political judgements, of military judgements. None of which, I'm afraid, have you ever give any inkling of even knowing exist.

You're no better than a teenage schoolboy Mr Frost. You have no depth. No ability to reflect. No concepetion of how the world actually works. No understanding that painting situations in black and white is solely for the cinema. You can't even recognise an olive branch when one is waved in your face. As for your ability to allow anything as annoying as a fact to penetrate your rhinoceros skin, well, you haven't got it. You're a dead loss mate. As many folk have suggested, take a time out. Go do some studying. Learn how to think, how to express yourself, before bothering actual human beings with your trivial Nazi shite again.

BobG

[MrFrost]

BobG wrote:

Thinwhiteduke wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

You missed the Boar War out.

Frosty would do well to study how the Brits murdered Man, woman and child there - mainly Farmers at that.

Quick PS. Do you happen to know, Mr Frost, who it was that invented the concentration camp? and who it was hat first put innocent people in them? Well surprise, surprise. It was us. The Brits. The English. Lord KITChener invented them in about 1900 (it might have been 1901) as a means of incarcerating hundreds of thousands of Boer women and children. And guess what? Rather a lot of them died. Not much food, sanitation and medical help you see. Far too busy chasing that pesky Boer all round the veldt.

Realpolitik is here. It's always been here. When I see something like 9/11, I don't rush to judgement. I make it a policy to ask myself 'Why did they do that?' It's an instructive question. It opens up avenues and avenues of moral judgements, of political judgements, of military judgements. None of which, I'm afraid, have you ever give any inkling of even knowing exist.

You're no better than a teenage schoolboy Mr Frost. You have no depth. No ability to reflect. No concepetion of how the world actually works. No understanding that painting situations in black and white is solely for the cinema. You can't even recognise an olive branch when one is waved in your face. As for your ability to allow anything as annoying as a fact to penetrate your rhinoceros skin, well, you haven't got it. You're a dead loss mate. As many folk have suggested, take a time out. Go do some studying. Learn how to think, how to express yourself, before bothering actual human beings with your trivial Nazi shite again.

BobG

And how you would feel Bob had someone you loved been killed in such an atrocity. Would you still wonder why they did it and try and justify it?

I do not need to do any studying, thankyou. I am quite happy with my biew of the world and what happens. There is no right or wrong, despite how you love to point out that you are right all the time.

If someone isn't on your intellectual wavelength Bob, their opinions count for nothing. Isn't that right?

[jucyberry]

The only irrifutable difference between a war crime, and justified action is the side you are on... if you lose it is a crime, for the winner it is the means that justifies the end.

look at the Yanks and their love of water boarding. and, as Bob points out, our history isn't exactly filled with glory, the things done in the name of the Empire are shocking.  perhaps that is why we do get so many people from other countries coming here?

Attonment for past actions??

[Nudga]

Threads like these piss me right off, it's an excuse for people to show how intelligent they are and use it as a propaganda tool for others to join their clique. It's a chance for them to display their learning done at Uni and if anyone doesn't have the same opinion or cannot match them in their thinking and understanding or written excellence, they then go about trying to destroy the other less unfortunate folk. I see it all the time in my place of work and it's a form of bullying. Intelligent, sly and brown nosing bullying. This isn't a debate anymore, it's a chance to revisite old Uni lectures.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Nudge. I studied Civil Engineering at University. I've looked back over this thread and I can't find a single place that I threw in any quotes from my lectures on setting up a theodolite or doing a concrete slump test.

[RobTheRover]

I think you may have used the word \"levels\" once.

[BillyStubbsTears]

jucyberry wrote:

The only irrifutable difference between a war crime, and justified action is the side you are on... if you lose it is a crime, for the winner it is the means that justifies the end.

look at the Yanks and their love of water boarding. and, as Bob points out, our history isn't exactly filled with glory, the things done in the name of the Empire are shocking.  perhaps that is why we do get so many people from other countries coming here?

Attonment for past actions??

100% correct Jucy.

Had we lost WWII, there would have been Oxford Trials as the German's equivalent of the Nuermeburg Trials. Churchill and Bomber Harris would have been executed for war crimes for the bombing of Dresden.

That's not necessarily a reflection of MY take on the morality of WWII, it's a simple cold, hard fact. As Jucy says, each side justifies its own immoral/illegal actions and sets the other side up as demons when THEY do it.

Look at Northern Ireland as another example. We had it drummed into us that Sinn Fein/IRA were the only bad lads who did naughty things. It's taken the thick end of 40 years for the truth to come out about Bloody Sunday, the illegal killings by the British Army, the cover ups by officers who subsequently rose to the very highest levels in the Forces. But they were on \"our\" side, so that immorality was OK.

If you're a German, the bombing of Coventry was fine and the bombing of Dresden was a horrific and diabolic crime committed by deranged mass murderers. And vice versa if you are English. If you are an Irish Catholic, the bombing at Catstlereagh was a well exectuted military action and the shootings in Londonderry were vicious murders of innocent civilians. And vice versa if you are a supporter of the British against the IRA.

An intelligent person can recognise that perhaps, just perhaps, there are shades of grey, uncertainty, bravery and immorality on both sides. If you can then think through WHY you support one side or the other, in this light of understanding and rational thought, your argument and your sense of moral purpose would be so much the stronger. If, on the other hand, you are intellectually lazy and scream \"Murderer\" at THEM and \"Hero\" at US, then you're hardly fit to be considered a sentient human. The world is FAR more complex than that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

RobTheRover wrote:

I think you may have used the word \"levels\" once.

Aye. And come to think of it, I may have also used the word \"intellectually bereft t**t\" which was what i wrote in the margin of my lecture notes about one particular teacher.

[jucyberry]

I didn't go to university, or sixth form, didn't try for O' levels as they cost money..what a waste of a brain....lol.

[wilts rover]

Nudga wrote:

Threads like these piss me right off, it's an excuse for people to show how intelligent they are and use it as a propaganda tool for others to join their clique. It's a chance for them to display their learning done at Uni and if anyone doesn't have the same opinion or cannot match them in their thinking and understanding or written excellence, they then go about trying to destroy the other less unfortunate folk. I see it all the time in my place of work and it's a form of bullying. Intelligent, sly and brown nosing bullying. This isn't a debate anymore, it's a chance to revisite old Uni lectures.

Sorry to hear that Nudga - your views & opinions are as relevent as anyone elses and you dont need to be 'intellectual' or have 'gone to uni' to have them. FYI I left school at 16 to be a bricklayer & did that for 13 years. OK during the early 90's recession I had the opportunity to go to a trade Union College & then onto university to study history, but the debates on here remind me more of how we used to be in the tea hut eating our snap, than the university bar with a load of pissed students. Stick with the university of life, its far more interesting.