SHAME, SHAME on Scotland
Scotland releases, on "humanitarian grounds," a murdering terrorist of 270 innocent souls, which just goes to prove that all the Scots with brains must have emigrated from Scotland.
"Nice seeing your honest, chubby face, Great chieftain of the sausage race! Above them all you take your place, Belly, tripe, or links: Well are you worthy of a grace As long as my arm." ~~Robert Burns
12 comments:
Hello Edna,
Your blog comments page allows me more than Twitter's 140 characters, for which I am grateful. As a Scotsman living in London, my position is as follows:
- al Magrahi is innocent. The prosecution case was total garbage, and they engaged in all sorts of legal jiggery pokery in order to gain advantages. Have you looked at the evidence? It was a very clear miscarriage of justice. His appeal was going to be successful within a matter of weeks and he would have walked free. That would have meant an even bigger humiliation for Scottish / British justice and even larger cheering crowds in Tripoli. And seeing as it was the FBI built the (incredibly flimsy) case for the prosecution, the USA would have looked very bad too. The 'Maltese evidence' was very, very weak. The thing is, it was the only evidence the prosecution had.
- Oil. Libya has got a load of it, and the UK and the USA want a cut. Both countries engineered his release in exchange for access to oil fields and the related support contracts. Of course the USA's official position has to be one of disgust as they fundamentally believe in punishment rather than forgiving. But Obama got what he wanted. And the Scottish 'reason' for his release involved a lot of talk about morality and God... a decreasing number of people believe in this anymore. It's a smokescreen to cover the other issues above.
- So the official positions of Edinburgh, London and Washington suits them all - compassion, disgust and disgust respectively. Publicly they all say the most acceptable thing in terms of their electorates, but privately commercial deals worth $billions have been made, and some time ago. Don't forget, the USA and a good chunk of Europe is pretty much broke - they are printing money and giving it away to prop up their economies. Sadly, I think our governments are prepared to do even dirtier / dishonest deals than this to bring in some revenue.
- Final point regarding the US's proposed boycott of Scotland: It demonstrates incredible arrogance to even suggest this. The UK has done a lot of despicable, exploitative things in its history that continues to create resentment to this day. Arguably America is even worse - you have an horrific history when it comes to conflict, oppression and economic exploitation. I don't recall the UK ever calling for a boycott as a result of any of your actions. Allies don't do that.
For what it is worth, the article below describes events that I firmly believe is what motivated the bombing of PanAm 103.
Whilst Wikipedia is not always the most reliable of sources, the arguments from both sides are fairly presented. I think it is a well balanced article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
The sheer arrogance and disregard for the facts displayed by the US is shocking. Truly shocking.
Sadly we will never know who was responsible for the deaths of the innocents on board PanAm 103. But having reviewed the prosecution's case and having observed the suppression of evidence, I am certain that al-Magrahi was not the bomber.
I found the recent scenes in Tripoli very, very hard to stomach. I think that the entire episode has brought shame to both the UK and USA, but this shame is NOT connected with the man's release.
I have no knowledge of what you have written here. I only know, that Scotland & UK have surrendered to Terrorism with giving into Libya.
However, you have presented your case very well. If what you say is true, then there really is NO such thing as "Rule of Law" in our countries. In addition, if true, it means all of our soldiers who are sacrificing lives and limbs are being treacherously used by our own immoral governments. I guess Sharia law won't be quite so bad after learning all of this.
And, it seems that you are one of my "smart" Scotsmen who left Scotland, as my forebears did centuries ago.
Sprezzatura - You mention "the US's proposed boycott of Scotland." I believe you are mistaken as I find no news reports on our U.S. government taking this tack. Individual citizens are talking about boycotting Scottish products & vacations, but they are still free people and can spend their money (whatever is left of it) however they like. But that is not a U.S. government policy. Ask France. The U.S. government NEVER boycotted France, but French businesses got very hurt when U.S. dollars stopped coming in.
Hi Edna,
I share the sentiments you express in your first reply - it is indeed a thoroughly depressing state of affairs.
On the issue of al Magrahi's innocence or otherwise, if you read about the trial process it will set off alarm bells regarding the verdict that the court reached.
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8214271.stm
Sections of this article that suggest that there was a miscarriage of justice:
8. Proceedings
10. Appeal (in particular the section regarding the Heathrow break in)
12. Remarks by Lord Fraser
13. UN observer
14. Second appeal
Read them!
Believe me, I am no apologist for terrorists. However, the fair and correct legal process must be followed at all times in order for us to maintain our integrity and ability to intervene and assist others. Whether the accused is being tried for stealing a car in America or carrying out an act of terrorism, both must be afforded the same rights. Innocent until proven guilty.
I suspect that a key difference between you and I is that I would always fight for the rights of the accused in order to ensure a fair trial, regardless of how terrible the allegations. This is what sets us apart from some of the other countries in the world. You may be prepared to be 'tougher' on suspects, perhaps believing that there is no smoke without fire, and that if the occassional innocent person is locked up along the way then it is a price worth paying. I understand this view, but I believe that it strips us of our legitimacy when it comes to intervening in events that take place in other countries.
I take your point about the boycott not being initiated by the US government, but I didn't ever mean to suggest that.
Oooops, wrong link in my post regarding the sham trial. Correct link here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_bombing_trial
Countries have different processes of dealing with criminals and acts of war, so I cannot understand them all. However, basic human justice demands that those terrorists who murdered 270 humans be identified & punished. Yet, since 1988, the UK has done very little to expose to families the details of what happened in the air over Scotland to their loved ones. They were all innocents who did not deserve to be murdered. Yet, who has the UK punished? Just one man, who you claim is innocent.
This was the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed in Britain, yet Britain does not seem to care a whit about bringing justice to the perps. The one & only perp you had you freed saying how compassionate you are. I'm sorry, but it is worse than sickening to see such disregard for human life and suffering.
Mr. Sparky - I don't care what kind of bad name you give my country. My country was created for and by me and my people. You can just be envious that you were not so blessed. And I don't wish death, upon you as you wished upon me and that is why I am deleting your comment.
Hi Edna,
You are not in a position to criticise the investigation into the bombing of PanAm103.
9/11 was a far larger attrocity, but your government didn't investigate it at all, and NOBODY has been brought to justice.
Actually Sprezzatura, I am in a very good position to criticize anything I desire. Besides, I'm a blogger you know. As for the response of the U.S. September 11th, you, sir, are dead wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
Hi Edna,
The Wikipedia link you posted is a summary of the official investigation into 9/11.
It is widely accepted by Republicans and Democrats alike that the investigation was far too late in getting started and that the Commission had its hands tied from the outset.
See CNN, 'Republicans amplify criticism of 9/11 Commission': http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/commission.senators/index.html
The flawed Commission created a flawed report, proven by the number of times it has had to be rewritten and amended.
See New York Times, 'The 9/11 Report: A dissent': http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/books/the-9-11-report-a-dissent.html
The fact that the 'investigation' was spectacularly poor is also illustrated by the growing Truth movement in your own country.
You have got to be prepared to look at the facts and accept that you and your country does not have the automatic right to think you are right.
Hello Edna,
Interesting developments following a BBC investigation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8441796.stm
Post a Comment