Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gwar! wrote:Unlike the US where you execute 16 year olds, in the UK it seems that Murderers get better treatment by the government than the families of the victims. This is what is causing most of the outrage, and people are getting sick of it.

Um, ok, that isn't an answer to the question posed.

Considering alot of us on this don't trust our respective governements I find the whole indignation stance laughable. I would imagination that the events are based on this:

1. Megrahi was going to appeal. There is a strong suggestion that the evidence he waas going to produce would if not be conclusive in proving his innocence, it would open the doors for strong doubt on his conviction. The current government would not want the situation looked at too deeply, as I would imagine that alot of the evidence would of been supplied by the US. Which given the stuff that has emerged about the US process for obtaining intel, they don't want to go down that route.
2. If option 1 is valid, then this means that a deal to improve relations and get a foot in the door for British oil companies becomes a valid option for them.

With regard to us be soft of terrorists, just remember that Thatcher would of prefered that the Iranian Embassy terrorists were slotted rather than taken captive. The SAS did their best but their window of opportunity ran out. I would say that Thatcher was probably the last modern PM that was able to successfully get away with black ops and skullduggery. The modern media, weak politicians and government do-gooders have really made it harder to pull off.

dogma wrote:Oz hardly counts as part of the world, let's get real here.

True, it's better to say there is Oz and there is the rest of the world .

On a more serious note, please expand. I'm a fairly ardent realist (in the observational sense) with respect to I-poli, so I tend to lose the nuance when it comes to idealism.

edit: I understand what you said, I'm just curious as to how your experience casts the realism/idealism debate.

I've got no profound observation, just from general travels it seems most people don't spend a lot of time weighing the advantages and disadvantages of various factors in deciding their preferred foreign policy. Instead they operate on simple principles, 'we should help our friends', 'we should appear strong'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I will merely keep my fingers crossed that if he was guilty, that he dies in agony. Further that all those he condemned will be waiting to hold him accountable, shortly before he does not collect 72 vestal virgins, do not pass go and go straight to hell.

If he was guilty.

You mention a link to Islam, with the 72 virgins, but I don't remember Islamic fundamentalism prompting the attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

dogma wrote:Why are the victims at all relevant to the treatment of the criminal?

Unlike the US where you execute 16 year olds, in the UK it seems that Murderers get better treatment by the government than the families of the victims. This is what is causing most of the outrage, and people are getting sick of it.

On average, how long does the UK government imprison the families of the victims?

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Unlike the US where you execute 16 year olds, in the UK it seems that Murderers get better treatment by the government than the families of the victims. This is what is causing most of the outrage, and people are getting sick of it.

Um, ok, that isn't an answer to the question posed.

The answer was Nevada, I am sorry, and better luck next time on the TRIPLE F FACTOR!!! As in like three F's... whatever you feel like really. I like to... wow this is actually quite hard to do . Okay, three F's... Funny, Fuzzy, and Freezing...

sebster wrote:On average, how long does the UK government imprison the families of the victims?

You do realise that for most Prisoners Living Conditions are BETTER than the Average Working Class Person. They get lots of "perks" and it is all funded by the tax payer, and when people complain they throw the "Human Rights" laws about as if it a Human Right to have Sky TV

This individual was released under Scottish Law, which is different from English and Welsh Law. So catch all remarks regarding the UK are not really accurate or needed.

The US recognised the jurisdiction of Scottish Law over the trial and therefore can't really complain that it has been used as written (no matter how unpalatable we all findthe way the Scottish Executive has used it). I do not believe that any formal complaint has been received from the US Govt. on this matter.

As others have said this crime was one committed for political reason rather than extremist ones, so I do not see any future threat from him.

There seems to be allot of hyperbole and knee-jerk reaction regarding this "news". The fact is this was about prisoner transfer discussion two years ago, nothing unusual in these sorts of discussions. Libya's motives are clear, but this has nothing to do with his eventual release, nor does BP's deal or the never mentioned Shell (joint UK/US interest) deal before it.

Ketara wrote:I'm starting to feel the urge to join in the boycott of haggis....

I am with you, I would boycott haggis also.

Gwar! wrote:

sebster wrote:On average, how long does the UK government imprison the families of the victims?

You do realise that for most Prisoners Living Conditions are BETTER than the Average Working Class Person. They get lots of "perks" and it is all funded by the tax payer, and when people complain they throw the "Human Rights" laws about as if it a Human Right to have Sky TV

Well if you want to go to jail so bad then go slap a policeman. Or would losing control over your life, being put into a grinding routine, being locked up with other criminals, seeing your life put on hold, having contact with friends and family limited to a few hours a week etc just possibly not be worth Sky TV. I mean, Springer is funny and all, but...

LuciusAR wrote:

grizgrin wrote:So prisoners with terminal illnesses are routinely released on compassionate grounds? I would LOVE to see that backed up. Specify: how this case was handled in the same manner as the majority of other similar cases. This will make for interesting reading.

As far as I am aware the law in Scotland is that prisoners, no matter their crime, as long as represent no risk to the public, are eligible for release on compassionate grounds if they have a terminal illness which will likely kill them within three months. If there are any experts here who know differently then please feel free to correct me. That it why he was freed.

I call BS. Everyone's elibgible for everything
1. How many "eligible" prisioners are actually released?
2. He help kill hundreds of people.

Evidently in the UK Life does not equal life, just until you get sick.

If it was done under their law, then there's not much to bitch about. That's how the Scots do business, and that's that. Don't like it, doesn't matter much.

Frazz does bring up a good point in questioning past usage of this suppossed "law".

grizgrin wrote:If it was done under their law, then there's not much to bitch about. That's how the Scots do business, and that's that. Don't like it, doesn't matter much.

Frazz does bring up a good point in questioning past usage of this suppossed "law".

Sure there is. I could care less about their law. He should be gone with a 150 grain cranial enema from 600 yards.

sebster wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I will merely keep my fingers crossed that if he was guilty, that he dies in agony. Further that all those he condemned will be waiting to hold him accountable, shortly before he does not collect 72 vestal virgins, do not pass go and go straight to hell.
If he was guilty.

You mention a link to Islam, with the 72 virgins, but I don't remember Islamic fundamentalism prompting the attack.

Nor was there any implied in my comment, but he is muslim and my reference was to the muslim promised heaven which if he were the man responsible for murdering all those people, I thought it would be nice him being denied. You comment was...odd?

sebster wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

sebster wrote:On average, how long does the UK government imprison the families of the victims?

You do realise that for most Prisoners Living Conditions are BETTER than the Average Working Class Person. They get lots of "perks" and it is all funded by the tax payer, and when people complain they throw the "Human Rights" laws about as if it a Human Right to have Sky TV

Well if you want to go to jail so bad then go slap a policeman. Or would losing control over your life, being put into a grinding routine, being locked up with other criminals, seeing your life put on hold, having contact with friends and family limited to a few hours a week etc just possibly not be worth Sky TV. I mean, Springer is funny and all, but...

Cry me a freeking river.

dogma wrote: Who wants to invade Libya after all.

Back when I was in the Marine Reserves, they were getting us primed to pay a visit because of what happened in the Rome airport. Reaganbombed the place in the end, instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Evidently in the UK Life does not equal life, just until you get sick.

Sadly it doesn't here, either.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Funny how the British Government (Who still controlled Scotland at the time of the Bombing) let Megrahi (ya know, the guy who killed close to THREE HUNDRED PEOPLE) walk away to get their mitts on oil without so much as a single word, but Ronnie Biggs had his application for release on compassionate grounds fought tooth and nail by the Home Office. His Crime? A Robbery.

Glad to see the UK Government being as effective as ever.

Idiocy much? I think this law for release on compassionate grounds is a load of horse schmit. Why does the criminal receive more compassion than their victims? This is especially true in the case of murder or rape. How do you Brits justify this?

First the central government still 'controls' Scotland, the devolved parliaments are somewhat akin to state parliaments in the US, able to pass their own laws etc but still part of a larger whole.

Seondly you are missing the point of Biggs et al. I think that Biggs was the smokescreen, his release was timed just before Megrahi, and paves the way fior the concept of compassionate release. I do not think the rtiming is coincidental. The government needed extra faces released to show it was not an isolated favour.

Up to a point I can see Whitehalls view of this, all the i's were dotted and the t's crossed. The Scottish parliament made the decision to release, not the Home Office. However it was a sucker move. The 'leak' to the Times was apparently sourced from the Scottish parlaiment, they are just passing the blame back.


Part of me is angry that the same US that gave aid and succour to IRA bombers many times is arguing now. They wanted a peace deal over Northern Ireland, though admittedly so did just about everyone else. The main move had to come from the US as they were the principle financial backers of the republican movement, and could therefore get the publican factions to stop long enough while the Uk leaned on unionists. Many terrorist murderers have been freed, in the name of peace, we dont complain about that.
Many of our own people died because of Lockerbie, if Scotland gives clemancy as a nation that is up to them, though the SNP has been hurt by the move. Nevertheless Jack Straw had a point, Gaddaffi gave up its WMD's at the time and it was fair they asked for favours in return, even underhand ones allowing for what was at stake. One of the favours asked at the time was Megrahi's release. The Foreign Office informed Gaddaffi that moves would be set in motion to allow that, but no outright pardon would be forthcoming, there has been a long build up ever since. More was asked for, and more was arragned, culminating in the events of the last few weeks.

In addition there have long been suggestions that Megrahi was a patsy anyway, there are a lot of unanswered questions about what happened to the flight 103. Rumours abound and many of the vioctims familes do not beleive Megrahi was responsible. perhaps part of the reason for cendemning his release could be fear of what he has to say now he is no longer behind bars.

Finally, Libya doesnt like us very much, to put it mildly. The governemnt has made a ham fisted deal, which has been put on hold due to ther crisis. Her Majesty wisly cancelled the royal visit by the Duke of York which was scheduled for around this time, and was rumoured to be linked to oil deals. Meanwhile China is putting pressure on for the contract, and is even in take over talks with on-site Canadian companies. I would not be suprised if Gaddaffi will allow the oil deal leak to run and run, show Megrahi off a little longer then close a deal with China openly swallowing out Shell and BP. Brown will get egg all over his face - all this for nothing - and Gaddaffi will get brownie points for doing so all over the middle east, and likely much further afield too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

grizgrin wrote:If it was done under their law, then there's not much to bitch about. That's how the Scots do business, and that's that. Don't like it, doesn't matter much.

Frazz does bring up a good point in questioning past usage of this suppossed "law".

Sure there is. I could care less about their law. He should be gone with a 150 grain cranial enema from 600 yards.

So Iraqi insurgents who shoot our soldiers, and yours, are justified then Fraz? If the bullet is the law you will have to accept that bullets rarely have names on them, and too many people have access to them.

It's wrong to say that the US supported the IRA. They were supported by some citizens in the US but never by the government.

Orlanth wrote:

Sure there is. I could care less about their law. He should be gone with a 150 grain cranial enema from 600 yards.

So Iraqi insurgents who shoot our soldiers, and yours, are justified then Fraz? If the bullet is the law you will have to accept that bullets rarely have names on them, and too many people have access to them.

Orly I am not getting the example, at all. This guy is a terrorist that helped kill several hundred innocent people via a terrorist act. He should be respiratorily challenged. A .308 is a good method but any old way will do.

He's in Libya now. He should be dealt with. Oh wait, per the Democratic party, that would be wrong.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's wrong to say that the US supported the IRA. They were supported by some citizens in the US but never by the government.

Not so, the Irish American vote is big enough that more than a blind eye was turned. Though the US government itself did not 'back' the IRA, not that I claimed that anyway. However:

- US cities boycotted the Army marching bands on tour and in some cases prohibited state owned venues from being used under pressure from Irish lobbyists who claimed they were 'war criminals'.
- Escaped terrorists were refused extradition on the grounds that they could not get a fair hearing.
- Adams and McGuiness were welcomed in the White House anually on St Patricks day, until pressure was brought to bear on the IRA to support the Good Friday agreement. This came as a big shock to Adams when he was refused his usual White House pass.

It took a couple of aircraft flown into the WTC to bring home to the average American that terrorism is not heroic. The IRA nwever recovered from that awakening. The peace agreement was only loosely followed up until that time, since then things have been a lot lot quieter.

Actually I think the arrest of 2 IRA men in South America who had been hired to teach marxist guerillas and Adams' visit to Cuba did more damage to their image than anything. As soon as people are linking drugs, terrorism and socialism to the same organisation you're fethed PR wise.

It took a couple of aircraft flown into the WTC to bring home to the average American that terrorism is not heroic.

hmm yes and no I'd suggest. I don't think "terrorists" have ever had a good image anywhere in the western world. The "heroic freedom fighters" that we have and continue to support are, of course, a different thing altogether.

With regards to the USA Govt. and the IRA : considering that one of the major backers of the IRA was Libya under you-know-who and they almost succeeded in killing Margaret Thatcher who was one of the best friends of Ronald Reagan, I would say it the treatment of them at the very least varied from administration to administration. Which is only fair and sensible.

reds8n, you are correct in that the IRA were caught out. It put DAAD under a new perspective. The loyalist and republican terror groups are now entrenched mafia style crime syndicates, by and large this can even be positive if handled correctly. London triads are a good example of this.

Gaddaffi did fund the IRA, but Noraid was by far the largest contributor. Gaddaffi was more of a concern because he opened up training camps and offered arms. The US didnt like that in particular, because no matter what you might think about the IRA, credit where credit is due - they were very good at what they did. Hence the Soth America training contracts.

While the Libyans might have trained the IRA in use of weapons, getting range time must have been difficult for them. What was learned in return would be the real worry, namely the IRA's expertise on operations, somethijng most Islamic terror groups had been rather poor at. I very much doubt the US or Israel in particular would be happy with Islamic militants learning from the IRA.

This is the reason I think Reagan hit those camps very quickly, with open backing from Thatcher, but that is just a guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Sure there is. I could care less about their law. He should be gone with a 150 grain cranial enema from 600 yards.

So Iraqi insurgents who shoot our soldiers, and yours, are justified then Fraz? If the bullet is the law you will have to accept that bullets rarely have names on them, and too many people have access to them.

Orly I am not getting the example, at all. This guy is a terrorist that helped kill several hundred innocent people via a terrorist act. He should be respiratorily challenged. A .308 is a good method but any old way will do.

He's in Libya now. He should be dealt with. Oh wait, per the Democratic party, that would be wrong.

I will rephrase, Frazz sometimes I do have problems with your overly hawkish may I say it 'shoot em all' attitude. It rarely has the results you desire. It might well be refreshing to kill a scumbag who deserves it, but you get a better result imprisoning them. If you create martyrs ten more take their place, if you create sentenced criminals you bring shame on them. Ultimately those criminals can be freed showing your clemency, greater fairness or gaining whatever is gained from the trade, whether it be resources or peace.

Sometimes you need to bite your lip and take a hit rather than lash out. This was the principle difference between the Malaysia and Borneo incursions and Vietnam. The US killed far more terrorists and more 'importantly' got a better ratio. Wheras we lost far more soldiers per terrorist killed in Malaysia, Borneo and Northern ireland for that matter, but could find and end. Wheras the slaughter methodology resulted in an endless cycle that could only end in either annihilation or retreat.

Afghanistan and Israel are now at that juncture, and quietly heading down the anihilation route backing off when they see what they would have to actually do and dithers before pressing on with it again. It's a path of perpetual slaughter and it can only end in ruin. The US is yet to learn this lesson, even with the memory of Vietnam still in place.

Which in turn led to more arms and money and so on.



oddly enough the PLO did offer training and guns to the IRA.. I wonder how that would have gone down with people.

I guess there was plenty of open farmland in Southern Ireland for them to use. I believe when they got their hands on proper full on sniper rifles years later they went to America and paid for training at one of the seeming myriad of places one can do so in the USA. I'm sure that's of great comfort to the families of those murdered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA_arms_importation

It is rumoured that a lot of those snipers were Americans.

Any proof whatsoever to that statement? Not conspiracy nonsense but real, able to use in a courtroom, proof?

Really ? Didn't know that.

Still can't blame an entire people/country/religion for the actions of one or two spankers I guess.

....

..... right ?

It is rumoured that a lot of those snipers were Americans.

Thats allways good news then, 1/20 chance of being hit

JD21290 wrote:

It is rumoured that a lot of those snipers were Americans.

Thats allways good news then, 1/20 chance of being hit

Well they obviously weren't Southern boys then. Drunken Bostonians do not count as American snipers.
And for the record, the haggis boycott is still on.

Ill join this haggis boycott aswell
Last time i actually saw an american sniper he was half drunk on camp

I wasn't making any further political comments behind my statement.
Normally If I make a statement to make a further point I expound on it with a longer post. Now I have to:

Frazzled wrote:Any proof whatsoever to that statement? Not conspiracy nonsense but real, able to use in a courtroom, proof?

I dont have much more to add Frazz, it never came to any court. The snipers would be devil hard to catch anyway. According to press sources the snipers would only ever shoot one round. While thisd was mosrtly because you can never lock on to an enemy if one round is fired its also a game. The quote I remember (I cant find the press link) was along the lines if 'if the bullet missed the soldier was given the benefit of the doubt'. I can see snipers being hard to deal with if they operate this way. Like I said it was a rumour I heard, and so I reported it as a rumour. I wouldnt have done even that but I have heard such from many seperate sources, who do not go into detail anyway. including the odd memory of assessment in the press. There are many secrets hidden away about the Troubles, a lot comes out only as rumour.

I do beleive this one though, it is well known that the IRA got training time, money and arms from the Irish American community, many of which ardently beleived in their cause and likely still do. So when I hear that some volunteered I can well beleive it. It makes sense too, the IRA normally recruited from outside Northern Ireland for many operations as most volunteers could be used safely once and once only. A tourist entering Northern Ireland can arrive without atracting too much attention, do a job and leave. Many Irish Americans like to take a look at their ancestral home anyway, and why not, so its perfect cover. After that the risk of the security services identifing them grew putting further operations in jeapardy. The IRA had 'regular' members and 'volunteer' (part time) members, but this is about as much as I know being just a civilian.

reds8n wrote:Really ? Didn't know that.
Still can't blame an entire people/country/religion for the actions of one or two spankers I guess...... right ?

Of course I am not blaming the US for that. Besides they also know better not to blame us for the Islamic extemists who happen to have UK passports.

JD21290 wrote:
Thats allways good news then, 1/20 chance of being hit

They knew how to shoot better than that. Also the US snipers in Iraq are feared greatly for their skill.

Relapse wrote:
Back when I was in the Marine Reserves, they were getting us primed to pay a visit because of what happened in the Rome airport. Reaganbombed the place in the end, instead.

They made the right choice. Any invasion of Libya would play out in much the same was as Iraq, only much worse.

Frazzled wrote:
Orly I am not getting the example, at all. This guy is a terrorist that helped kill several hundred innocent people via a terrorist act. He should be respiratorily challenged. A .308 is a good method but any old way will do.

Would you want him dead if he had been a US citizen and the aircraft had been Iranian?

Frazzled wrote:
He's in Libya now. He should be dealt with. Oh wait, per the Democratic party, that would be wrong.

Are you implying that we should take military action in response to the internal decisions of an Ally? Because that doesn't jive, at all, with your usual point of 'stop policing the world'.

JD21290 wrote:Ill join this haggis boycott aswell
Last time i actually saw an american sniper he was half drunk on camp

We're Americans. We're optimists.
he wasn't half drunk. He was half sober.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:I wasn't making any further comments behind that.

Normally If I make a statement to make a further point I expound on it with a longer post.

I dont have much more to add Frazz. Like I said it was a rumour I heard, and so I reported it as a rumour. I wouldnt have done even that but I have heard such from many seperate sources, who do not go into detail anyway. including the odd memory of assessment in the press. There are many secrets hidden away about the Troubles, a lot comes out only as rumour.

I do beleive this one though, it is well known that the IRA got training time, money and arms from the Irish American community, many of which ardently beleived in their cause and likely still do. So when I hear that some volunteered I can well beleive it. It makes sense too, the IRA normally recruited from outside Northern Ireland for many operations as most volunteers could be used safely once and once only. A tourist entering Northern Ireland can arrive without atracting too much attention, do a job and leave. Many Irish Americans like to take a look at their ancestral home anyway, and why not, so its perfect cover. After that the risk of the security services identifing them grew putting further operations in jeapardy. The IRA had 'regular' members and 'volunteer' (part time) members, but this is about as much as I know being just a civilian.

ok cool.
Maybe its different in yankee land. But down here, Ireland et al is about #297 in the list of concerns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Orly I am not getting the example, at all. This guy is a terrorist that helped kill several hundred innocent people via a terrorist act. He should be respiratorily challenged. A .308 is a good method but any old way will do.

Would you want him dead if he had been a US citizen and the aircraft had been Iranian?

****Yep. Iranian civilians not in a time of war-you betcha. next question.

Frazzled wrote:
He's in Libya now. He should be dealt with. Oh wait, per the Democratic party, that would be wrong.

Are you implying that we should take military action in response to the internal decisions of an Ally? Because that doesn't jive, at all, with your usual point of 'stop policing the world'.

****Nope. I am implying that he is a known terrorist now free. We know where he is. If the room he is in gets accidentally blown up by a missile veering way off course we'd have to write a report recommending double checking coordinates on all future missile flights for the next 37 minutes. Horrible.