1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Scots Are Idiots

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Aug 20, 2009.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    That's all I can come up with in the regards of releasing one of the Lockerbie bombing terrorists for "compassion" reasons because he has terminal cancer.

    Kin of victims: Release of terrorist 'sickening' - Yahoo! News
     
  2. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    "Scotland: Free from islamofascist terrorist attacks since August, 2009!"

    Now there's a marketing slogan for the ages......:rolleyes:......
     
  3. cmhbob

    cmhbob Did...did I do that? Staff Member

    Some friends of mine were complaining about Squeaky Fromme getting released, and I've got to tell you I'm a whole lot more torqued about this asshole than her. She killed no one, and served her sentence. This...worm killed 270, and was supposed to die in prison. Where's the mercy for his victims?
     
  4. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Well, that explains how they were conquered by the Brits--no conviction.

    SM
     
  5. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Exactly.
     
  6. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member


    Pussies.
     
  7. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    Are you guys talking about Prima Nocta again? ;)
     
  8. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Not really. Just commenting on the total lack of spinal support in our kilt-wearing, intestine-ingesting brethren.

    SM
     
  9. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    Was good to see Obama offer the Libyans some advice, even better they seem to have took it:

     
  10. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    He got a hero's welcome anyway. To his credit, he covered himself up, didn't gesture, and just got in to a waiting limo.
     
  11. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    There are a substantial number of people including a significant minority of family members of the victims who think that he was innocent of the crime.

    Remember during the trial even most of the victims' family members after hearing all the evidence presented at trial thought that both he and his associate would be found not guilty--turns out one was found not guilty and our boy took the fall.

    Here is a related link: SOURCE

    Plus guilty or not he is going to die soon, he has been in prison for years and he is going to die basically soon so how big of a difference does it make given all of that collectively where he dies?
     
  12. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    Maybe it was a simple financial decision on the part of the Scottish government.

    Maintaining end-of-life care for an inmate ain't cheap.
     
  13. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Also in addition to my previous comments many family members of the victims were not opposed to his early release under the circumstances.
     
  14. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Perhaps because some relatives of the victims believe he is simply the fall guy and those responsible the crash have been enjoying life in Libya while he was doing time. Just the same, this guy was convicted in court and should die behind bars. The Scots must have lost touch with reality on this one. Too much haggis or something.
     
  15. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    This was thoughtful, interesting, and intelligent post. It's also thinking outside the box and courageous to go against the majority of the public, not just GA.

    BUT, I agree with Ditch:

    this guy was convicted in court and should die behind bars. The Scots must have lost touch with reality on this one. Too much haggis or something.

    My nationality, blood, whatever you want to call it, doesn't believe in giving terrorists ANY form of compassion nor sympathy. My culture, beliefs, the core ideology even goes as far as believe it does quite the opposite.
     
  16. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Let me toss the subject at you from a different perspective for your consideration.

    Everyone on the Pan Am flight were victims as were those that were killed in the village of Lockerbie. They were all murdered by a terrorist or terrorists. There is no doubt of this.

    All the family members and loved ones or close friends of the dead are victims. There is no doubt of this.

    The man convicted was lawfully convicted. There is no doubt of this. He got a legally fair trial. No one disputes it. Many during and after the trail including the loved ones and family of those killed believed that the guy convicted was either innocent or in the alternative the evidence didn't justify a guilty verdict.

    (By the way did you know that one of the terms of the guys humanitarian early release is that he waive his pending criminal appeal? The MSM doesn't mention that much.)

    Now the guy is going to die and die very soon. He has served quite some time in prison and is very sick.

    Will where he die bring back to life any of those murdered regardless of who did it? No. Will his dying at home versus in prison under the current situation bring some type of extra closure, (a terrible misused and misunderstood term, some would say a non-existent state as used in this context.)

    There are just one other groups of victims we haven't mentioned. The family and loved ones of the man convicted. They too are victims. They will remain victims no matter where the man dies. But will the pain associated with their victimization be lessen by his dying at home?

    Finally, given the significant or substantial doubt that he was innocent no matter the fact those who believe it are in the minority but still are more than just a couple of wackos but they themselves real victims and come from both victims on the plane and in the village doesn't that count for something in making the decision to free him or not?

    Finally do we prosecute, convict and punish based upon our nationality, blood, or whatever you want to call it? Do we prosecute and punish someone on their nationality or blood? Not usually and for good reason. If we do how is that different other than doing through a formal system versus at our own hands like the Serbs did in Kosovo?

    If do so like the examples above why do we even need due process. Lets just kill all the ones we think guilty and let God sort it out?

    Finally, he was convicted under due process. He was set free under due process. I say that with personal conviction and not as debate fodder.
     
  17. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    1. He has 90% chance to live with current medicine. Not in jail, of course.
    2. You don't understand Russians. We are ruthless, illogical, and will not just go "eye for an eye" but the eyes of every family member that ever gazed on you.
     
  18. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Understanding is a matter of degrees. IMO I believe I do understand Russians. Just my opinion as I say.

    I would add that what you describe I as an adversary of same would see those traits as weaknesses to be exploited. But I digress.

    By the way I had not heard what you state in number one above. I heard that he is terminal period. He may, even probably will live longer outside of prison, (after all Obama care isn't there yet), but that he will still die in the near future.

    But that is just what I have understood. I'd be interested in hearing more about the issue. When I try to stay informed, I do actually try.

    A rhetorical question for you. Is THE man Leon Keylin ruthless, illogical, and will not just go "eye for an eye" but the eyes of every family member that ever gazed on you?" I don't believe he would even if he may believe it. If I had a family and killed murdered your family would you murder me and my wife and my young children. Me, yep. The family? I don't think so.

    You also sort of or a little bit sidestepped the question or statement do we prosecute by or because of nationality or blood or do we do so based upon the judicial process?
     
  19. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    It's everywhere from 70-90% but...


    http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_2_6x_Prostate_Cancer_Survival_Rates.asp
    "For all men with prostate cancer, the relative 5-year survival rate is 100%, and the relative 10-year survival rate is 91%. The 15-year relative survival rate is 76%."
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6797118.ece


    As for my ruthlessness? Let's not go there.
     
  20. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    As for your ruthlessness I do seem to recall you wanted to leave the two-line pass rule in place didn't you?

    By the way If I ever said anything to offend you I truly apologize. ;)
     

Share This Page