Pan Am bomber released from prison..

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Apr 25, 2002
7,232
170
63
42
www.idealsentertainment.com
#21
The people on that plane did not get a chance to see their loved ones, or decide how they would live out their last days. Why should it be ok for this dude to have those opportunities?

I don't care if a baby was killed....WE had nothing to do with that. The GOVERNMENT did that. That's like saying, "This cat went and killed a dude while he was robbing a liquor store...let's go kill his family". His family had nothing to do with it, so should they have to pay for it? Is it ok if that whole family gets murdered because of the actions of ONE of them? A lot of you cats are spewing this kind of logic and it's RIDICULOUS!
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#23
The people on that plane did not get a chance to see their loved ones, or decide how they would live out their last days. Why should it be ok for this dude to have those opportunities?

I don't care if a baby was killed....WE had nothing to do with that. The GOVERNMENT did that. That's like saying, "This cat went and killed a dude while he was robbing a liquor store...let's go kill his family". His family had nothing to do with it, so should they have to pay for it? Is it ok if that whole family gets murdered because of the actions of ONE of them? A lot of you cats are spewing this kind of logic and it's RIDICULOUS!
It goes both ways, dude. The Libyan government had nothing to do with the bombing of the plane...or so we know.

We are seen as nothing more than cattle to political powers...when will people realize this?
 
Apr 25, 2002
7,232
170
63
42
www.idealsentertainment.com
#24
It goes both ways, dude. The Libyan government had nothing to do with the bombing of the plane...or so we know.

We are seen as nothing more than cattle to political powers...when will people realize this?
It does go both ways...and I would say the same thing if it was an American cat that did the same shit on a plane full of Libyans.
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#25
Kill someone against the US = forgivable
Kill someone in the name of the US = deplorable
At least what he did was blatant. The US lies about it half the time, the other half they put it on the news like we did somethign fabulous by killing someone.

Either way I think it's fucked up.

But the US, in general, or people individually should shut the fuck up unless they were involved.

The US kills people every day, in multiple countries. Need we get into how the US got Noriega out of Panama? Killing like 22,000 civilians, testing weapons on them, and raping a lot of women. Yeah, kids died, a lot of them.

So, if you're going to do it yourself, when you speak on it...that makes you a......HYPOCRITE.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#27
At least what he did was blatant. The US lies about it half the time, the other half they put it on the news like we did somethign fabulous by killing someone.

Either way I think it's fucked up.

But the US, in general, or people individually should shut the fuck up unless they were involved.

The US kills people every day, in multiple countries. Need we get into how the US got Noriega out of Panama? Killing like 22,000 civilians, testing weapons on them, and raping a lot of women. Yeah, kids died, a lot of them.

So, if you're going to do it yourself, when you speak on it...that makes you a......HYPOCRITE.

The point is I am not making a distinction based on my ideological perspective, and I have never suggested that US agents aren't as guilty of murder in countless other situations.

Was/Is the US in the wrong? Yes
Was the Pan Am bomber in the wrong? Yes

I don't see the distinction between the murdering off innocent children in those situations while some people in this thread apparently do.

The children killed in that flight (not to mention many of the other passengers) had nothing to do with the US's detrimental actions that motivated the bombing, just as Khadafi's daughter had nothing to do with her fathers actions, and just as it would make zero sense for someone to kill a random Mexican as retribution for the actions of an unrelated Mexican drug cartel.
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#28
The point is I am not making a distinction based on my ideological perspective, and I have never suggested that US agents aren't as guilty of murder in countless other situations.

Was/Is the US in the wrong? Yes
Was the Pan Am bomber in the wrong? Yes

I don't see the distinction between the murdering off innocent children in those situations while some people in this thread apparently do.

The children killed in that flight (not to mention many of the other passengers) had nothing to do with the US's detrimental actions that motivated the bombing, just as Khadafi's daughter had nothing to do with her fathers actions, and just as it would make zero sense for someone to kill a random Mexican as retribution for the actions of an unrelated Mexican drug cartel.
I agree they're both wrong. My point is, that the US has no room to say shit when they do it day in and day out.

Either you stand by your ethics and you're in the right. OR you do the SAME thing they are doing and you're worthless.

I know, we already concluded that. But the US does it on a massive, world-wide scale, every single day.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#29
The point is I am not making a distinction based on my ideological perspective, and I have never suggested that US agents aren't as guilty of murder in countless other situations.

Was/Is the US in the wrong? Yes
Was the Pan Am bomber in the wrong? Yes

I don't see the distinction between the murdering off innocent children in those situations while some people in this thread apparently do.

The children killed in that flight (not to mention many of the other passengers) had nothing to do with the US's detrimental actions that motivated the bombing, just as Khadafi's daughter had nothing to do with her fathers actions, and just as it would make zero sense for someone to kill a random Mexican as retribution for the actions of an unrelated Mexican drug cartel.
I don't think anyone is disputing that, we all know that there are "casualties of war" that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the decision to go to war or for their country to fight in it. However, the amount of wars started by the US and its allies, its UNDERSTANDABLE how someone from that country would be mad at the US, and using a tactic to get their attention that basically says "fuck you, dick!".

Again, the "eye for an eye" theory is born out of hatred. I am not saying it is right by any means, but humans are known for this type of retaliatory behavior.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#30
I agree they're both wrong. My point is, that the US has no room to say shit when they do it day in and day out.

Either you stand by your ethics and you're in the right. OR you do the SAME thing they are doing and you're worthless.

I know, we already concluded that. But the US does it on a massive, world-wide scale, every single day.

I agree with you to an extent, but where I take issue (and I see this often) is the tendency to only refer to the US as an individual entity.

Can the US itself officially say anything and not be hypocritical? No.

Can I as a resident of the US say something and not be hypocritical? Yes.

Should the Pan Am bomber be released/shown compassion? IMO No more than the US or the US agents that killed Khadafi's daughter should be forgiven (which is not at all).
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#31
I don't think anyone is disputing that, we all know that there are "casualties of war" that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the decision to go to war or for their country to fight in it. However, the amount of wars started by the US and its allies, its UNDERSTANDABLE how someone from that country would be mad at the US, and using a tactic to get their attention that basically says "fuck you, dick!".

Again, the "eye for an eye" theory is born out of hatred. I am not saying it is right by any means, but humans are known for this type of retaliatory behavior.


Understandable? Yes.

Justifiable or forgivable? No.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#34
That depends on who you ask.


You presented a good argument why it is understandable but I have yet to see someone present anything remotely logical as to how killing innocent children could ever be argued as justifiable, especially when the same crime is being argued as unjustifiable and grounds for justifiable retaliation on the other side.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#35
You presented a good argument why it is understandable but I have yet to see someone present anything remotely logical as to how killing innocent children could ever be argued as justifiable, especially when the same crime is being argued as unjustifiable and grounds for justifiable retaliation on the other side.
Well, that depends on the moral/ethical stand a person takes. Maybe someone sees it as justifiable in that it happened to them. Its all personal view in a situation like that. However, i don't know that a view as such would be shared by many people.
 
Nov 27, 2006
5,648
21
0
36
#37
this whole release was bullshit. God i hate the UK with a passion

The release of the Lockerbie bomber was tied to trade deals between Libya and the UK, reports quote the son of Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi saying.

Seif al-Islam told Libyan TV the case was raised during talks over oil and gas, AFP news reported. The UK Foreign Office has strongly denied the claims.

Scotland's government freed terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, on compassionate grounds on Thursday.

Megrahi told the Times he would present new evidence proving his innocence.

The man convicted of killing 270 people aboard a transatlantic airliner in 1988 said he would present the evidence through lawyers in Scotland and ask the British and Scottish communities to "be the jury".

Colonel Gaddafi's son had labelled Megrahi's release a "victory".

In an interview with a Libyan station, he reportedly claimed that the Megrahi issue had been raised repeatedly by Britain's former prime minister Tony Blair.

"In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table," Mr Islam said told Libya's Al Mutawassit channel.


Mr Blair visited Libya in May 2007, during which UK energy giant BP signed a $900m (£540m) exploration deal.

However, the Foreign Office insisted Megrahi's release had been a matter solely for the Scottish authorities.

A spokesman said: "No deal has been made between the UK government and the Libyan government in relation to Megrahi and any commercial interests in the country."

UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband earlier rejected suggestions the UK pushed for Megrahi's release to improve relations as "a slur on both myself and the government".

Prince Andrew

Separately, the Foreign Office was unable to confirm whether a planned trip to Libya by the Duke of York in September would be cancelled.

A spokeswoman said an official invitation to the British government from Libya had not yet been received.

However, it is believed any visit is unlikely to go ahead in light of the furore surrounding Megrahi's return.

The bomber's release - and the hero's welcome he was given on return to Libya - provoked anger from many relatives of those who died aboard Pan-Am flight 103, particularly in the US.

President Barack Obama condemned the jubilant scenes at Tripoli airport as "highly objectionable".

The UK foreign secretary described TV footage of people greeting Megrahi by cheering and waving flags as "deeply distressing".

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond also said the reception was "inappropriate".

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has so far made no comment, although it has emerged he wrote to Colonel Gaddafi to ask that Libya "act with sensitivity" in its welcome.
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#39
lol @ coondogg been banned. i guess no one liked him either.

and what was he banned for? if faggotry was the reason then there'd only be like 39 of us on the siccness left.