The Lockerbie Bomber is Dead

MuttsNutts said:
Not bad he got let out in 2009 due to him only having 6 months to live or so we were told... yet 2012 he dies that's a long 6 months in my eyes.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the medical care he received at home had something to do with this.

I don't condone what happened, but I find the Americans stance on this hypocritical given the countries they invade, the number of civilians they kill and their general gung-ho attitude.

Their appalled at the Scottish Government releasing someone on compassionate grounds, because their incapable of understanding such an act.
 
Last edited:
mparter said:
I don't condone what happened, but I find the Americans stance on this hypocritical given the countries they invade, the number of civilians they kill and their general gung-ho attitude.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading you right, the families of the Lockerbie victims don't deserve justice because of their government's actions since?
 
The Funktopus said:
If I'm reading you right, the families of the Lockerbie victims don't deserve justice because of their government's actions since?
Click to expand...

Oh god, where to start :S

Hmmm, I'll go gentle... they deserve the right to justice as much as the families of countless civilians killed by 'the good guys'.

It would be nice if all the families involved could step back and think about the whole 'eye for an eye' nature of the 'justice' they seek tho' eh?

This was a direct response to the americans shooting down the civilian Iran Air Flight 655. Seeking 'justice' for those families involved.

Meh.
 
Evangelion said:
RIP Megrahi. An innocent man thrown to the wolves for the sake of political expedience.
Click to expand...

+1

Ive yet to see any hard proof that he was involved with the Lockerbie bombing, i havent see any as of yet as it seems the evidence and case as a whole was a complete and utter sham.
 
The problem with this case is that there were a lot of groups back then (still are, but less unknown nowadays) out to punish the "Evil US child", which in the case of the Iranian flight is almost slightly justified, if still completely childish.

If the CIA and FBI are covering something up, the information and the truth is no doubt buried, if they admit it then whatever "high ground" they have over Iran vanishes, quite literally.

Iran will thus be right and the superpower will be embarrassed, then there would be no chance of the public caring for a war in Iran (not that it matters, the place is already tearing itself apart, though the sanctions make it look rather unfortunate).

This entire situation is so unfathomably complicated, i cannot really explain the repercussions correctly.

Have we been castrating Iran because of another US military mistake?

(Not that bombing a plane in revenge is in any way justified, but its the chain of events that i am talking about, the Iranian people have suffered because of this in the end).

Who knows.
 
Why do the majority of English people think he is guilty when the vast majority of Scots know that he is very unlikely to be guilty?

Is it a question of information? The trial was very unfair and there are very serious doubts over the valididy of the trial and his conviction.

We are so desperate for a scapegoat (especially the Americans) that justice is cast aside.

I personally do not think he was guilty as charged, and he posisbly also had nothing to do with the bombing.

I would rather efforts went into finding the real culprits for the bombing and they were brought to justice
 
Spawn said:
+1

Ive yet to see any hard proof that he was involved with the Lockerbie bombing, i havent see any as of yet as it seems the evidence and case as a whole was a complete and utter sham.
Click to expand...

Can you expand on why? I've heard lots of people on the radio even families of people killed that say he's innocent. I haven't read anything on it but to call the case a sham you must have, why is he innocent?

I have no thoughts either way because as I said I haven't really researched or read much on the evidence.
 
The written judgement in the trial itself cast doubts on the credibility of the main witness.

Everything else has been seemingly picked apart piece by piece since.

There was intense US pressure by all accounts, not much of it documented I would guess. Either which way, there are significant doubts over the conviction. His death actually paves the way for the the truth at least in respect to him and Lockerbie to come forward, depending on an appeal for that to happen in the short term.
 
Last edited:
Jokester said:
Indeed. Quite likely that it was an innocent man that went to prison for it. Can only hope that they do finally release the details of why his appeal was going to be granted.
Click to expand...

Well it took a dozen posts but at least somebody has there finger on the pulse.

I've listened to a live interview of a Father of a woman that died & he was adamant that the guy was Not guilty, He even went on to say that the Alleged bomber was a nice man & that they were Friends.
From what I've read & heard I'm really glad that the bloke didn't die in jail as if he was innocent that would have been a travesty.
 
Docaroo said:
Why do the majority of English people think he is guilty when the vast majority of Scots know that he is very unlikely to be guilty?

Is it a question of information? The trial was very unfair and there are very serious doubts over the valididy of the trial and his conviction.

We are so desperate for a scapegoat (especially the Americans) that justice is cast aside.

I personally do not think he was guilty as charged, and he posisbly also had nothing to do with the bombing.

I would rather efforts went into finding the real culprits for the bombing and they were brought to justice
Click to expand...

Tell that to Alex Salmond.
 
I've read transcripts of the trial, and he was convicted based on the evidence presented. I have no doubt that he was guilty.

It is very odd that people think he was innocent and there is a conspiracy. Within this thread, there are people who **** other posters off for being conspiracy nuts but are happy to accept this is a conspiracy without providing any evidence to prove their point.

Do I think that there may be more than was let on? Perhaps. But, after reading transcripts and looking at the evidence presented I have little doubt that Magrabi (spelling) is guilty. Sure, he's not the typical terrorist but when is that ever a credible defence?

I fully accept the whole situation if fishy (Blair in the Desert & Salmond's attempt to show Scotland as an autonomous state), but if you look at the trial then you'll struggle to find anything untoward. The deceased never provided any evidence to help himself which is telling in itself.

opstrat said:
its crazy to think how all this kicked off.

a simple 3 letter word. oil
Click to expand...

British/American/French/Norweigan/Russian/Etc companies already had oil rights in Libya before this. Please read up on the situation before making ill-informed posts.
 
Cleeecooo said:
IMO, he should have had his family come to him. Why should we treat the people who have committed such atrocities like us? I'm not saying they shouldn't be treated humanely, but I don't think they should necessarily be shown compassion either.

They chose to murder hundreds of innocent civilians in a pathetic and childish attempt to "prove a point." Not only that, but terrorists sow the seeds of prejudice and discrimination against people who supposedly follow the same faith as them.

Whether he is guilty or not is another question though.
Click to expand...
Childish? So you're happy to throw that out there so flippantly? That's certainly not something a child would do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom