BF2S Forums Never underestimate the scope of English appeasement

AussieReaper wrote:

More appeasement

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 55100.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/se … ds-apology

How so? Did the US act based on threats from Libya like GB did, at the expense of justice?
Sorry Aussie not the same thing.

The CIA were very happy to see him released, as otherwise his appeal was due and he would have had to have been released because

- There was no real evidence

- The CIA got up to lots of shady stuff to secure a conviction

The deal was if he gave up his appeal he could apply for release on medical grounds - and he's get it.

Which would have been worse for the CIA?

- See a 'guilty' man released early and then die, but be able to say "we dun gottim"

- Admit they'd falsified evidence, paid bribes and lied, and have not single standing conviction over the Lockerbie bombing.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The CIA were very happy to see him released, as otherwise his appeal was due and he would have had to have been released because

- There was no real evidence

- The CIA got up to lots of shady stuff to secure a conviction

The deal was if he gave up his appeal he could apply for release on medical grounds - and he's get it.

Which would have been worse for the CIA?

- See a 'guilty' man released early and then die, but be able to say "we dun gottim"

- Admit they'd falsified evidence, paid bribes and lied, and have not single standing conviction over the Lockerbie bombing.

Any chance at all, that you could back up any of this with some fact?

PrivateVendetta wrote:

The guy is basically dead now anyway.

THats not exactly the point now is it? Apparently GB would have cowered to threats anyway. I mean Libya said jump and GB asked how high?

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The CIA were very happy to see him released, as otherwise his appeal was due and he would have had to have been released because

- There was no real evidence

- The CIA got up to lots of shady stuff to secure a conviction

The deal was if he gave up his appeal he could apply for release on medical grounds - and he's get it.

Which would have been worse for the CIA?

- See a 'guilty' man released early and then die, but be able to say "we dun gottim"

- Admit they'd falsified evidence, paid bribes and lied, and have not single standing conviction over the Lockerbie bombing.

Any chance at all, that you could back up any of this with some fact?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/1 … ie.comment
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.p … rticle=122

In the long run, Private Eye is invariably proved right.

Lockerbie - The Flight from Justice can be found in various places.

Hint: Wasn't it the same crew who said Libya did it who said Saddam had WMDs?

Megrahi was released because he was an embarrassment to the CIA - do you really think Britain would release him without US permission?

Well I asked for it and you gave it to me, I give you that. However, all this is conspiracy theory. I can link you to sites that have "proof" men didn't land on the moon, aliens propped up Egypt, and TWA 800 was shot down by the US Navy, and that Bush planned 911.

Also, Lowing, GB =/= England

Dilbert_X wrote:

However Megrahi really was released - do you really think Britain would do that without permission from the US?

It was predicted well beforehand Megrahi would be released on medical grounds after giving up his appeal, and he was.
The CIA didn't want to be forced to show their hand, and they weren't.

If Britain was appeasing anyone it was the CIA and the US - while being publicly criticised by both they were being privately thanked.

lol yes he was "really released" he was also REALLY convicted of murdering 200 plus people. and there REALLY was evidence that his release had everything to do with threats from libya if he wasn't.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

However Megrahi really was released - do you really think Britain would do that without permission from the US?

It was predicted well beforehand Megrahi would be released on medical grounds after giving up his appeal, and he was.
The CIA didn't want to be forced to show their hand, and they weren't.

If Britain was appeasing anyone it was the CIA and the US - while being publicly criticised by both they were being privately thanked.

lol yes he was "really released" he was also REALLY convicted of murdering 200 plus people. and there REALLY was evidence that his release had everything to do with threats from libya if he wasn't.

And there REALLY were all sorts of dodgy inconsistencies with the trial and the evidence presented there.

The families of the British victims actually had a campaign group for his release due to this (led by Dr Jim Swire).

So there you have it, his release was serving the interests of the British victims. I know the relatives of American victims felt very differently about it - but the British government is there to serve the interests of the British people - not just to appease the Americans...

you mean all 11 of them out of the 220 some people?

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

And there REALLY were all sorts of dodgy inconsistencies with the trial and the evidence presented there.

The families of the British victims actually had a campaign group for his release due to this (led by Dr Jim Swire).

So there you have it, his release was serving the interests of the British victims. I know the relatives of American victims felt very differently about it - but the British government is there to serve the interests of the British people - not just to appease the Americans...

you mean all 11 of them out of the 220 some people?

I mean the 43 British victims. 11 of whom were on the ground.

The people whose interests the British government are supposed to be serving.

One thing the victims were very happy about is the fall of Gadaffi's regime as he was the real culprit.

On 18 May 1990, Swire took a fake bomb on board a British Airways from London Heathrow to New York JFK[2] and then on a flight from New York JFK to Boston to show that airline security had not improved; his fake bomb consisted of a radio cassette player and the confectionery marzipan, which was used as a substitute for Semtex. Some American family members asked Swire to keep the news of the stunt quiet for a while; it became public six weeks after Swire did it. Susan and Daniel Cohen, parents of Pan Am Flight 103 victim Theodora Cohen approved of the plan, while some other family members of American victims did not.[3]
Susan Cohen said that in the beginning she admired Swire "a great deal." The Cohens said that both they and Swire felt suspicious about the development in the mainstream account that Libya was solely responsible for the bombing; unlike the Cohens, Swire believed that Libya had no responsibility at all. Daniel Cohen said that he and his wife did not approve of Swire travelling to Tripoli, Libya and placing a photograph of Flora next to the photograph of Hanna, Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi's adopted daughter, who died in a 1986 U.S. bombing. The Cohens said that they thought that Swire "was being foolish and worse" since the Cohens believed that his actions were forming Libyan propaganda and that al-Gaddafi was using Swire to benefit himself. As Swire made more trips to Libya Susan Cohen said that he began to remind her of Lieutenant Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness) in the film The Bridge on the River Kwai since the character was, in Susan Cohen's words, "a brave and decent man whose obsession led him to unwittingly serve the enemy cause."[4] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Swire   this guy doesn't sound like he is playin with a full deck. sorry.

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-05 14:42:00)

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

you mean all 11 of them out of the 220 some people?

I mean the 43 British victims. 11 of whom were on the ground.

The people whose interests the British government are supposed to be serving.

One thing the victims were very happy about is the fall of Gadaffi's regime as he was the real culprit.

On 18 May 1990, Swire took a fake bomb on board a British Airways from London Heathrow to New York JFK[2] and then on a flight from New York JFK to Boston to show that airline security had not improved; his fake bomb consisted of a radio cassette player and the confectionery marzipan, which was used as a substitute for Semtex. Some American family members asked Swire to keep the news of the stunt quiet for a while; it became public six weeks after Swire did it. Susan and Daniel Cohen, parents of Pan Am Flight 103 victim Theodora Cohen approved of the plan, while some other family members of American victims did not.[3]
Susan Cohen said that in the beginning she admired Swire "a great deal." The Cohens said that both they and Swire felt suspicious about the development in the mainstream account that Libya was solely responsible for the bombing; unlike the Cohens, Swire believed that Libya had no responsibility at all. Daniel Cohen said that he and his wife did not approve of Swire travelling to Tripoli, Libya and placing a photograph of Flora next to the photograph of Hanna, Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi's adopted daughter, who died in a 1986 U.S. bombing. The Cohens said that they thought that Swire "was being foolish and worse" since the Cohens believed that his actions were forming Libyan propaganda and that al-Gaddafi was using Swire to benefit himself. As Swire made more trips to Libya Susan Cohen said that he began to remind her of Lieutenant Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness) in the film The Bridge on the River Kwai since the character was, in Susan Cohen's words, "a brave and decent man whose obsession led him to unwittingly serve the enemy cause."[4] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Swire   this guy doesn't sound like he is playin with a full deck. sorry.

He's just the founder of the group. Surprisingly, this one man is not all of the hundreds of members of the group who take the same position about Megrahi's release.

Anyway, you don't sound like you're "playing with a full deck", sorry.

I stand by my point that this is a case of serving the interests of British citizens rather than appeasing Americans. But you'd be all for appeasement if it was to do something that was in line with your own beliefs, you big hypocrite you....

Lowing I must correct you. It was the Scottish government that released him & not the British. The Scottish have there own legal system in a devolved parliament, so blame them. Please get your facts right sir.

Last edited by Monkey Spanker (2011-09-05 15:14:14)

lowing wrote:

Monkey Spanker wrote:

Lowing I must correct you. It was the Scottish government that released him & not the British. The Scottish have there own legal system in a devolved parliament, so blame them. Please get your facts right sir.

I was not there, the article and the headlines refer to Libya warning Britain.Those are the facts. Take it up with them.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/0 … hi-release 



"The repeated disclosures again raise questions about whether UK ministers and officials influenced or forced the Scottish government to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds to suit the UK's political and commercial interests in Libya."

So you just repeat verbatim what was said on a website with out looking into the facts. OK cheers for that. If its on the internetzzz it must be true. Move along nothing to see here.

Last edited by Monkey Spanker (2011-09-05 15:38:22)