Reply With QuoteThere is no rule. Its helps the discussion if you are mature in your responses. It also helps to be accurate if you are trying to act smart.
Sorry, must have missed the WNY Rule outlawing sarcasm.
There is no rule. Its helps the discussion if you are mature in your responses. It also helps to be accurate if you are trying to act smart.
Drudge has broken the story - this is on the front page of Drudge right now - Brown may have had more to do with it than is being led on. But I don't really care.Originally Posted by Alonzo-ny
F*CK SCOTLAND.
There - hows that for a hot cup of haggis.
What wasn't accurate? I believe a poster before me said that this was "completely" a decision of the Scots. I was merely inquiring how that might be, given the structure of Scotland vis a vis it's alignment with Great Britain.
Like I said, I don't have full understanding as to how that works and was looking for illumination from someone who might be in the know.
Boycott Scotland
There are calls for it right now.
Craig Ferguson isn't funny anyway, or June Thomas. F*ck them both.
Lofter. Like I said I couldn't read your tone. I've been on the receiving ending of your sarcasm before and I couldn't tell if you were being genuine or not. Therefore I apologise for my curt response.
As for your question, there are separate legal systems for Scotland and England. Justice, ie law, is completely devolved power so all legal matters are handled by the Scottish parliament with no input from the UK government. I'm can't think of an example but I'm sure there are some caveats to that.
Your reply is appreciated. Scorn and sarcasm can be needed weapons when the world goes awry.
Excuse my distaste and the need to express it. Logic escapes me in this instance. To demand a "mature response' in this moment seems to be a call for an unwillngness of feeling and an analytic view of a sickening turn of events.
Situation: Mass murderer given clemency; Political big wigs do deals over dead bodies.
How much maturity is displayed by that? And how much cold-eyed logic should meet such a display?
And finally:
How maturely will folks respond if this fine Libyan fellow, convicted of the murders of 270 souls but now welcomed back home in Libya as a conquering hero (despite Gordon Brown's personal correspndence to his "Dear Muammar" where he pleads with the co-conspirator Gaddaffi that "when we met [there] I stressed that, should the Scottish executive decide that Megrahi can return to Libya, this should be a purely private family occasion" rather than a public celebration"), isn't dead and buried within three months, as surmised by the Scottish Authority in Charge?
Do the Scots then take him back?
At the moment I am stuck between the fact that compassionate release is a standard part of Scots law and the fact that this man's crime is sickening. It doesn't help that there are rumours of his innocence and of under handed business deals. I'm deeply embarrassed by the scenes in Tripoli.
Where did that come from?
Why did Gadaffi negotiate to allow Megrahi's incarceration and subsequent trial in a neutral country? Which resulted in his conviction of the murders of 270 persons and a sentence of Life Imprisonment. Did Muammar give up his faithful subject simply to get the $4M reward? Or maybe it was the hope that Gaddaffi, now compliant to the wishes of the west, could bring his country out of the dark ages into which he had (mis)guided it? Or maybe Megrahi is just Muammar's dupe? Next thing we know we'll be re-arguing every splinter group's claims of responsibility.
But again there are rumours. So, by all means, let us now nullify the ruling of the courts (even though the appeals process was played out with no good results for Megrahi).
Compassion is a lovely sentiment and a golden rule by which one should live. But in this instance it is totally misplaced. It means nothing unless put into context.
Or perhaps I'm utterly wrong and Pan Am 103 merely fell from the sky on it's own accord.
In a world where nothing matters, nothing does.
I remember reading in most articles before his release and some since that there are people who believe he had nothing to do with it. Remember he was also appealing against his conviction. Like I said though I don't really know much about the details of his case.
I agree compassion is extremely important in life. It's difficult though when something so despicable has happened. I've been thinking to myself about compassion and what it means. The way I see it you have to show compassion to bad people as well as good, or its an empty sentiment. This doesn't stop my conflicting feelings however.
Catch-22
This creep was one of several who cooly packed bombs into a portable radio in order to compassionately kill off several hundred Westerners all at once.
It seems that their intended victim's government had retaliated against Libia for some previous murders, and Libia was having none of that, so someone had to die.
Megrahi and a few other indicited co-conspiraters decided, on orders from Moomar, that blowing up a jumbo full of American-bound passengers would be kind of a cool thing to do-- so that's what they did.
Their radio exploded, blew out the side of the 747, and after only a couple of minutes of flaming free-fall, all the passengers compassionately died on the rooftops and backyards of Lockerbie.
Later, after being tracked down by Interpol and then surrendered to the Scots by Kadaffy ( who also offered the surviving families some money--did he ever pay that off??? )-- this azzhole Megrahi was given life by the courts of Scotland.
Except, of course, if he caught cancer. Then he could go home.
Catch-22.
The residents of Lockerbie, who got part of their town destroyed as the jet fell out of the sky (along with a dozen of their neighbors, who were simultaneously destroyed), should grab their torches and storm the Parliament-- or whatever looney group actually made this sad decision to free Meghrabi-- and demand that a commando group go into Libia and bring this sick fck BACK to prison where he needs to be. LIFE means LIFE; he should die behind prison walls.
The surviving family members-- a LOT of them from New York (...the plane was carrying dozens of Syracuse University students )-- have been robbed of their dignity and, yes, their vengence, and the nasty, cancerous mass-murderer of nearly 300 people runs free, hailed as a hero. How did THAT happen???
If I were a terrorist leader, I'd use only smokers or cancer patients to kill my enemies. I could guarantee them that if they got caught throwing bombs and get tossed into prison in the West, at some point everybody will feel sorry for them because of their disease and set them free.
Westerners are nothing if not compassionate.
Last edited by Hof; August 25th, 2009 at 04:51 PM.
I'm hearing a lot of things said like this. It is part of the British legal system to release prisoners if they meet certain criteria including their life expectancy being 3 months. Obviously this law gets difficult when the crime gets to this magnitude but in a legal system there shouldn't be exceptions and double standards.
I don't buy the 'he didn't show compassion so why should he receive' it argument. I believe very much in the Ghandi quote 'an eye for a eye will leave us all blind'. I think it applies here as I don't see what forcing this man to die in a prison hospital as opposed to a Libyan one is going to solve. It's part of being the better person to forgive or at least show someone compassion in their dying moments.
It boils down to your morals. While the crime was inexcusable I'd rather live in a country that would release someone in their last moments on earth than send them to an electric chair, it's not like he's going on a pleasure cruise, he will be having a slow painful death.
Last moments? OK, wait until he's gasping for breath and then put him on a plane where mum is waiting to hold his hand.
And does anyone now really believe that the newly-freed Libyan hero will be held in a prison?
Also, we're not talking about "an eye for an eye" or else Megrahi would have been strung by his neck over the streets of Lockerbie.
Is there anyone who wouldn't deserve this so called equal compassion?
What's the tipping point? How many would would such a killer have to murder to reach that level? Clearly 270 massacred souls isn't enough.
So where's the morality in that?
How come lineupguy got banned?
Yes, it's curious.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks