PDA

View Full Version : Another LIE!!



road kill
07-25-2010, 04:31 PM
Is anyone keeping count??

What Obama said;
"The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release."




What Obama did;
THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/white-house-backed-release-of-lockerbie-bomber-abdel-baset-al-megrahi/story-e6frg6so-1225896741041


Oh, wait, maybe he didn't know about it.........:rolleyes:




rk

subroc
07-25-2010, 04:39 PM
In case our memories are short or the left wing radical extremists that populate this web site choose as a reflex action the defense of the administration, a refresher may be warranted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

YardleyLabs
07-25-2010, 04:57 PM
Let us assume, for the moment, the the reported letter is real (given the track record for such news flashes, I would not be at all surprised to find this is one more case of make believe.).

The administration actively lobbied the Scottish and English governments to prevent any release at all -- meaning the headline itself is wrong. If, as the story suggests, the Scottish government decided that it had no legal option but to release the bomber on compassionate grounds becaus of his imminent demise (an argument the Scots made at the time), the US said, according to the referenced report, that he should be kept in Scotland and not permitted to return to Libya.

The Scottish government, despite these pleas, stated that it was forced to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, over the objections of the Obama administration, and also turned him over to Libya, over Obama administration objections. This allowed him to return home to a hero's welcome which continues to comfort him long after he was expected to be dead. Had he been kept in Scotland, his release might have been reversed and he certainly would not have enjoyed a hero's sojourn.

Suggesting that the administration somehow condoned what was done is not supported by the story at all. In fact, the release was a major factor leading to a breakdown of relations between Obama and Brown, a break down for which most of the "righties" on this forum attacked the administration repeatedly. Sounds like one more piece of manufactured controversy being thrown out in an effort to overload media BS detectors.

gman0046
07-25-2010, 04:58 PM
Another example of one Muslim helping another despite the loss of 270 lives. When will Americans say enough of this Obongo regime is enough?

subroc
07-25-2010, 05:09 PM
Jeff, reflex defense. I expected no less.

You did read the article. There was an option for transfer to a Libyan prison that the administration could have backed.

You question the veracity of the story, which is a safe and worthy course of action. I find no fault in it. It will only take a day or so to see how the administration responds which should give us a truth, maybe not the truth but a truth. If the situation is as reported do you support the administration? Feel free to review the wiki post. There is a chart about of the way down that illustrates home nation. The United States lost 190 of your and my fellow citizens.

YardleyLabs
07-25-2010, 05:31 PM
Another example of one Muslim helping another despite the loss of 270 lives. When will Americans say enough of this Obongo regime is enough?
Excuse me. The administration objected strenuously to the release. It did so very publicly and made it clear this would damage the relations between Scotland, England and the US. Are you suggesting they should have somehow invaded Scotland and kidnapped the bomber. You can reasd the full statement issued by the Scottish Justice minister at the time he approved Megrahi's release. It makes it clear that the decision to release was opposed by the US. It adds that the transfer of Megrahi to Libya was approved by the Brown government in England over the objections of the Scottish. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/macaskills-full-statement-on-lockerbie-bomber-1774849.html ). Even if true, nothing in the linked story concerning US communications with Scotland contradicts what was said at the time. I am hard pressed to see a lie.

Natasha.Hall
07-26-2010, 12:58 AM
Another example of one Muslim helping another despite the loss of 270 lives. When will Americans say enough of this Obongo regime is enough?

It surprises me to read your utter lack of patriotism. Let's imagine, just for ONE MINUTE, that the founders of our country fought and died for our freedoms. This includes the freedom of religion. Apparently you are so ignorant as to believe Obama is a muslim, but regardless, as a "patriotic" American you wouldn't care even if he was a muslim. Whether it's freedom of speech or freedom of religion or any of the other freedoms we enjoy in this country, if you want to enjoy your freedoms you have to sit back and allow someone who believes the opposite of you to believe what they will. As much as your bigoted post upsets me, I must allow you to say what you say. I must stand up for your right to say it or I jeopardize my own freedom of speech. That said, using religion as a talking point is pretty unpatriotic and only makes you look ignorant. There are more than a billion muslims in the world, you're stereotyping 1 billion people on the actions on a handful and making it derogatory. That's pretty much what the Germans did to the Jews just FYI.

road kill
07-26-2010, 06:59 AM
It surprises me to read your utter lack of patriotism. Let's imagine, just for ONE MINUTE, that the founders of our country fought and died for our freedoms. This includes the freedom of religion. Apparently you are so ignorant as to believe Obama is a muslim, but regardless, as a "patriotic" American you wouldn't care even if he was a muslim. Whether it's freedom of speech or freedom of religion or any of the other freedoms we enjoy in this country, if you want to enjoy your freedoms you have to sit back and allow someone who believes the opposite of you to believe what they will. As much as your bigoted post upsets me, I must allow you to say what you say. I must stand up for your right to say it or I jeopardize my own freedom of speech. That said, using religion as a talking point is pretty unpatriotic and only makes you look ignorant. There are more than a billion muslims in the world, you're stereotyping 1 billion people on the actions on a handful and making it derogatory. That's pretty much what the Germans did to the Jews just FYI.

Pretty much what secular progressives do to Christians in America.




rk

YardleyLabs
07-26-2010, 07:45 AM
Pretty much what secular progressives do to Christians in America.




rk
Really? Most "secular progressives" I know don't spend much time thinking about religion at all until religious true believers try to impose their beliefs on others. The exception would be "professional" atheists such as Bill Maher.

road kill
07-26-2010, 07:47 AM
Really? Most "secular progressives" I know don't spend much time thinking about religion at all until religious true believers try to impose their beliefs on others. The exception would be "professional" atheists such as Bill Maher.

Shall I begin digging up your posts about Christians.
They are several.

The above post speaks out of both sides of your mouth.



rk:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
07-26-2010, 07:51 AM
Shall I begin digging up your posts about Christians.
They are several.

The above post speaks out of both sides of your mouth.



rk:rolleyes:
Please do. I would love to see the examples. Remember, don't Breitbart the context.....

road kill
07-26-2010, 08:06 AM
Please do. I would love to see the examples. Remember, don't Breitbart the context.....


Let me ask this first.....are you saying you have never made any negative remarks towards Christianity on this forum??


Remember, don't Rather the context!!:D

And while we are at it, let's denigrate the entire Tea Party movement because of 1 guy!!!
You wouldn't do that would you?





rk

YardleyLabs
07-26-2010, 08:51 AM
Let me ask this first.....are you saying you have never made any negative remarks towards Christianity on this forum??


Remember, don't Rather the context!!:D

And while we are at it, let's denigrate the entire Tea Party movement because of 1 guy!!!
You wouldn't do that would you?





rk
I believe the relevant comments were:

Natasha: you're stereotyping 1 billion people on the actions on a handful and making it derogatory

You: Pretty much what secular progressives do to Christians in America.

Me: Really? Most "secular progressives" I know don't spend much time thinking about religion at all until religious true believers try to impose their beliefs on others. The exception would be "professional" atheists such as Bill Maher.

You: Shall I begin digging up your posts about Christians.
They are several.

The proof of your contention would be posts of mine that stereotype Christians in a derogatory manner based on the acts of a few.

BTW, I try pretty hard not to do that since it is one of the tactics I dislike most about political extremists of the right and left. If I have done this repeatedly, as you claim, I would like to see the evidence.

BrianW
07-26-2010, 09:41 AM
Jeff, stepping up to assume the mantle for all "secular progressives" is a noble gesture but this 'prove you wrong" sidetracks the thread,

In the Australian report it says the Obama Admin protest is described as 'half hearted" and 'accepting instead of .
Was this "just words, instead of actions" in view of millions of pounds worth of oil at stake? That couldn't happen in Chicago style politics could it? Also says the Admin refuses to release the letter, if they're so proud of their hard work why not? :confused: Because it hamper their ability to "negotiate"? ?? Negotiate what, how much they'd get from BP?
Oh well, just more Obama "transparency in governmment!" :rolleyes:

Also did this past BP deal have 'any" effect on the Gulf response or lack thereof initially by the Admin? It'd be interesting to look at the money trail. The moratorium is already causing drilling to leave the country, now we're also forcing money towards another of our adversaries? I'm sure that all the profits for Libya will go to peaceful causes in the Mid East. :rolleyes:

cotts135
07-26-2010, 09:59 AM
In case our memories are short or the left wing radical extremists that populate this web site choose as a reflex action the defense of the administration, a refresher may be warranted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

If true then the Obama administration must be held accountable for their position. Not to use all the power available to the Government, and particularly the President, in making sure a terrorist that killed US citizens remains in jail for the rest of his life is, surreal. I see no defense for this position.

YardleyLabs
07-26-2010, 11:47 AM
Jeff, stepping up to assume the mantle for all "secular progressives" is a noble gesture but this 'prove you wrong" sidetracks the thread,

In the Australian report it says the Obama Admin protest is described as 'half hearted" and 'accepting instead of .
Was this "just words, instead of actions" in view of millions of pounds worth of oil at stake? That couldn't happen in Chicago style politics could it? Also says the Admin refuses to release the letter, if they're so proud of their hard work why not? :confused: Because it hamper their ability to "negotiate"? ?? Negotiate what, how much they'd get from BP?
Oh well, just more Obama "transparency in governmment!" :rolleyes:

Also did this past BP deal have 'any" effect on the Gulf response or lack thereof initially by the Admin? It'd be interesting to look at the money trail. The moratorium is already causing drilling to leave the country, now we're also forcing money towards another of our adversaries? I'm sure that all the profits for Libya will go to peaceful causes in the Mid East. :rolleyes:
Actually, I didn't assume that Stan was necessarily describing me when he referred to secular progressives until he indicated he was by stating "Shall I begin digging up your posts about Christians. They are several." I'm still waiting to see at least three (several) that he had in mind.

With respect to the report in Murdoch's publication, The Australian, citing Murdoch's publication, The Sunday Times, as its source, it would be nice to see their actual source documentation. The statements at the time from the Scottish government made it clear that they viewed it as their legal obligation to release Megrahi. The Obama administration's statements at the time made it clear that they opposed this release. That opposition was very public, very vociferous, and ackonwledged by the Scottish government even as they announced their decision to proceed anyway. The allegation from Murdoch's papers, is that in a letter the Obama administration stated that if the Scottish government decided that it needed to release Megrahi despite US objections, that it require him to stay in Scotland and not permit him to return to Libya. The issue there was whether he would be released simply based on Scotland's requirements for compassionate release, or whether he would be released under the terms of the prisoner transfer agreement that Brown's government in England had negotiated shortly before with Libya.

In fact, the decision of the Scottish government involved granting a compassionate release and denying the request that Megrahi be transferred to Libya (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/macaskills-full-statement-on-lockerbie-bomber-1774849.html). Notwithstanding the denial of a transfer under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, the Scottish government allowed Megrahi to return to Libya without limitation because of "security" considerations if he were kept in Scotland. That was an outrageous decision that was inconsistent with the law, violated all requests from the US (including the "secret" letter referenced by Murdoch's papers), and the wishes of the victims of the bombing. The decision was also opposed by the current British PM Cameron, but supported by then PM Brown.

The statement in the story that, "Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted." is not even supported by the rest of the story in The Australian.
In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.

The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."

Mr LeBaron added that freeing the bomber and making him live in Scotland "would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi's release".

The US administration lobbied the Scottish government more strongly against sending Megrahi home, under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by the British and Libyan governments, in a deal now known to have been linked to a pound stg. 550 million oil contract for BP.

It claimed this would flout a decade-old agreement between Britain and the US that anyone convicted of the bombing would serve their sentence in a Scottish prison. Megrahi was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on the grounds that he had three months to live, making his sentence effectively spent.
By the way, Murdoch's papers supported both the Blair/Brown governments in England and the Scottish National Party in Scotland, which were the governments that made the decisions to release Megrahi.

Gerry Clinchy
07-26-2010, 12:01 PM
One thing is for sure, the Scots got conned.

Either their health care sucks (the docs who said this guy was at death's door), or they are really soft-minded to let the guy to back home.

mjh345
07-26-2010, 07:06 PM
It surprises me to read your utter lack of patriotism. Let's imagine, just for ONE MINUTE, that the founders of our country fought and died for our freedoms. This includes the freedom of religion. Apparently you are so ignorant as to believe Obama is a muslim, but regardless, as a "patriotic" American you wouldn't care even if he was a muslim. Whether it's freedom of speech or freedom of religion or any of the other freedoms we enjoy in this country, if you want to enjoy your freedoms you have to sit back and allow someone who believes the opposite of you to believe what they will. As much as your bigoted post upsets me, I must allow you to say what you say. I must stand up for your right to say it or I jeopardize my own freedom of speech. That said, using religion as a talking point is pretty unpatriotic and only makes you look ignorant. There are more than a billion muslims in the world, you're stereotyping 1 billion people on the actions on a handful and making it derogatory. That's pretty much what the Germans did to the Jews just FYI.

Welcome Natasha, please don't let gman get under your skin.
He is kind of the resident idiot around here.
I'm not much for mods banning people, but I wish he would go away

gman0046
07-26-2010, 09:42 PM
Yeah mjh your a real man demeaning those who participate in the Special Olympics. Thats the same thing Obongo did on the Jay Leno show. I hope no one in your family has special needs.

meckardt
07-27-2010, 11:36 AM
Some of you might find this interesting. Specially those of you that believe MUSLIMS and ISLAM are harmless. For you to decide, just made up or might this actually be happening here soon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQdZgojOFI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgOCpygmf-A