Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Its sickened me all this - the bomber being released is OK in my opinion (I do question the actual reason though..) but for him to be welcomed like a hero is truly sickening.
I personally will celebrate when he dies then.
[url= http://www.orange.co.uk/news/topstories/26447.htm?linkfrom=hp4&link=ticker_pos_1_link_1&article=index ]Lockerbie bomber nearly dead hoooraahhh[/url]
I don't get life not meaning life. It's like a singlespeed with 9 gears at the back.
Be prepared for whingers complaining your being so stuck in the old days, out of touch with multicultural Britain, blah blah blah... I'll raise a large glass to heavens when he bites the dust (and a few others too, but that's a different topic completely).
I don't understand this- why all the joy when there's a high likelihood that he didn't do it anyway?
he wasn't responsible for the celebrations and its highly likely he wasn't responsible for the bombing either
The joy is because people dont have a clue about this case and they are just forming their opinion through soundbites they have read in the media.
If Jim Swire believes that the guy is innocent that's good enough for me.
Nice warm, fuzzy sunday morning vibe to this thread, well done 🙄
SPOILER!!!!!!!!
Whoopee!!!
I love to celebrate someone dying. Especially if it's someone really really evil then that's acceptable and doesn't make sick, shallow or emotional undeveloped in any way. Death rocks!!!
but for him to be welcomed like a hero is truly sickening
For us yes, but for most Libyan people he was a hero, taking the rap for Lockerbie and thereby freeing the rest of them from all the sanctions that were imposed.
Wonder if Iran had an axe to grind?
or him to be welcomed like a hero is truly sickening.
How do you know they aren't celebrating the release of a wrongly convicted 'political prisoner' made a scapegoat by an untrusted foreign government.
Would we celebrate if someone who was probably innocent was released after being locked up in Libya for years?
Exactly. If there was a UK citizen being held in a Libyan jail for a crime which the UK media and politicians all said he was innocent of, then do you honestly not think there would a press pack and politicians welcoming him home on release?
Even if I believed him to be guilty, I would not be "celebrating". To celebrate in my mind would be to celebrate the failure of human beings to live in peace together. To celebrate to me is to say it is OK to want people to die, by murder or natural causes - no difference. I'll not be joining in this one if that's ok? To celebrate is to fail to find forgiveness in my my heart.
To me to celebrate is a very odd reaction to this desperately sad chapter, but if that's what you're into then go for it and crack open the champagne.
Well said Simon.
+1 Simon
death should never be celebrated.
and just remember, the bloke did not release himself, guilty or not guilty.
Those medal ribbons stuck onto some cheap cardboard/backing on Gadafi's chest make me giggle. Its Dads army meets low-budget theatre production.
what ton said
Just to put this into perspective... That Shields lad, who's just been pardoned by the Government and released was "convicted" of a crime. This conviction has not been over turned, and in the country where the alleged crime occured he is still concidered a criminal. When he was released there was celebrations, front page exclusives and much merry making. Now, its not my place to decide whether this chap was or was not responsible for the lockerbie bombing, but in his home country they believe he was innocent and wrongly jailed. So they celebrated his release. Its not disgusting, its not celebrating terrorism, its celebrating the freedom of a man they think was wrongly jailed. I'm sure a lot of white south africans weren't best pleased when nelson mandela was free'd, they thought he was a terrorist, and he got freed from jail and celebrated as an international hero.
Whatever he did or didn't do, keeping him in prison wont achieve anything, unless the public need to be protected from the actions of an old man with terminal cancer? and surely celebrating his death shows that just like terrorists, we put no value on life, have no belief in forgiveness and subscribe to that wonderful western passion that is beleiving that we are superior to everyone else.
Death should be celebrated if the crime is henious enough. Saddam's victims werent treated as Kings were they. Went they reported Saddam's head came off I thought 'so what'? Stop handwringing. You commit a crime you should be prepared for the same back/consequences.
meehaja - very nicely put.
The real question is:
If our government really believed the act was sponsored by the Libyan state, WTF didn't we bomb them flat at the time?
really he looks pretty healthy to me
[img] 
[/img]
well in a mickey rourke surgery gone wrong kinda way
[img] 
[/img]
If our government really believed the act was sponsored by the Libyan state, WTF didn't we bomb them flat at the time?
For once on a thread REALLY well put. Why didn't the American's or UK invade Libya...surely the axis of evil.
I think theres more shades of grey to this that meets the eye.
ton - Member
death should never be celebrated.
So, when the first female PM of the UK carps it, I assume that all those agreeing with that statement will shut the **** up.
BTW, I agree fully, Ton. Death should never be celebrated, no matter what the circumstance. Unless it's Simon Cowell, of course. 😉
O/T Belgrano. Sorry, you ****ed with us. You reap the consequences. You kill our side we kills yours. Who cares which way you were sailing, you were at war with the winning side.
Michael Shields, the Liverpool fan who was pardoned this week by Justice Secretary Jack Straw after a high-profile campaign to clear his name, received a rapturous reception at Anfield today.Shields, who is a member number one of the Spirit of Shankly Liverpool FC supporters club, attended the game as a guest of the club.
He enjoyed the match with family and friends from comfortable leather seats in the directors box, alongside such club greats as Ian Rush and Kenny Dalglish.
After the game, he is expected to enjoy a VIP champagne reception as the club’s guest.
Sickening isn't it? Celebrating the return of a convicted murderer. 😕
FWIW I detest Thatcher and everything she stands for - won't be celebrating her funeral though.
FWIW I detest Thatcher and everything she stands for - won't be celebrating her funeral though.
Now that makes perfect sense to me.
I will feel no joy when Bliar kicks the bucket. I will not celebrate it, but equally I detest the man with a passion.
Its sickened me all this - the bomber being released is OK in my opinion (I do question the actual reason though..) but for him to be welcomed like a hero is truly sickening.I personally will celebrate when he dies then.
Lockerbie bomber nearly dead hoooraahhh
What a douchebag
I will never celebrate any death or even Nazis in WW2 etc.
Anger doesn't get you far and it shows that people need to grow/wise up.
Besides unless you're a high ranking person who knows all the secrets then you're just a public pawn who will never know the truth and watch too much media tv etc and never think for themselves.
Grumm - Shields wasn't convicted of murder - the guy is still alive, so even with such a dodgy trial, it would have been a pretty harsh conviction.
You commit a crime you should be prepared for the same back/consequences.
except Saddam would have been more useful alive to grass up all those in the west who supported his crimes...
Yeah sorry attempted murder then. The point still stands though.
Some sad ****s on here aren't there ?
Unbelievable! Whatever happened to MTB!
except Saddam would have been more useful alive to grass up all those in the west who supported his crimes...
Indeed. But someone who would probably have been more useful and believable, is this one on the right :
[img] 
[/img]
Tariq Aziz ...... the fluent English-speaking Iraqi foreign minister could have spilt the beans on western involvement in supporting Saddam and supplying him with weapons of mass destruction. Of course that is exactly the reason why Tariq Aziz's trial was held (unlike Nuremberg) in great secrecy - the press never reported it. And it took about 7 years to decide [i]what to charge him with[/i] - the evidence was overwhelming then ! ! !
.
BTW, here is a rather nice, though somewhat fuzzy photo, of the main architect of the Iraq war Donald Rumsfeld warming shaking Saddam's hand (Tariq Aziz is in the foreground) :
[img] 
[/img]
personally I won't be celebrating, as I have no interest in revenge killings, as in the end they just make things much worse. To quote Ghandi "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind"
Oh and Hora, you are a moron perhaps you should go back to licking windows, and leave the grown ups to talk.
Ghandi also said that the jews in WWII should have committed mass suicide to teach those nasty nazis a lesson.
So the "Ghandi Plan" would seem to be:
Take whatever your enemies throw at you,
Do nothing, and
If things get _really_ bad,
Top yourselves .. that'll show them.
I for one, bow to his obviously superior moral framework.
Window licking? Are you also a homophobe?
so you are a fan of revenge killings, as a way of solving issues? or got your bomb vest yet? as that will learn the West
nb: No Hora, I am idiotphobic
Thats how wars work- the consequences are meant as a deterrent. If the punishment is suspension from the board of Directors-style. How many more wars/acts of aggression would there be?
There, there. You are idiotic.
Hora, you are a Moron. The US have the ultimate deterrent, as do Israel and they are more than happy to dish out consequences as when they see fit, however they are still involved in Wars, so your argument is not only stupid its also uneducated.
You do realize that the life isn't like a computer game? There isn't a set sequences of events and actions that determine how things play out.
Hora you are the embodiment of the statement 'The problem with arguing with idiots is, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'
You lost any moral or superior high-ground when you used the term window-licker at the start of the argument. I recommend you back away from wikipedia (just for a little while).
Truth hurts eh.
? who are you arguing with ?
PMSL! @ Hora!
You lost any moral or superior high-ground when you used the term window-licker at the start of the argument
Classic!
Ghandi also said that the jews in WWII should have committed mass suicide to teach those nasty nazis a lesson.
eat_the_pudding, when did he say that and in what context?
Ghandi also said that the jews in WWII should have committed mass suicide to teach those nasty nazis a lesson.eat_the_pudding, when did he say that and in what context?
I would be interested also however I understand from a reliable secondary source that this was indeed Ghandis's stance.
This is probably refering to it
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OThjMmNkZWYwMjI4OTc2YmVkZTcyZWRjNzMzMDRhOTU=
more complicated than that single statement, he's the quote:
According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr. Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way. When, in 1942, he urged non-violent resistance against a Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might cost several million deaths.
As I understand it, his point was, if you are going to be murdered anyway. Why allow it to happen in dribs and drabs out of sight of the world hidden away, where people (and more specifically world leaders, who knew about the murder of the Jews) can ignore it.
Whereas if thousands of Jews who were going to die anyway committed suicide on mass, it would be impossible to cover up and hide, and the world would have to pay attention and try and see why they did it? thus exposing the horror of the Nazi's, clinical and systematic annihilation of their people.
I do not understand much of what hora has written here, but:
- the bombing of Pan-Am 103 was probably committed by a Palestinian group commissioned by Iran in retaliation for the shooting down of Iran Air 655.
- The blame was eventually pinned on Libya for, among other things, their refusal to support the US during the first gulf war.
- Libya let Al-Megrahi take the fall for it eventually, to ease their reintegration back into normal trade relations with Europe.
Given that Megrahi, although probably an asshat, probably didn't blow up Pan-Am 103, there is no cogent reason for taking much interest in his death.
That said, the fact that he is going to die at home is an improvement over dying in prison, given that he shouldn't have been in the prison in the first place.
.....the tactics of the celebrated Hindu pacifist who successfully led the movement for Indian independence from Britain.
Why does this myth persist that the Indian road to independence was a peaceful and non-violent one ? It wasn't.
It included wars, rebellions, massacres, and mutinies. Britain granted India independence for all manner of reasons, but I'm not sure how much weight Ghandi's argument that the British "weren't being very nice" held sway.
The reasons included, that there was an understanding if India helped the British Empire to defeat the Japanese Empire, independence would follow after the war. India (no thanks to Ghandi) rose up to the challenge and provided the largest volunteer army of World War Two.
Another reason was that the USA (which was vital to Britain's post-war reconstruction/recovery) put enormous pressure on Britain to dismantle her Empire - India paved the way for other Commonwealth countries.
Also there was a left-wing government in power in Westminster, which was highly hostile of imperialist strategies - the moral argument in favour of Empires had been seriously weaken as result of Britain fighting tooth and nail for her own independence.
And of course Britain fully realised that she could no longer afford to provide the huge military required to suppress rebellion, mutiny, and insurrection in her Empire.
Indian independence all down to Ghandi's non-violent campaign ? ..... Nah, it was all down to war, bloodshed, and violence.
Unfortunately.
Indian independence all down to Ghandi's non-violent campaign ? ..... Nah, it was all down to war, bloodshed, and violence.Unfortunately.
No it was down to war, bloodshed, violence, Gandhi and many others, a lot of which was very unfortunate.
Regarding the comment about "Jews in WWII should have committed mass suicide to teach those nasty nazis a lesson" or the suggestive quotes in the link above, I suspect are not expressing the correct meaning in what was said or are not taking into account what was said and when.
Gandhi was amongst many things a lawyer and a political speaker. He was very aware that he could hint and suggest in one area in order to get a reaction in another. He was a pacifist and believed very strongly in protecting life but this does include ones own life too.
Without more info on the "quote" it is hard to see what was said.
has the thread drifted a bit or is it just me?
@roper
Google is your friend, as you already "suspect [that I am] not expressing the correct meaning" I won't elaborate.
To the extension of the quote that their suicide would have meant they "died significantly"....
Well, I'd love to know .. significantly to whom?
In a world of (Ghandi inspired) pacifists, facing the nazis, who would have thought the deaths, by any means, of every jew in europe 'significant' when the history of german victory weas written,?
Ghandi did some good things but he was still a nob.
Ghandi did some good things but he was still a nob.
Brilliant quote 😀
Fantastic exchange of opinions from the usual suspects. 😆
Oh and Hora, you are a moron perhaps you should go back to licking windows, and leave the grown ups to talk.
Window licking? Are you also a homophobe?
You lost any moral or superior high-ground when you used the term window-licker at the start of the argument
I think theres more shades of grey to this that meets the eye.
I do not understand much of what hora has written here
has the thread drifted a bit or is it just me?
lol @ eat_the_pudding
I had a quick look in google but all I could find was a few examples of people saying he said that. No details, a bit like your post. To be honest though I didn't look for very long. I asked you as you paraphrased it and I presumed you knew what you were saying. Sorry if that was too hopeful.
@roper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghandi
Got lots there on his opinions and statements.
I recall I came across the quote first in Sam Harris "the end of faith".
(maybe)
Sam Harris was also my source.
I see wiki was probably oversourced by alot of the usual suspects above as well 🙄
err is he dead yet?
i dont really care that he has been released to die...with this sort of terrorism...prevention is always more important...the people that do these things dont care about what happens to them...all they care about is killing and destruction...the fact that most terrorists that try to attack the uk and usa atm are getting cought isnt stopping them, it never will...just got to hope that we keep catching them.
The definition of Terrorist. I dont think it applies to this lad. If he is the guilty one, he acted on behalf of a state. Not an ideal, for freedom etc.