[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Convicted Lockerbie Bomber Returns Home to Libya, a Hero

Wow. Just amazing.

Okay, so he's going to die with a terminal illness. But 270 people already died who did nothing more than get on the wrong plane. Shouldn't a life term for mass murder, be a life term for mass murder?

Returned home on "compassionate grounds"? What about the compassion for 270 innocent people's families who get to see one of the murderers of their loved ones get a "hero's welcome" in his home country? (That's f'ed up in its own right, but that's another story). There's nothing compassionate about any of this.

[SpaceMonkey]

Rawr!!!!!!!angryface!!

And, technically, Megrahi was sentenced to a 27-year minimum term, not life.

[olePigeon]

Yeah, this really ticks me off. So he had cancer, let him rot in his cell. Consider it an omen that his god inflicted him with one of the worst diseases imaginable because of what he did. Let him suffer.

[turtle777]

As always, this is probably America's / GW's fault.

-t

[Atheist]

I gave up long ago on the hope that this world is just and fair.

[Hawkeye_a]

Sickens me to the stomach.

-He gets off easy.
-He gets a 'heroes' welcome. I wonder if there's any other 'culture' in the world where a convicted terrorist gets hero's welcome.
-A slap in the face of those mourning the innocent victims.
-And i am truly shocked that(albeit not entirely surprised) that a government in the modern free world can actually sanction this. (i am under the general impression/opinion that Western Europe is falling behind the veil of Islamic influences.)

I guess the thing that surprised me was how fast this thing actually got sanctioned. The public barely had any opportunity to react to those putting this proposal forward (right?). I hope the people of scotland, and the U.K. take the guy who signed the release form to court over this matter.

And i hope the Israelis (cause lets face it, they seem to be the only ones with the balls to stand up to these people(terrorists)) track this monster down and take him down.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And, technically, Megrahi was sentenced to a 27-year minimum term, not life.

Yikes, that I didn't know. Even 27 years for killing 270 people... wow.

So I guess the formula for sentencing for mass-murder is take the number of victims, lop off the last digit, divide by roughly a third.

So kill 10 people= 1 year 'minimum sentence' = 4 months in jail? Bargain.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

-And i am truly shocked that(albeit not entirely surprised) that a government in the modern free world can actually sanction this. (i am under the general impression/opinion that Western Europe is falling behind the veil of Islamic influences.)

Scotland?

[SpaceMonkey]

I'm not saying I necessarily believe it, but there are evidently serious questions in Britain about the conviction itself: NY Times blog.

[kylef]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yikes, that I didn't know. Even 27 years for killing 270 people... wow.

So I guess the formula for sentencing for mass-murder is take the number of victims, lop off the last digit, divide by roughly a third.

So kill 10 people= 1 year 'minimum sentence' = 4 months in jail? Bargain.

Wasn't he to serve 2 weeks for every person he killed both on the plane and on the ground?

[Paco500]

As I understand it, there are laws on the books in Scotland that specifically allow for the compassionate release of prisoners in the final stages of a terminal illness. There was nothing special about this case other than the international pressure for Scotland not to follow their own laws.

If the law is just or not is another matter, but the man that signed the release was following the law and, therefore, did the right thing.

The scene in Lybia, however, was disgraceful.

[ThinkInsane]

There's been a ton of uproar locally over this as 40 or so of the victims were either local or were students at local universities. As far as I'm concerned, the "compassionate" part shouldn't extend any further than making sure he has adequate medical care while serving his sentence. To let a convicted mass murder go free because he has a terminal disease is absolutely repellant to me. And what if this ass decides that since he's dying anyway, maybe it's a good time to strap on the ol' suicide bomb and go out with a bang, martyr-style (if he does, I truly hope someone sets it off accidentally with a garage door opener before he can hurt anyone other than himself)?

I think the Scots might want to take a good, hard look at this compassionate release deal and see if it's really the best way to go. I'm going to go out on limb here and guess this is a misguided attempt to save taxpayer money by not paying for expensive cancer treatment for prisoners.

[k2director]

And Europeans wonder why George W Bush felt compelled to go it alone...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

As I understand it, there are laws on the books in Scotland that specifically allow for the compassionate release of prisoners in the final stages of a terminal illness.

I could see this with a prisoner who perhaps made a grave mistake earlier in their life -ended up killing someone in a fight or botched robbery or something- and has since (after serving a LONG term) been a model prisoner, expressed remorse, etc. etc, and is then released with a terminal illness.

But a cold blooded mass-murderer of 270 people?

I'm sorry, but no 'one size fits all law' should just be set on auto-pilot to allow someone like that out of prison. There are people who have the ability to make rational judgements behind enforcing any law- it's why we have parole boards. Sure, the letter of the law may say: "this person CAN be released at this time." But a parole board is a set of eyes, ears, and brains that can make a much better determination of "is that actually a good freakin' idea, or would it be bone-STUPID?"

There was nothing special about this case other than the international pressure for Scotland not to follow their own laws.

Again, gotta disagree. There's a LOT special about this case. Worldwide, you could probably count the number of people in prison for killing as many people on one hand. Many of those people were citizens of other countries, not just Scotland, so much consideration should have been taken that just because the perpetrator was jailed in Scotland, there's a responsibility to see justice served for victims of other nations as well. This was a major international crime, not some private affair concerning only Scotland.

It's also special in the nasty set of politics involved. Allowing this guy a hero's welcome in Libya was just bad- it doesn't make Scotland's justice system appear 'compassionate' in the eyes of anyone celebrating the release- it appears weak and clueless.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

I'm going to go out on limb here and guess this is a misguided attempt to save taxpayer money by not paying for expensive cancer treatment for prisoners.

When it comes to politics, always follow the money. I'd bet you're 100% dead-on.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

As I understand it, there are laws on the books in Scotland that specifically allow for the compassionate release of prisoners in the final stages of a terminal illness. There was nothing special about this case other than the international pressure for Scotland not to follow their own laws.

If the law is just or not is another matter, but the man that signed the release was following the law and, therefore, did the right thing.

The scene in Lybia, however, was disgraceful.

I agree 100%. Rule of law. If the law has unintended outcomes like this, change the law, but it's too late now to complain about this fellow.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

The scene in Lybia, however, was disgraceful.

Wasn't that foreseeable ?

For that reason alone, I would have not released him, damn compassion and what not.

-t

[Rev-O]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

As I understand it, there are laws on the books in Scotland that specifically allow for the compassionate release of prisoners in the final stages of a terminal illness. There was nothing special about this case other than the international pressure for Scotland not to follow their own laws.

If the law is just or not is another matter, but the man that signed the release was following the law and, therefore, did the right thing.

The scene in Lybia, however, was disgraceful.

Honestly, I'm not knowledgeable on the particulars of the Scottish law in question, but there is a difference between allowing for a compassionate release and mandating a compassionate release. In the case of it being allowed, Scotland would have equally followed their own rule of law by making the killer spend his last few months wasting away in jail. If a compassionate release is allowed, but not mandatory, it still becomes a matter of judgement. In this case, it was piss poor judgement.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I agree 100%. Rule of law. If the law has unintended outcomes like this, change the law, but it's too late now to complain about this fellow.

This position is bunk. Plenty of people have lived out their last sick days in Scottish prison. So why does a Scottish serial killer die in prison, but the maggot Libyan goes home to a hero's welcome? So much for the "rule of law" theory.

[Gee-Man]

It's probably worth pointing out that the people cheering him on as a "hero" are doing it because they think he's innocent. I happen to disagree, but it's probably not fair to some of his supporters to claim they know he's guilty but are cheering him anyway.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Plenty of people have lived out their last sick days in Scottish prison.

Got any examples?

[olePigeon]

William Wallace

[k2director]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Got any examples?

Look them up yourself.

But boy, I feel so much better knowing that Obama is bringing the US back in line with the progressive ideals of the European community, led especially by the higher beings of Scotland.

George Bush had the nerve to depose a bloody, ruthless tyrant and leave a democratic movement in his place. That was downright barbaric in the eyes of Europe, but when Scotland (with British encouragement, as is slowly coming to light now) lets a convicted mass murderer walk after only 8 years, that's the height of civilization, isn't it? Thank god we have these f*cking Europeans to show us the way towards Enlightenment.

Seriously, I'd prefer to see the Nazis running Europe, rather than the f*cking sheep that are in charge now. Where's a good genocide when you really need it?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

As I understand it, there are laws on the books in Scotland that specifically allow for the compassionate release of prisoners in the final stages of a terminal illness. There was nothing special about this case other than the international pressure for Scotland not to follow their own laws.

If the law is just or not is another matter, but the man that signed the release was following the law and, therefore, did the right thing.

The scene in Lybia, however, was disgraceful.

Dont get me wrong, im sure there's the possibility that the action of releasing this guy is 'technically legal'. but when you release a person like this on such flimsy pretext and with the word 'compassionate' there's something amiss.

1. They 'estimate' he will live for 3 months.... what if he lives for 3 years ?

2. was sending him back to Libya the only 'compassionate' process available ? i'd think giving him the chair, or the needle would be just as compassionate to 'ease' his suffering.

It's like, giving the dude a loophole that says, 'if in your opinion he should be released, release him'. what kind of bogus law would that be ?

If the guy who signed the release didn't break any 'Scottish law' (which i'm sure is a possibility), i would recommend the families of the victims(both Scottish and international) take him to court for causing undue distress, mental anguish, etc....

If i were os Scottish descent i would be thoroughly ashamed with the process that would allow such a criminal to be let loose and to die in the comfort of his own home, while being hailed a hero by his peers.

Don't get me wrong, if there are doubts to his guilt, or if he is found to be innocent.... retract the guilty verdict, clear his name, and let him go.

What has happened here, is a mass murderer has been granted freedom on the basis of an estimate that he will live no longer than 3 months. My rebuttal is.... shouldn't every minute of those three months be spent behind bars as well ? Whats next ? releasing rapists cause they fractured their legs ? or thieves cause they miss their mommies ? etc...

I think there is moral justification to take the guy who released him to court. Or we risk lawmakers and politicians in the freeworld releasing terrorists on the promise of cheaper oil.

Also, i'm all for the boycott of Scotland for now, which probably will expand to the U.K. given the recent reports/findings of motives for releasing this guy.

[OreoCookie]

Most people in Europe don't believe in the death penalty, Hawkeye.
Your rant about rapists with broken legs being set free is also misplaced.

In any case, I'm surprised people fail to see the political dimension of this. I'm sure this is part of a deal between the UK and Libya. Not sure what the UK gets, but it better be good … 

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

It could be oil.

Follow the money...

[OreoCookie]

That sounds as if it could have been the reason for his release.

[ThinkInsane]

And now there seems to be some question about the "he only has three months to live" bit.

Scottish Prison Service (SPS) guidelines suggest that inmates are only freed if they have less than three months to live.
However, Dr Simpson, who specialised in prostate disease research, said: “It is clear to me from the medical reports and the opinion of the specialists that Megrahi could live for many more months.

”Kenny MacAskill released him apparently on the advice of just one doctor whose status is not clear and who is not named.”

This stinks. I'm calling shenanigans on the whole goddam thing. I think next time this issue comes up, the Scots would do well to leave the decision up to this guy:

[Snow-i]

As the great band rage against the machine once postulated...


WAAAAAKKKKEEEEE UUUUUPPPPP

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Most people in Europe don't believe in the death penalty, Hawkeye.
Your rant about rapists with broken legs being set free is also misplaced.

In any case, I'm surprised people fail to see the political dimension of this. I'm sure this is part of a deal between the UK and Libya. Not sure what the UK gets, but it better be good …

Mate, i know that. Releasing a mass murderer/indiscriminate killer, is just as far reaching as the death penalty, imo. Which is why i said that if it was alright to release him, it should have been no more absurd to put him down.

And with my loose analogies(slippery slope i know), im trying to point out that if one man's opinion can lead to the release of a criminal of that magnitude, why is it so unfathomable that such a man, with these sets of laws at his disposal would'nt release criminals of lesser magnitude for even smaller reasons ?

Yes i am aware of the political/economic dimension of this case. The way i choose to present my rebuttal is by demolishing his attempt of a defense for carrying out such a grotesque act. When that defense falls, his credibility(and those who edged him on) falls, which paves the way for prosecution hopefully (abuse of power, etc).

I'm all too familiar with the policy of appeasing the oil rich nations for cheaper oil prices. i just cant believe that the U.K.(a lesser nation i could understand), willingly sunk so low to attain it. For shame.

And i have no doubt the highest levels of government were involved in these shenanigans.

That monster didnt deserve to be set free. And if those elected to uphold Justice betray those who empowered them for monetary gains, well.... they dont deserve to be free either imo.

Right now, i support Lieberman's proposal to have an independent inquiry into this matter and weed out all parties who stood to benefit from the release.

Cheers

[k2director]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It could be oil.

Follow the money...

Where's the worldwide Left and its chants of "No Blood for Oil" now?

[Taliesin]

Lybia thinks Abdel Basset al-Megrahi was innocent and punished as a scapegoat, that's why they welcomed him back at home.

The case against the two defendants rested primarily on three points:[10]

* that the bomb timer used was from a batch sold by a Swiss firm, Mebo AG to Libya;
* a former colleague in the Libyan Airlines office in Malta, Abdulmajid Gialka, who was due to testify that he had seen the construction of the bomb, or at least its loading onto the plane at Frankfurt;
* that the clothes identified as having been in the bomb suitcase had been bought by the defendant Megrahi at a shop in Malta.

Each of these points was contested by the defence.

* Edwin Bollier, the co-founder of the Swiss manufacturer of the timer, testified that he had sold similar timers to East Germany, and admitted having connections to a number of intelligence agencies, including both the Libyans and the CIA.[10]
* Gialka, by the time of the trial was living under the Witness Protection Program in the US, had connections with the CIA prior to 1988, and stood to collect up to $4m in reward money following a conviction.[10]
* Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper, failed to positively identify Megrahi in nineteen separate pre-trial statements to the police. In court, Gauci was asked five times if he recognised anyone in the courtroom, without replying. Only when the prosecutor pointed to Megrahi did Gauci say that "he resembles him". On a previous occasion Gauci had identified Abu Talb (who the defence contended was the real bomber) saying that Talb resembled the customer "a lot". Gauci's police statements identified the customer as over 6 feet tall and over 50 years of age; Megrahi is 5 feet 8 inches, and in late 1988 was 36.[10]
* The clothes purchase took place on either 23 November or 7 December 1988; Megrahi was only in Malta on 7 December. Gauci recalled the customer also buying an umbrella due to the rain. The defence argued, using meteorological records, that it rained all day on 23 November, but only briefly or not at all on 7 December.[10]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_..._bombing_trial

An appeal was under way before the release, a scottish justice-committee studied the grounds for the appeal for four years and found that there were seperate and sound reasons to assume a possible miscarriage of justice.

It's possible that some circles in Scotland and UK in general wanted to prevent that the appeal gets through, which could have shown thrown some light upon the works of western powers back then that could have been very inconvenient, not to speak of the release of Megrahi on the ground that justice was miscarriaged.
It would have rediculed the whole Lybia-Lockerbie-compensation-deal and put the western world in a bad light.

So it's possible that a deal was made, that Megrahi gets released if he would withdraw his call for appeal, thus saving some faces.

By the way, what is often forgotten is that Israel shot down a lybian civilian airliner in 1973, but noone got punished for that and the US shot down an iranian civilian airliner in 1986 and the responsible Captain also didn't get punished, wait.. in fact he received a medal of honor for his "exceptionally meritorious conduct" afterwards.

Taliesin

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

And with my loose analogies(slippery slope i know), im trying to point out that if one man's opinion can lead to the release of a criminal of that magnitude, why is it so unfathomable that such a man, with these sets of laws at his disposal would'nt release criminals of lesser magnitude for even smaller reasons ?

Because there is no political backstory to them. Again, it wasn't the kindness in the heart of a Scottish judge that set al-Megrahi free, but a political deal in 10 Downing Street.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I'm all too familiar with the policy of appeasing the oil rich nations for cheaper oil prices. i just cant believe that the U.K.(a lesser nation i could understand), willingly sunk so low to attain it. For shame.

Every Western country does deals like this in one form or another. The previous US government did so with a variety of countries (Nigeria, for instance, where Western governments simply look the other way when questionable tactics are used to exploit oil fields), the EU does the same with Russia (mostly about gas, not oil, but anyway, same thing), the Western world with China. There are many examples. Stop acting surprised, it's a reality. It's independent whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat, a hawk or a `nice guy.'

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

That monster didnt deserve to be set free. And if those elected to uphold Justice betray those who empowered them for monetary gains, well.... they dont deserve to be free either imo.

Wouldn't that be nice, if we lived in a world where people get what they deserve.

[Hawkeye_a]

I agree, every country makes deals with these feudal maniacs for their resources. but how many of them jeopardize our security by selling out in this way ? I mean imagine if the U.S. captured bin Laden and then let him go to appease OPEC or some other BS organization in that region ? Make deals with these idiots to get cheap oil if you must, but dont encourage their appetite for our blood in the bargain, is all im saying. That would/should warrant legal action against those who facilitated such a deal imo.

As for me..... like i said before. if this man is proven innocent (yes because in order to make the transition from innocent to guilty and vice versa it should be 'proven' imo), the U.K. can pardon him, pay him for wrongful imprisonment, clear his record and set him free. But they didn't do that.

A note to those reading this thread:
Taliesin has something fundamentally in common with the Libyans, Iranians, Palestinians, etc... i'll leave it up to you to guess what that it, cause he makes it blatantly obvious which 'group' he unconditionally supports in every argument in the PL.

Also note that the likes of Idi Amin(when alive), Bin Laden, the terrorists responsible for the massacre in Munich, thousands of terrorists who try to kill Israeli civilians everyday, etc...all have safe refuge in countries which follow the same fundamental laws. Unlike American/Israeli/Balkan who commit atrocities against civilians and are dealt with accordingly by their respective laws(and punished) irrespective of race/creed, we are not afforded the same justice when our unarmed civilians are murdered, instead the perpetrators are hailed as 'heroes' for killing infidels and elected as representatives in some cases. But thats a different subject we've all seen before.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I agree, every country makes deals with these feudal maniacs for their resources. but how many of them jeopardize our security by selling out in this way ? I mean imagine if the U.S. captured bin Laden and then let him go to appease OPEC or some other BS organization in that region ?

Except, of course, the US has also made deals with these maniacs, just not the ones who've attacked the US. How many of *those* deals have jeopardized US security?

hint: who provided Bin Laden with advanced weapons and CIA training in guerrilla warfare and terrorist/freedom fighting techniques?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I agree, every country makes deals with these feudal maniacs for their resources. but how many of them jeopardize our security by selling out in this way ?

The US has supported Iran and Iraq when it was convenient (I don't think I have to explain that in detail).
Again, I don't mean to single out the US, but these are just two examples from the top of my head that are, well, very relevant today. Europe and the US also chicken out when it comes to China, for instance. Ticks me off every time.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I mean imagine if the U.S. captured bin Laden and then let him go to appease OPEC or some other BS organization in that region ?

On the other hand, Bin Laden hasn't been caught yet … and I assume that has to do with the Pakistani and Afghan administrations (although I should have put quotation marks around that word). (Pakistan and Afghanistan allow the US to operate from their territory.)

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The US has supported Iran and Iraq when it was convenient (I don't think I have to explain that in detail).
Again, I don't mean to single out the US, but these are just two examples from the top of my head that are, well, very relevant today. Europe and the US also chicken out when it comes to China, for instance. Ticks me off every time.

I agree. But in all fairness, there's a couple of degrees of separation there. And it's not against any laws to take sides in conflict when it benefits you (ie no one put a gun to their head, and it's not anyone else's fault they were too dumb to realize it, or capitalize on it appropriately).

As far as China....well... if you ask me, China is a different beast all together, last i checked they we'rnt embarking on mass murder missions against us.

Making deals is not the problem here. it only becomes a problem(to me anyway) when the deal involves trading security especially in such a direct way. if the Iraqis/Iranian/Arabs feel they're getting a raw deal.....don't sign the paper. it's not our fault they dont have the capital/know-how to build infrastructure or refine their resources.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

On the other hand, Bin Laden hasn't been caught yet … and I assume that has to do with the Pakistani and Afghan administrations (although I should have put quotation marks around that word). (Pakistan and Afghanistan allow the US to operate from their territory.)

Yup.... i'd put "allow" in quotes . If you travel to the middle east(except for Iran and Syria), you will notice two very blatant things.... the way they forwardly suck up and publicly appease the west on one hand, and how on the other money flows from their back pockets to fundamentalists who's stated goals are to destroy the 'west'(but really it's any culture that is not based on Islam). You never quite know which one is taking priority.But anyway....

I'm just disappointed in the U.K..... 1. they broke their promise to the U.S. 2. they released a mass murderer on very debatable pretext 3. There is obviously ulterior motives behind this (ie oil).

And the fact that they would so easily turn their back on their biggest ally to ink a deal with the devil is rather disappointing. I wonder if the U.S. would want to bail them out if the **** hits the fan like in WWII.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I agree. But in all fairness, there's a couple of degrees of separation there. And it's not against any laws to take sides in conflict when it benefits you (ie no one put a gun to their head, and it's not anyone else's fault they were too dumb to realize it, or capitalize on it appropriately).

No, officially, no laws have been broken here. But legal is clearly not the same as moral -- as this case demonstrates.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

As far as China....well... if you ask me, China is a different beast all together, last i checked they we'rnt embarking on mass murder missions against us.

Yes, the case of China is very different. We handed our balls to China since a lot of our toys are made there. Now, China owns a non-negligible part of our economies and we need to be nice to them. On the other hand, they copy our products (fortunately at lower quality, but they're learning) -- and if we want a piece of their market, we have to play nice. The other problems are more humanitarian (although I don't believe in democracy imposed from the top). Whenever one of our government representatives meets someone from Tibet, for instance, the Chinese ambassador is up in arms. Personally, I would just say `so what?' I'm not a very good diplomat, though

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Making deals is not the problem here. it only becomes a problem(to me anyway) when the deal involves trading security especially in such a direct way. if the Iraqis/Iranian/Arabs feel they're getting a raw deal.....don't sign the paper. it's not our fault they dont have the capital/know-how to build infrastructure or refine their resources.

Well, I was referring to the West supporting the Shah (Iran) and Hussein (Iraq) when it was convenient at the time -- both of which have come back with a vengeance to bite us in the rear-end. I think it would help a lot if politics didn't always go for the proverbial quick fix.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Yup.... i'd put "allow" in quotes . If you travel to the middle east(except for Iran and Syria), you will notice two very blatant things.... the way they forwardly suck up and publicly appease the west on one hand, and how on the other money flows from their back pockets to fundamentalists who's stated goals are to destroy the 'west'(but really it's any culture that is not based on Islam). You never quite know which one is taking priority.But anyway....

That's why it's important to ignore polemics (the Taliban are religious hypocrites, they finance their religious war with drugs) and look at the bigger picture. Iran, for instance, uses antisemitism selectively to steer attention away from more important issues (which are often domestic).

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I'm just disappointed in the U.K..... 1. they broke their promise to the U.S. 2. they released a mass murderer on very debatable pretext 3. There is obviously ulterior motives behind this (ie oil).

I except that I'm sure the US was apprised of the deal before it has happened (the UK is the US' closest ally in Europe). I don't think this was done behind anyone's backs (well, behind the public's back, but the public doesn't count, does it ).

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

And the fact that they would so easily turn their back on their biggest ally to ink a deal with the devil is rather disappointing. I wonder if the U.S. would want to bail them out if the **** hits the fan like in WWII.

The rhetoric coming from Libya these days is very disconcerting. Gadaffi has such wonderful ideas as to split up Switzerland and `give it back' to the surrounding countries. Personally, I think the West is playing nice to allow for a peaceful transfer of power to a -- hopefully -- more moderate successor.

[Doofy]

Just to butt in and put the record straight a little. When you chaps say things like "when Scotland (with British encouragement, as is slowly coming to light now)", it would appear that you're not aware of certain things. Like how the UK is actually run by what we English call "the Scottish Mafia". That is, Brown, Blair, Darling - all Scottish.

Why did the Scottish want this to happen? I don't know. But recent political research has led me to discover that things are not as they seem. Not at all. You dig a little deeper into the rabbit hole, a little deeper... ...and all of a sudden you're in Moria. And the balrogs aren't running towards you, they're running away from what's behind them. That's all I can say.