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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-gaddafi-britain-lockerbie-bomber

In January 2009, six months before Megrahi's release, the US ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, confirmed that "dire" reprisals had been threatened against the UK, and the British were braced to take "dramatic" steps for self-protection.

The Libyans "convinced UK embassy officers that the consequences if Megrahi were to die in prison … would be harsh, immediate and not easily remedied … specific threats have included the immediate cessation of all UK commercial activity in Libya, a diminishment or severing of political ties, and demonstrations against official UK facilities.

"[Libyan] officials also implied, but did not directly state, that the welfare of UK diplomats and citizens in Libya would be at risk."

First up, this is exactly the kind of thing that should be leaked. Assange is a wangrod with no sensible judgement at all, but when I talk about some leaks being good this is what I'm talking about.

Second up, at least this'll put to rest the idea that these leaks are about embaressing the US. I haven't seen anything as embaressing to the US as this.

Third up, how insipid is the UK government for giving in to this kind of thing? When a nation threatens the lives of your citizens unless you give them their terrorist back, that's probably the best reason I could even think of for not giving someone their terrorist back.

Dear Libya, I have read your note, attached as it was to a brick through my window. So I am writing this back to you via the trails of our warplanes over your airspace.

We have now parked half the British Navy off your shoreline, if so much as a hair on a British citizen's head is put out of place in your cheapass desert nation, we will bomb you back into the stone age.

If there is a terrorist repercussion to that, we will rend your culture extinct.

Bemused.

Chancellor Stompa.

Good to see that they are willing to leak things other than American docs.


And yeah, thats pretty craven behavior from the UK government.

Hmm hardy supprising tbh.

Hmm, commercial interests.

Perfidious Albion.

agroszkiewicz wrote:Good to see that they are willing to leak things other than American docs.


And yeah, thats pretty craven behavior from the UK government.

Not atypical of foreign relations for Gordon Brown. The man was a jellyfish.

sebster wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-gaddafi-britain-lockerbie-bomber

In January 2009, six months before Megrahi's release, the US ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, confirmed that "dire" reprisals had been threatened against the UK, and the British were braced to take "dramatic" steps for self-protection.

The Libyans "convinced UK embassy officers that the consequences if Megrahi were to die in prison … would be harsh, immediate and not easily remedied … specific threats have included the immediate cessation of all UK commercial activity in Libya, a diminishment or severing of political ties, and demonstrations against official UK facilities.

"[Libyan] officials also implied, but did not directly state, that the welfare of UK diplomats and citizens in Libya would be at risk."

First up, this is exactly the kind of thing that should be leaked. Assange is a wangrod with no sensible judgement at all, but when I talk about some leaks being good this is what I'm talking about.

Second up, at least this'll put to rest the idea that these leaks are about embaressing the US. I haven't seen anything as embaressing to the US as this.

Third up, how insipid is the UK government for giving in to this kind of thing? When a nation threatens the lives of your citizens unless you give them their terrorist back, that's probably the best reason I could even think of for not giving someone their terrorist back.

That is pretty goddamn sad of the UK. Unless libya is more of an economic power than i realised.

Not since the British navy surrendered to an Iranian raft have the British shown such fortitude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ironic, isn't it that the u.k. was more fearful of what Libya would do than what the U.S. response would be to releasing a terrorist.

When oil drives your economy, what do you expect when said oil producing nations start to hold you to ransom? I'm sure much worse than this goes on behind closed doors that doesn't get leaked.

olympia wrote:Ironic, isn't it that the u.k. was more fearful of what Libya would do than what the U.S. response would be to releasing a terrorist.

What is this I don't even...how was the US involved here?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

olympia wrote:Ironic, isn't it that the u.k. was more fearful of what Libya would do than what the U.S. response would be to releasing a terrorist.

What is this I don't even...how was the US involved here?

Because a lot of the people that were killed on the Pan Am flight that Megrahi bombed were US citizens, so the US, quite rightly IMO, thought that releasing a convicted terrorist and mass murderer on the whim of an unhinged autocrat wouldn't be a good thing.

Its kinda weird that the US didnt do anything about

Over 250 Marines were killed in a truck bombing in Beirut in October, 1983 when the truck drove into the Marines barracks at Beirut Airport and blew up tons of explosives.

filbert wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

olympia wrote:Ironic, isn't it that the u.k. was more fearful of what Libya would do than what the U.S. response would be to releasing a terrorist.

What is this I don't even...how was the US involved here?

Because a lot of the people that were killed on the Pan Am flight that Megrahi bombed were US citizens, so the US, quite rightly IMO, thought that releasing a convicted terrorist and mass murderer on the whim of an unhinged autocrat wouldn't be a good thing.

Fair enough.

In January 2009, six months before Megrahi's release, the US ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, confirmed that "dire" reprisals had been threatened against the UK, and the British were braced to take "dramatic" steps for self-protection.

The Libyans "convinced UK embassy officers that the consequences if Megrahi were to die in prison … would be harsh, immediate and not easily remedied … specific threats have included the immediate cessation of all UK commercial activity in Libya, a diminishment or severing of political ties, and demonstrations against official UK facilities.

"[Libyan] officials also implied, but did not directly state, that the welfare of UK diplomats and citizens in Libya would be at risk."

The bold is the part that the UK government cared about.

While the UK doesn't import that much oil from Libya yet, its share has been expanding as Italian demand has begun to fall off do to their debt crisis.

What so now you blindly accept this is the the reason he was released now on the basis of that?

The Scottish government have already made a statement that this had no impact on the final decision. We know nothing. This leak is as dumb as the rest.

Whilst I am not going to defend the UK blindly and will happily say they have got things wrong at times, the Scottish Government released him at the behest of the British Government. It has nothing to do with the British decision which was clearly the other way.

When a nation threatens your people you would have to consider the threat as a whole and the UK would say "Come on then, bring it on big boy! Think you're hard enough!"

I did notice that someone has already mentioned oil as a factor. Come on!! Really?

whatwhat wrote:What so now you blindly accept this is the the reason he was released now on the basis of that?

No, where did I even insinuate that? I've long held that the release was tightly bound up with negotiations for drilling rights in Libya. I'm not the only one either.

whatwhat wrote:
The Scottish government have already made a statement that this had no impact on the final decision. We know nothing. This leak is as dumb as the rest.

Who said anything about this being confirming? I see a lot of talk about "new information", but nothing about confirmation.

Maybe you should read more closely.

I wasn't talking to you dummy.

And my question was not rhetorical btw. Don't be such a drama queen.

Elmodiddly wrote:I did notice that someone has already mentioned oil as a factor. Come on!! Really?

Many serious accusations have been made that Magrahis release was to do with Oil. No face palm necessary.

Elmodiddly wrote:
I did notice that someone has already mentioned oil as a factor. Come on!! Really?

Yes. BP signed a multi-million dollar oil exploration agreement with Libya. Gaddafi used this to put pressure on the UK and in turn Scottish governments to release Megrahi. Look at this on the flipside; are you really that naive that you believe the UK government give a toss about the human and compassionate rights of a cancer riddled terrorist? Or is it more likely that some very big industry players were calling in some favours here?

Hardly suprising. The British government have been without a spine for years.

Dont negotiate with terrorists? When a bunch of smelly Afghans hijacked an airplane in 2006 ALL they would do is negotiate.

Our country is weak and spineless. I may prefer our more pragmatic conciliatory approach to foreign policy most of the time, but the Yanks definately have it right on this issue.

In fact, a nice happy medium between the US/UK would be just about right in my eyes. Sure Bush was a tad aggressive, but we are just a bunch of slack jawed pansies.

We should be happier to invade people. I would rather lose a war and go home with my tail between my legs than look like a total nancy boy.

I'm not interested in whether the UK has balls.

What I want is pragmatic, effective decisions that will support and enhance our international interests.

From that viewpoint, the risk of ballsing up deals with Libya has to be balanced against the risk of harming our relationship with the USA, and creating a sense of weakness that might lead other Arab nations to try their luck.

At this stage it is too early to tell which side of the scales is heavier.

whatwhat wrote:
And my question was not rhetorical btw. Don't be such a drama queen.

Do you mean "was rhetorical"? Because I responded to your question as though it wasn't.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
And my question was not rhetorical btw. Don't be such a drama queen.

Do you mean "was rhetorical"? Because I responded to your question as though it wasn't.

You responded to the question as If I had just accused you of something.

Well, yeah, I thought you were addressing me, and this...

What so now you blindly accept this is the the reason he was released now on the basis of that?

...reads as an accusation of blind acceptance.

Yeah that's right, drop the handbag I wasn't even talking to you.

I'm simply confused. You seem to have knowingly made an accusation, which I responded to as an accusation because you posted immediately after me without any quotations or address, and yet you seem to be operating under the belief that I thought it was rhetorical.

If I though it was rhetorical, I wouldn't have asked for clarification.

I'm simply confused as to what part of 'I wasn't talking to you' is getting you so pent up.

I don't understand why Libya has been able to act this way for decades without prompting an enforced regime change.

Kilkrazy wrote:Hmm, commercial interests.

Perfidious Albion.

This.

Big bag of 'bothered'. He'll be dead soon, anyway - might as well cash in.

Orlanth wrote:Not atypical of foreign relations for Gordon Brown. The man was a jellyfish.

This too. You might want to add 'cynical sneaky bastard', too. Although that almost makes me admire the guy, and we can't have that.

sebster wrote:
Third up, how insipid is the UK government for giving in to this kind of thing? When a nation threatens the lives of your citizens unless you give them their terrorist back, that's probably the best reason I could even think of for not giving someone their terrorist back.

It's more the money than the physical threat, sebster. Libya is no real credible threat to the UK.

mattyrm wrote:Hardly suprising. The British government have been without a spine for years.

I see. That'll be why you invaded two countries last decade, then...

ChaosGalvatron wrote:That is pretty goddamn sad of the UK. Unless libya is more of an economic power than i realised.

And Australia would have done what, exactly?



So, what did we learn?

Well, as a country you can't go around thumbing your noses at everyone. Sometimes you have to deal. One cancer-ridden (possible) terrorist, in exchange for billions of pounds in new business?

Pft! It wouldn't even be a decision for me.

Peter Wiggin wrote:Good to see that they are willing to leak things other than American docs.

This information comes from one of the leaked US diplomatic cables, it's just embarressing to a government other than yours. There's no particular anti-US element to wikileaks, they seem driven to humiliate any government they can. It's just that tthe cables they got their hands on are US cables, and even then some of biggest issues have been non-US ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not interested in whether the UK has balls.

What I want is pragmatic, effective decisions that will support and enhance our international interests.

From that viewpoint, the risk of ballsing up deals with Libya has to be balanced against the risk of harming our relationship with the USA, and creating a sense of weakness that might lead other Arab nations to try their luck.

At this stage it is too early to tell which side of the scales is heavier.

How much money is it worth to release a guy convicted of blowing up an airplane?

And how much business do you want to do with a country that will make such threats in order to bring him home?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:It's more the money than the physical threat, sebster. Libya is no real credible threat to the UK.

They threatened the welfare of UK citizens living in Libya.

ChaosGalvatron wrote:And Australia would have done what, exactly?

Likely we would have been more pathetic, God knows we've done worse in the past. But that doesn't make it acceptable for your government.