It had to come out some time.
|
|
The Scottish politicians must think we are all really stupid. I don't know of anyone who believed the reasons given for his release or that the Scottish excuse for a government wasn't leant on by London and folded under the pressure.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 28 Jul 13 at 19:02
|
>> The Scottish politicians must think we are all really stupid.
Check.
|
|
The Scots believed it. But then...
|
>> The Scots believed it. But then...
>>
Rubbish, have you asked any?
Although I concede there are a few gullible Scots, and English, and Welsh, and......... :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 28 Jul 13 at 20:10
|
|
I know there were huge doubts in the local palliative care world about this diagnosis
|
|
Yeah it was always a dodgy deal. Not least the fact they guy they had in Jail was just a patsy offered up by Libyans anyway. He had no more to do with bombing that plane than I did.
|
|
Jim Swire was very outspoken about his conviction
|
>> Jim Swire was very outspoken about his conviction
As were many others. Responsibility for that atrocity is lost in very thick murk. I never came to any kind of conclusion about who might have done it or why, although Megrahi probably wasn't involved. Everyone, just everyone, uttered endless floods of crap.
Gaddafi was a pretty bad guy and as nutty as a fruitcake, but controlled more or less personally enormous sums of money derived from oil. He would not be the first or last such person to be courted by the governments of apparently respectable countries. Nothing like a corrupt rich tyrant for brisk, trouble-free, very profitable business. Proper drinks all round Squire.
|
It's just normal international dealings isn't it?
We needed to try someone. Anyone vaguely plausible would do.
The Libyans put up a stooge, who was duly tried and convicted.
After a suitable interval the Libyans ask for him back.
We find an excuse and send him back.
Everyone gets lots of lovely arms deals.
No one ever seriously though this had anything to do with justice, did they?
|
|
Wasn't there another factor? I seem to remember that if Megrahi had not been flown out he would have been able to appeal. This would mean two pieces of evidence that had not been revealed during the original trial might have to come out, both tending to throw doubt on his guilt. One was that someone had been spotted getting through the security fence near the plane and actually getting up to it. The other I can't remember.
|
Think the other was something to do with the evidence from the Maltese re the suitcase?
Megrahi didn't go down screaming and shouting mind you, he obviously had some assurances also!
|
|
Private Eye and others long championed the flawed trial of this individual, hope we got our £400m before the regime went belly up.
|
>> Responsibility for that atrocity is lost in very thick murk.
>>
It seems more than likely that it was a Palestinian job and that the US moved heaven and earth to get the blame pointed anywhere else, to avoid putting the kibosh on their Middle East peace talks.
|
>> >> Responsibility for that atrocity is lost in very thick murk.
>> >>
>>
>> It seems more than likely that it was a Palestinian job and that the US
>> moved heaven and earth to get the blame pointed anywhere else, to avoid putting the
>> kibosh on their Middle East peace talks.
No way, some Israeli organisation would have made it public to turn US public opinion against the Palestinians. Iran or most likely Libya are the probable culprits.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 29 Jul 13 at 11:28
|
|
Politics is just showbusiness for ugly people. (and I mean ugly in every sense of the word).
|
I was under the impression that many on this forum approve of a strongman to keep militants in check, in countries such as Syria.
Well, a strongman needs weapons, and we need money, and maybe there needs to be a bit of wheeler dealing to smooth the way to everyone getting what they want.
|
>> smooth the way to everyone getting what they want.
Everyone except the 'militants' being kept in check SS. The trouble with so-called strongmen is that they tend to be despotic or tyrannical, not merely strong. The Assads in Syria are a case in point, bloodstained extremists themselves.
The former military regime in Egypt was a despotism that the Egyptians eventually decided was a tyranny. The military being (quite rightly) suspicious of the Muslim Brotherhood repressed it severely and (quite wrongly) allowed it no role in the various technocratic-type governments that fronted for the army and ran the country day-to-day. As soon as it was (somewhat murkily) shoehorned into power, it immediately set about establishing a new, even stupider despotism and was quite rightly thrown out in its turn. Now it is disgracefully sacrificing its followers in an attempt to intimidate itself back into what it lyingly calls democratic power.
It won't succeed, but its campaign to continue with its brainless, backward theocratic agenda is very threatening to the immediate political future of an important country. Rational voices in the army, the interim technocrat government and the other political parties are drowned out by the disgusting clamour from simpletons and would-be 'martyrs' from the Islamist minority. It still looks very hairy.
|
>> >> smooth the way to everyone getting what they want.
>>
>> Everyone except the 'militants' being kept in check SS. The trouble with so-called strongmen is
>> that they tend to be despotic or tyrannical, not merely strong. The Assads in Syria
>> are a case in point, bloodstained extremists themselves.
Yes, I agree AC, with this and with the rest of your post.
It seems to me that people realise that strongmen such as Assad are terrible in their own right, but think that they are better than the alternative.
Of course, you can't win with picking sides.
Side with the insurgents in Afghanistan and years later, when one of them decides to knock down your skyscrapers, people will say there it was obvious cause and effect.
Leave the insurgents in Syria to their sticky end and years later, perhaps one of their sons will decide to knock down your Houses of Parliament, and perhaps people will say that was cause and effect too.
|
>>and maybe there needs to be
>> a bit of wheeler dealing to smooth the way to everyone getting what they want.
>>
As Machieveli might have said, the secret of dealing with strongmen is to recognise the moment when they pass their sell-by date, and to get ready to switch support to the new strongman in waiting.
Not too soon, or you find you have merely got involved in an unwinnable civil war, not too late, or you find all the best deals have already been snapped up by the French and Russians.
|
|
Any problem with the Suez Canal will add a few bob to most things, hopefully as it is a good source of income for Egypt it will be kept running. Their tourism must have just about collapsed.
|
Who would........ - Westpig
