is that al megrahi still alive? nearly a year after his release - another lefty

mbga9pgf

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Did they have the backing of the United Nations or did they decid to invade for their own personal reasons?

You can invade on the pretence of Self-defence. The argument comes where pre-emptive action is used to that aim.

so i guess you think it would be perfectly reasonable for iran not to allow access to un inspectors at their nuclear facilities?

They are more than welcome to do that. They need to suck it up though if the US invades, becuase if they do, it aint illegal. And the US has the biggest stick in that fight.

Not forgetting that Iran is going pretty much back to the stone age if they extend international export restrictions to Iran much more.

Not that I have a problem with Iranians, lovely people, very european in their outlook to life and nothing like the rest of those living that part of the world.

The question I ask you would have to be, do you think a nuclear armed Iran be a good thing for middle eastern stability and also for energy stability in the west.

ruggedtoast

I thought it was a pretty spectacular own goal for Salmond that the first time the entire world find out that Scotland is actually a country, with a semi autonomous government, is when theyre releasing a vilified mass murderer against the wishes of pretty much the entire planet and with no legal requirement whatsoever to do so.

Not that I imagine Megrahi was experiencing much hardship in prison anyway. Perhaps his xbox thumb was getting sore or the batteries had run out in his remote control so he had to keep getting up to turn the tele over. Thereby breaching his human right to sit on his fat a r s e having a society he hates provide everything for him.

ninky_2

mbga9pgf wrote: »

The question I ask you would have to be, do you think a nuclear armed Iran be a good thing for middle eastern stability and also for energy stability in the west.

do you think a nuclear armed israel is.

personally i think we should all get rid of our nuclear weapons.

IveSeenTheLight

mbga9pgf wrote: »

You can invade on the pretence of Self-defence. The argument comes where pre-emptive action is used to that aim.

Interesting.
I thought the pretence was that they had information on weapons of mass destruction, which have never been located.

To that end, are the US and the UK, not therefore dictators.

Why should the UK have weapons of mass destruction but dictate that other countries should not?

It was 40 years ago that the Nuclear Non proliforation Treaty was signed to reduce and erradicate nuclear weapons.

40 years on, we still have them and we dictate to others.

Here's a link to wikipedia as to who holds nuclear weapons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

A question you muct ask yourself is from whom do we consider to be under a nuclear threat from?
Why should the UK have nuclear weapons but other states not?

In 1970 the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty was agreed in which the objective was to: -
stop the spread of nuclear weapons
Disarmament
The right to use nuclear technology
The second part disarmament is about setting the conditions to halt the production of nuclear weapons.
Why after 40 years are we still producing nuclear weapons and continuing to plan to do so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Exocet

Can I just clear up a couple of minor points here?

1. Magrahi was almost certainly innocent. The whole trial was a sham - most of the victims families know this to be true. Lot of shady stuff goes on, including the release of course, but he should never have been in prison in the first place. Better to convict no one, than just anyone who can be fitted up.

2. The Iraq war was of questionable legality. That was why Tony questioned it's legality with Goldsmith. We will never have a straight answer on that one.

Finally. I would like every nasty terrorist locked up, and every bad country sorted out. But you would have to be pretty nieve to think that is how realpolitik works.

IveSeenTheLight

Exocet wrote: »

Can I just clear up a couple of minor points here?

1. Magrahi was almost certainly innocent. The whole trial was a sham - most of the victims families know this to be true. Lot of shady stuff goes on, including the release of course, but he should never have been in prison in the first place. Better to convict no one, than just anyone who can be fitted up.

Totally agree with the bold part, however on the conviction, it seems hard to believe such a thing.

When you hear of so many cases where the defence get's off on a technicality, was Megrahi's defence so incompetant that there was sufficient proof to convict an innocent man?

Exocet

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Totally agree with the bold part, however on the conviction, it seems hard to believe such a thing.

When you hear of so many cases where the defence get's off on a technicality, was Megrahi's defence so incompetant that there was sufficient proof to convict an innocent man?

I am not a lawyer, or in any way connected to Libya or the Lockerbie case. So I can only base my statement on stuff like this..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/almegrahi-pressured-into-abandoning-appeal-1772156.html
... which says to me the guy was innocent.

"Megrahi has always staunchly maintained his innocence, a view that is shared by a number of British families of those who died in the attack he was convicted of carrying out – a view which is in stark contrast to most American families who are convinced of his guilt."

"There are six hundred pages of evidence from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, much of which suggests Megrahi is innocent, which will no longer see the light of day and that is simply not right.”

chucky

Exocet wrote: »

I am not a lawyer, or in any way connected to Libya or the Lockerbie case. So I can only base my statement on stuff like this..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/almegrahi-pressured-into-abandoning-appeal-1772156.html
... which says to me the guy was innocent.

it's not a great sign when the Google News search is your bestest friend :eek:

Exocet

chucky wrote: »

it's not a great sign when the Google News search is your bestest friend :eek:

I googled Magrahi and Innocent because I don't actually have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the case. But I did want to provide a link for my friend ISTL which I thought might be useful. I thought the Independent article was not bad for a summary of why one might think Magrahi had been fitted up.

chucky

Exocet wrote: »

I googled Magrahi and Innocent because I don't actually have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the case. But I did want to provide a link for my friend ISTL which I thought might be useful. I thought the Independent article was not bad for a summary of why one might think Magrahi had been fitted up.

i thought it was a good article - thanks for bringing it to my attention

just for balance what happens when you Google Magrahi and Guilty