Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Megrahi release - what's the problem?
Antipathy
Member UncommonPosts: 1,362
Hi,
I've heard on the radio, and read newspapers claiming that US political opinion is outraged at the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber al-Megrahi. For example, FBI director, Robert Mueller wrote:
"Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world."
Do other readers share this sentiment? Personally I can see good arguments on either side, and I've got no problem with this decision being taken in Scotland and remaining in Scotland. I can't see why US politicians are becoming involved - is it just a cheap attempt at popularism, or do they have a serious point?
I also can't remotely understand the mindset behind the point he's making. Is he seriously saying that there's some terrorist in the middle east right now, who's thinking "well - I was considering killing the infidels in the name of Allah, but then I heard I could be jailed for life, so I was a bit unsure. But this al-Megrahi thing just proves that all I have to do is get terminal cancer and then I'll be released and everything will be ok." Is the director of the FBI, one of the most important men in US law enforcement, really trying to make that point? What an idiot.
Comments
Why take it as that shallow?
How many terrorists have gone down as nigh-solely responsible for killing 270 others; inclusive of American students, professionals and intelligence officers, and lived to be released and tell about it?
There's no undercutting his crime, but what's really getting to people is his reception back in Libya. Rose petals at the airport when we JUST took Libya off the list of state-sponsored terrorists three years ago.
This little matter complicates things on a lot of levels. As usual with anything regarding airlines and terrorism, its automatically an international incident. The FBI was involved in the criminal process and there was international posturing to get a conviction and imprisonment in the first place.
So yes, it sends a very, very, very strong symbol to any wouldbe terrorists. No, not that they should bomb something and contract terminal illness, but that at the least, maybe everything isn't so Gitmo with the world.
Sorry - I'm English, not American, so the language is slightly different. Can you explain what the phrase "maybe everything isn't so Gitmo with the world." actually means?
And can you explain to me how the hell this will make the slightest change in the behaviour of any terroist anywhere?
The FBI director says it encourages terroism. How? Where? What terroists? Unless he can explain that then he is talking bollocks.
And yes - Libya's reception was offensive. But that should be a matter between our countries and Libya. Scotland is responsible for it's own actions, not those of Libya, and IMO, in the scheme of things, the reception in Libya really isn't that important. Oh no - a third world dictator engaged in a little posturing. Shock horror. If it really made a difference then we'd cancel the oil contracts. But it doesn't, and the oil still flows.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
If you really want to find the man responsible for the Lockerbie bombings then I'd look at the Libyan government. The same one we're signing multi-million dollar oil contracts with. But it's much easier just to forget about that at let the money flow in. We appear to have already forgiven Gadaffi and he hasn't spent a day in jail.
And I'd also look at the break-in at the airport that occurred the night before the Lockerbie plane took off. Something the jury that originally convicted al-Megrahi wasn't informed about. The man may have been guilty - but he was certainly entitled to an appeal and a retrial.
Given the above, and the fact he had terminal cancer, I can certainly say there's a reasonable case for compassion. I'm not claiming the Scottish decision was the right one - I don't think there's any real absolute right or wrong in emotional matters such as compassion and mercy, but it's certainly understandable. And I'm happy for that decision to be taken up in Scotland rather than by people in some other country.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Sorry - I'm English, not American, so the language is slightly different. Can you explain what the phrase "maybe everything isn't so Gitmo with the world." actually means?
And can you explain to me how the hell this will make the slightest change in the behaviour of any terroist anywhere?
The FBI director says it encourages terroism. How? Where? What terroists? Unless he can explain that then he is talking bollocks.
And yes - Libya's reception was offensive. But that should be a matter between our countries and Libya. Scotland is responsible for it's own actions, not those of Libya, and IMO, in the scheme of things, the reception in Libya really isn't that important. Oh no - a third world dictator engaged in a little posturing. Shock horror. If it really made a difference then we'd cancel the oil contracts. But it doesn't, and the oil still flows.
"Everything isn't so Gitmo with the world" was said to show that symbolism does matter. Guantanamo Bay has served as a symbol that either deters or emboldens terrorists, depending on your view point. Any symbolism derived from the Megrahi release matters as well. That was my point.
As for terrorism being encouraged. How? By a terrorist killing 270 people only to be shown "compassion". Where? A terrorist from a country that had only recently been taken off a list of state-sponsors of terrorism. What terrorists? All of 'em who'd collaborate, the groups that gleefully took responsibility for the bombing in the first place.
And no, it's not a matter between whatever "our countries" mean. Unless by "our countries" you mean every country with either victims or involvement in any consequent sanctioning and criminal processes.
I have yet to see any evidence anywhere that any terroist was deterred by Guantanamo. Meanwhile I have seen plenty of interviews with young muslims who have openly stated that US treatment of prisoners, in Guantanamo and elsewhere has encouraged them to view the actions of Islamic terroists in a more favourable light. So what am I to believe? An effect that US politicians claims exist, with no evidence, or an effect I can observe far more directly?
As for Libya being only recently taken of the list of terroist countries - I find that interesting. It was taken off that list primarily because of the amount of oil money involved. So am I to understand that the US thinks it's ok to exercise forgiveness in the event of large profits to be made, but wrong to exercise forgiveness in the case of terminal cancer? Is that your position?
And I still can't remotely understand the thought process of a terroist who'd be encouraged by this act. Maybe you can help me. Put yourself in the mind of a terroist. Empathise. Think it through step by step. And then walk me throw it. Show me the chain of thought.
At the moment I can't help thinking that showing mercy to your enemies would have the opposite effect. I could understand a muslim thinking "hang on a minute - the mullahs tell me that the west is the great Satan, and yet here they've shown forgiveness in a way I'm not used to seeing from my own government."
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
I have yet to see any evidence anywhere that any terroist was deterred by Guantanamo. Meanwhile I have seen plenty of interviews with young muslims who have openly stated that US treatment of prisoners, in Guantanamo and elsewhere has encouraged them to view the actions of Islamic terroists in a more favourable light. So what am I to believe? An effect that US politicians claims exist, with no evidence, or an effect I can observe far more directly?
As for Libya being only recently taken of the list of terroist countries - I find that interesting. It was taken off that list primarily because of the amount of oil money involved. So am I to understand that the US thinks it's ok to exercise forgiveness in the event of large profits to be made, but wrong to exercise forgiveness in the case of terminal cancer? Is that your position?
And I still can't remotely understand the thought process of a terroist who'd be encouraged by this act. Maybe you can help me. Put yourself in the mind of a terroist. Empathise. Think it through step by step. And then walk me throw it. Show me the chain of thought.
At the moment I can't help thinking that showing mercy to your enemies would have the opposite effect. I could understand a muslim thinking "hang on a minute - the mullahs tell me that the west is the great Satan, and yet here they've shown forgiveness in a way I'm not used to seeing from my own government."
If you can understand how a "symbol" such as Gitmo could embolden or deter terrorists without it being practical that every single terrorist would end up there, then you can understand how terrorists would similarly derive meaning from this matter without inserting the practicality of them all becoming terminally ill. Symbolism.
As for the connection between oil money and terminal illness, I have no idea what you were implying with that leap, but Libya was taken off the list of states sponsoring terrorism by ending development of WMDs, renouncing terrorism and paying an average of 10 million a family to the victims of the very bombing we're talking about. That's why Libya felt it so important to announce no goverment officials were there partaking in the airport celebrations, and will tread carefully for the rest of Megrahi's life.
And if you can't think of why any terrorist would be encouraged by this act, then you're purposefully ignoring how they behave. Why does everytime a terrorist attack happen, intelligence agencies have to sort through a list of terrorist organizations that claimed responsibility for it to find one that's credible? Why do some blow themselves up in the act of terrorism? Why're try at all to be logical in understanding it? A country sympathetic to terrorists celebrating his return is enough for most to assume what kind of signal was sent.
As for that mercy to your enemies stuff, they don't show mercy to themselves or own people, so good luck with that.
I decided to look for myself for some information about how the release is regarded in the Islamic world. I found this article:
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/08/2009823114377795.html
It's interesting reading. Apparently in Libya itself, the government has always claimed it's own innocence, and has regarded Al Megrahi as innocent. So for the average Libyan in the street, an innocent man has just been freed. This goes some way to helping us understand the celebration that greeted his return.
Now it's likely that Libya is guilty, and that Libyan politicians have lied to their own people. So what? When it comes to the symbolism, it's perceptions that matter. And the perception in Libya is that an innocent man has been freed. How does that encourage terrorism?
It's my understanding that terrorists, like young people in many other places, are often idealists. They really believe that what they are doing will make the world (or their country) a better place. They are reacting out of anger towards perceived injustices. There are loads of things wrong in the muslim world, and there's a certain faction of Islamic thought that blames the west for those problems rather than looking closer to home. So anything that supports that theory - the idea that the west is the root of Islamic problems - is a powerful symbol for terrorists. Guantanamo is an example of one such symbol.
But I can't see how this can be a remotely powerful symbol. How does releasing this one terminally ill cancer patient act as a symbol? I simply can't see the chain of thought. How high do you really think it ranks in the mind of the average terrorist sympathizer compared to things like Guantanamo and the Palestinian problem? I suspect most terrorists would probably shrug their shoulders and go "so what".
However, where it is an important symbol, and where I think you're getting confused, is for the US right. My understanding is that many politicians there have made a big thing about being "tough on terrorism". And this is an ideal opportunity to show how tough they are, without pissing off anyone who matters (Scottish people don't vote in US elections, and hence don't really matter). Such politicians love grandstanding, and making speeches that show how tough they are, and how they're not remotely like those "wishy washy liberal types". This is an ideal opportunity for them.
This has nothing to do with terrorism. Or even common sense. It's all a cheap attempt to chase votes.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
The Libyan response seems completely in keeping with what I expected. I find it neither crass, insensetive or provocative on their part.
An innocent man has been freed from a foriegn jail. I see the same sort of responses when Terry Waite was freed and when those American journalists were freed from North Korea the other day.
I understand why people who thought he was guilty might feel the way they do too, but I'm not reading anything into the Libyans celebrations. All is as expected.
The most notable part of this to me is that all the families of the Scottish victims really don't seem to believe this guy was guilty in the first place. There doesn't seem to be any public outcry in Scotland for his further incarceration.
Quite the opposite there seems to have been a broad public intrest in what new facts would emerge if he was allowed his appeal. Which has been quashed in exchange for his freedom. Looking forward to the conspiracy theories.
I'm not really too worried about the effect of this decision on terrorism either, although I do think there is some worth in the feelings of the victims families however. Perhaps not so much that I am comfortable with the imprisonment of an innocent scapegoat however, but ultimately I'm willing to bow to the judgement of the Scottish courts. They will have more info available to them than than I do to weigh their decisions.
Trade relations with Libya is another factor of the equation which I am also unwilling to forget. No sense nerfing the living in the name of the dead.
Agreed."Him" be dead man walking
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Why is this guy still alive to begin with?
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
Because other countries do things differently to how they are done in the US.
There's no point going into the whole capital punishment debate here. There's so much to be said about it, it would completely derail the thread. So if you want to talk about why America has capital punishment and many other countries don't, then why not start a new thread?
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
If it was all about "compassion," he should have been moved to a better facility in Scotland. It seems however that it was a quid pro quo move for Oil contracts, like France's betrayal before the Iraq war. Dhimmitude for cash.
Never a good move to do things like this. Britain has shown she can be bought. Sets a bad precedent.
fishermage.blogspot.com
We're open for business.
You can buy us too.
Who did France betray exactly?
As I understood it they refused to betray their former allies, unlike the those of us who had more money at stake in Saudi and Kuwait and thought very little of it.
France has a pretty impressive record when it comes to their friends. Even the unfashionable ones.
They lied. They told Colin Powell they would go along with us on Iraq, and then pulled out for oil.
First source I could find:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2004_April_13/ai_n6005700/
fishermage.blogspot.com
Where is your evidence that this has been done for oil contracts? The man who made the decision, the Scottish justice minister, has explicitly stated that he made his decision for moral and judicial reasons, and that no pressure was put on him from Westminster.
So you're making a very serious accusation against a senior member of the Scottish government without the slightest shred of evidence. Is that right? Or do you actually have any evidence? Show it.
IMO, whether this man was right or wrong should be decided by the people of Scotland, and his judgement should be at the ballot box.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
One of those rare issues where I am so appalled and shocked it is difficult to discuss. In some ways, it shows why this is a military issue, if our system cannot house and care for terrorists.
It is awful. Sends completely the wrong message. Probably even encourages attacks. It does not show "compassion." It is a showing of stupidity, mixed messages, and softness.
Where is your evidence that this has been done for oil contracts? The man who made the decision, the Scottish justice minister, has explicitly stated that he made his decision for moral and judicial reasons, and that no pressure was put on him from Westminster.
So you're making a very serious accusation against a senior member of the Scottish government without the slightest shred of evidence. Is that right? Or do you actually have any evidence? Show it.
IMO, whether this man was right or wrong should be decided by the people of Scotland, and his judgement should be at the ballot box.
My evidence is that was what Ghaddafi's son said, before he recanted.
I'll find some more in a minute, It's in all the papers. Sure they could all be wrong but I doubt it.
Edit. here we go, first quick on I could find, wasn't hard:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/6076926/Lockerbie-bomber-release-pressure-mounting-on-Gordon-Brown.html
"According to a transcript of comments made by Saif Gaddafi, the son of the Libyan leader, Megrahi's release was "on the table in all commercial, oil and gas agreements" and other dealings with Britain. "
Later claimed he was taken out of context, but the cat is out of the bag. Looks like it was quid pro quo.
fishermage.blogspot.com
So his son's claim was that the matter of al Magrahi was brought up regularly at meetings between the UK government and the Libyan government.
One problem with that theory - the Scottish government isn't the UK government. It's run by a completely different party - so if the UK government was pressuring the Scots, then the Scots would have no reason whatsoever to claim otherwise. Why would they lie to protect a party they are completely opposed to?
I guess your accusation may make sense in a US context, because you guys don't know a great deal about UK politics. But here it sounds a bit silly. It's like saying a republican governor did something just because Obama asked him nicely, and then lied to protect Obama when the policy pissed a few people off.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Just to be clear, this is in fact none of my business. I was just giving my opinion on quid pro quo arrangements, because YOU asked in your thread more or less. Until this point I haven't commented publicly on it.
I was actually applauding them when I thought they did it for Christian reasons. If it was in fact quid pro quo, the applause stops.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I personally see no reason to believe that it was done for any reason other than compassionate reasons. And it's quite likely that the compassion is related to Christianity, even if UK politicians don't tend to parade their religious convictions to the same extent as their US counterparts.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
So his son's claim was that the matter of al Magrahi was brought up regularly at meetings between the UK government and the Libyan government.
One problem with that theory - the Scottish government isn't the UK government. It's run by a completely different party - so if the UK government was pressuring the Scots, then the Scots would have no reason whatsoever to claim otherwise. Why would they lie to protect a party they are completely opposed to?
I guess your accusation may make sense in a US context, because you guys don't know a great deal about UK politics. But here it sounds a bit silly. It's like saying a republican governor did something just because Obama asked him nicely, and then lied to protect Obama when the policy pissed a few people off.
I'm just reporting what Brits are saying. I'm ignoring the American media on this.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I hope you are right, but it looks like you may turn out to be wrong. We'll see. A full investigation is underway. It'll come out.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I would have released him too.
About 30,000ft over the Med.
They lied. They told Colin Powell they would go along with us on Iraq, and then pulled out for oil.
First source I could find:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2004_April_13/ai_n6005700/
They said they wouldn't go and they didn't.
Seems pretty honest to me. (Unlike Colin Powell).
They didn't get any oil out of it either. We did.
They lied. They told Colin Powell they would go along with us on Iraq, and then pulled out for oil.
First source I could find:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2004_April_13/ai_n6005700/
They said they wouldn't go and they didn't.
Seems pretty honest to me. (Unlike Colin Powell).
They didn't get any oil out of it either. We did.
They told him privately they would support the final resolution, then later, when the cameras were running, they said they wouldn't. That's betrayal, pure and simple.
They pretended to be our friends but then they weren't, all for oil. yes, they lost out, and fortunately, the French now have a much better man as President.
fishermage.blogspot.com