Libyan release was trade deal

procure11

A report by sky news quotes the son of the Libyan leader Ghadafi ...he says the the release of Megrahi was done by Tony Blair in exchange for juicy oil contracts.


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Lockerbie-Bomber-Release-Linked-To-Trade-Deal-With-Britain-Says-Colonel-Gaddafis-Son/Article/200908315366896?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_0&lid=ARTICLE_15366896_Lockerbie_Bomber_Release_Linked_To_Trade_Deal_With_Britain%2C_Says_Colonel_Gaddafis_Son


That would be fair trade in my opinion ...considering the dude reportedly has a few more weeks to live.

Adamcp898

Sky News, that explains it

dlofnep

Ah, the Blood for Oil program.

brummytom

Even I knew that.


We want oil, they want their man.
They get their man, we get oil.

wes

I honestly doubt this, the likes of Ghadafi could care less about his people. So I doubt, he would have held up a lucrative oil deal, that would have made him rich for one guy. Lets be honest, dictators are not known for giving a crap about there people.

I reckon, this has more to 2 with getting Megrabi to drop his appeal, which could have been very embarrassing if it turned out that the guy was innocent.

Kalashnikov_Kid

I need to know if its on Fox news before I believe this. And if it makes the Daily Mail tomorrow...

procure11

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

I need to know if its on Fox news before I believe this. And if it makes the Daily Mail tomorrow...

Or the details are posted to your address..:D

K-Ren

I heard it was for a PS3 Slim.

Kalashnikov_Kid

'bout tree fiddy

FridaysWell

No Libyan was involved in Lockerbie, it was the Iranians or something. And yeah that sounds about right it probably was a trade deal. Tripoli just takes the money from its oil trade and gives it away to Africa, leaving the country in ruins, its health and education systems worse-then-third-world, and the people powerless and weak. Government over there is really corrupt, just care about their pockets.

procure11

FridaysWell wrote: »

No Libyan was involved in Lockerbie, it was the Iranians or something. And yeah that sounds about right it probably was a trade deal. Tripoli just takes the money from its oil trade and gives it away to Africa, leaving the country in ruins, its health and education systems worse-then-third-world, and the people powerless and weak. Government over there is really corrupt, just care about their pockets.

You are not even too sure about your own assertions ...are you???

Buffy the bitch

About time the innocent man was set free...

ynotdu

procure11 wrote: »

A report by sky news quotes the son of the Libyan leader Ghadafi ...he says the the release of Megrahi was done by Tony Blair in exchange for juicy oil contracts.


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Lockerbie-Bomber-Release-Linked-To-Trade-Deal-With-Britain-Says-Colonel-Gaddafis-Son/Article/200908315366896?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_0&lid=ARTICLE_15366896_Lockerbie_Bomber_Release_Linked_To_Trade_Deal_With_Britain%2C_Says_Colonel_Gaddafis_Son


That would be fair trade in my opinion ...considering the dude reportedly has a few more weeks to live.

Yep WELCOME to the real world!:D

Damn sure it was a deal,there is public opinion,there is press releases,there is Govt public outrage,
then there is the Facts and never the twain will meet:)

nacho libre

wes wrote: »

I honestly doubt this, the likes of Ghadafi could care less about his people. So I doubt, he would have held up a lucrative oil deal, that would have made him rich for one guy. Lets be honest dictators, are not know for giving a crap about there people.

I reckon, this has more to 2 with getting Megrabi to drop his appeal, which could have been very embarrassing if it turned out that the guy was innocent.

he might not care about his people but it might also suit the colonel for this guy to drop his appeal.

FridaysWell

procure11 wrote: »

You are not even too sure about your own assertions ...are you???

Pretty sure there were no Libyans invovled. I didn't wanna sound like a big conspiricist but it was probably the Iranians with probable American help. Thats why I said 'something' I should have said 'something like that' Silly me. . .

Libyans get phucked over by everyone, their own government and the outside too, taking a negative view.

At the end of the day its always the normal Joes that suffer, the poor people on the plane, the people on the ground at Lockerbie, and the people stuck with that mental dictator.

humberklog

wes wrote: »

I reckon, this has more to 2 with getting Megrabi to drop his appeal,

That does make a lot of sense up to a point and that point being that Megrabi is going to "drop" a lot sooner than the result of any appeal. And well those fearing such a result know.

shane86

Nothing new, the British have been doing this for years. It is generally accepted as utter fact that zee Germans had to throw the game in the 1966 final to England as part of the surrender agreement in 1945. They were meant to throw her in the 1990 semi vs England as well, however with the recent acquisition of the citizens of East Germany meaning they would now have a bigger army they felt big enough for their jackboots and played to win.


FACT.

humberklog

shane86 wrote: »

Nothing new, the British have been doing this for years. It is generally accepted as utter fact that zee Germans had to throw the game in the 1966 final to England as part of the surrender agreement in 1945. They were meant to throw her in the 1990 semi vs England as well, however with the recent acquisition of the citizens of East Germany meaning they would now have a bigger army they felt big enough for their jackboots and played to win.


FACT.

What a lot of utter nonsense.


FACT.

nacho libre

whatever the truth is. eveything has been choreographed perfecly- from the american outrage to the english blaming the scots and then having the luxury of saying it was out of our hands.

of course as we all know there are no conspiracies only coincidences in this world. one such interesting coincidence was the meeting between the prince of darkness, Seif al-Islam Gaddafi and the Rothschild family recently in corfu. apparently they all just happened to be on holiday in corfu at the same time and decided to have lunch together.

FridaysWell

nacho libre wrote: »

whatever the truth is. eveything has been choreographed perfecly- from the american outrage to the english blaming the scots and then having the luxury of saying it was out of our hands.

of course as we all know there are no conspiracies only coincidences in this world. one such interesting coincidence was the meeting between the prince of darkness, Seif al-Islam Gaddafi and the Rothschild family recently in corfu. apparently they all just happened to be on holiday in corfu at the same time and decided to have lunch together.

hmm, interesting

just wondering how did you know that?

CHD

Good deal if its for oil, its like trading 12 eggs a day before they expire for a new car

longshanks

nacho libre wrote: »

whatever the truth is. eveything has been choreographed perfecly- from the american outrage to the english blaming the scots and then having the luxury of saying it was out of our hands.

of course as we all know there are no conspiracies only coincidences in this world. one such interesting coincidence was the meeting between the prince of darkness, Seif al-Islam Gaddafi and the Rothschild family recently in corfu. apparently they all just happened to be on holiday in corfu at the same time and decided to have lunch together.

gadaffi and the rothschilds met the devil? even kanye isn't on that guest list
i bet the devil ordered pork, jut to wind 'em all up. that'd be his style

humberklog

Chessboard diplomacy. Scots look to be doing their own judicially independent and morally courageous gesture, yanks feigning aghast disbelief and indignation, English drinking tea in Corfu with the other sidewinding bishops and a live person returning under such ambiguous moral jostling is far better all around than the bones of a man gaining unwarranted martyrdom. This suit fits all nicely in the positions they've taken.

Nothing to do with German football team unfotunately.

All's well in the world with this stuff going on, it means they're all talking and all agreeing behind closed doors.

nacho libre

FridaysWell wrote: »

hmm, interesting

just wondering how did you know that?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a631088-8aa6-11de-ad08-00144feabdc0.html

FridaysWell

nacho libre wrote: »

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a631088-8aa6-11de-ad08-00144feabdc0.html

Cheers man, thanks.

Nolanger

Thought they only put him on a plane to blow it up?

Wertz

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Sky News, that explains it

BBC's Newsnight carried a 15 min report on this last night...made for some very interesting accusations and was substantiated and backed up somewhat with circumstantial stuff. Chinese, Russians and French well in the mix too
Nothing really surprises me about middle east politics...the only thing that surprised me was the estimated oil reserves under the Libyan sands...
Blair was Bush's lapdog in the sojourn into Iraq for the exact same reasons...doesn't surprise me in the least that he'd be sent to broker a deal like this...

ynotdu

nacho libre wrote: »

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a631088-8aa6-11de-ad08-00144feabdc0.html

that links a good find nancho libre!below is a quote from his bio:

"In his four decades as Libya's 'Brother Leader', Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has gone from being the epitome of revolutionary chic to an eccentric statesman with entirely benign relations with the West."

— David Blair, diplomatic editor for The Daily Telegraph [5]

David Blair forgot the bit about Gaddafi,s benigness being prompted by Reagan bombing the sh*t out of Libyia including one of his palaces were a close relative died.

It seems to have had a dramatic effect on him,and was the beginning of the end of Libyia being the world leader in supplying arms to terrorist groups.

I see he is now thanking his "good friend"Gordon Brown,Prince Andrew and the Queen for there help in securing the release:)

difficult to know if that is his reported dementia or him just *winding* the US&UK up!

who knows may,be he is simply stating the facts?:)

wes

humberklog wrote: »

That does make a lot of sense up to a point and that point being that Megrabi is going to "drop" a lot sooner than the result of any appeal. And well those fearing such a result know.

I was under the impression, that even if he died, that the appeal would still go ahead.

Wertz

wes wrote: »

I was under the impression, that even if he died, that the appeal would still go ahead.

Who's going to spend money on trying to clear the name of a dead man in a western court? It's the unspoken thing here that his (Magrabi) early release is in return for a final admission of guilt in all but name, whether he's innocent or not...the only way his name may be cleared is through others being charged in connection with the bombing or through the release of state secrets after the 30/50/100 yr limit...

I love all this crying condemnation in the media and amongst western politicians that his return and the triumphalism is somehow a surprise or that it is as unsavoury as they make it out to be...what were they really expecting?
It's a slap in the face of relatives, sure...but the fact remains that there was questions surrounding his guilt so his release looks like a sentence quosh and therefore a victory for the man and for his country...

Biggins

So far I've come across the same basic details from the tabloid papers to the more substantial papers like the Times and Independent.
They all have editorially come to the same conclusion, be he innocent or not, his freedom came at a price, an oil price.

Sad, but as the darn stuff is running out, expect more of this crap type of behaviour!

tarbuck

Little known fact, The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six were only let free because Charlie Haughy threatened to suspend all exports of Kerrygold to the UK.

Wertz

Biggins wrote: »

Sad, but as the darn stuff is running out, expect more of this crap type of behaviour!

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with the policy (or the one that lead to Iraqi invasion/occupation) if they'd say it outright and quit with all the bullsh*t posturing and talk of state sponsored terrorism and citing those as the reason they're acting in such a manner, be it declaring war or forming cosy deals with dictators...

mike65

tarbuck wrote: »

Little known fact, The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six were only let free because Charlie Haughy threatened to suspend all exports of Kerrygold to the UK.

The Danes missed a trick there then.

orourkeda

tarbuck wrote: »

Little known fact, The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six were only let free because Charlie Haughy threatened to suspend all exports of Kerrygold to the UK.

I thought it was barrys tea and findus crispy pancakes

FridaysWell

Wertz wrote: »

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with the policy (or the one that lead to Iraqi invasion/occupation) if they'd say it outright and quit with all the bullsh*t posturing and talk of state sponsored terrorism and citing those as the reason they're acting in such a manner, be it declaring war or forming cosy deals with dictators...

That should always be the way.

And Libya is ****ed anyway, its economy is based entirely on oil, hardly any investments anywhere else and no diversification either... The country is in a dire state, only improving for the elite...

orourkeda

FridaysWell wrote: »

That should always be the way.

And Libya is ****ed anyway, its economy is based entirely on oil, hardly any investments anywhere else and no diversification either... The country is in a dire state, only improving for the elite...

Sounds like Ireland

FridaysWell

orourkeda wrote: »

Sounds like Ireland

irelands bad, trust me Libya is worse. Just go there and see for yourself lol

SEPT 23 1989

This whole USA/ Libyan mess can be traced back to 1985 when Dr Emmet Brown stole plutonium from them to conduct his so called "weather experiments"

Biggins

Wertz wrote: »

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with the policy (or the one that lead to Iraqi invasion/occupation) if they'd say it outright and quit with all the bullsh*t posturing and talk of state sponsored terrorism and citing those as the reason they're acting in such a manner, be it declaring war or forming cosy deals with dictators...

True, what pisses me off just as much is that people like those in high that allowed this to happen, think often (it appears) that the masses are just thick gobschites that won't see through their lies, propaganda and plain bullschite.

Its insulting and demeaning to the rest of us!

Fcuking politicians - some of them are the same the world over.
Not worth pissing on even if they were on fire!

The End Of Days

Biggins wrote: »

the masses are just thick gobschites that won't see through their lies,

True!

:pac:

wes

Wertz wrote: »

Who's going to spend money on trying to clear the name of a dead man in a western court? It's the unspoken thing here that his (Magrabi) early release is in return for a final admission of guilt in all but name, whether he's innocent or not...the only way his name may be cleared is through others being charged in connection with the bombing or through the release of state secrets after the 30/50/100 yr limit...

Well, I could be wrong, but once an appeal is started, I assume it has to be brought to completion.

Its certainly plausible that the whole thing is a oil deal, but there are problems with that version too, in that the Scottish government is not the same as the Labour government, and that the current Scottish government, are a nationalist government, whom are in opposition to Labour, so why would they help them out on the oil deal? Also, these deals were started years before this as well, and I see as unlikely that the Libyans would delay something so lucrative, over one man.

Wertz wrote: »

I love all this crying condemnation in the media and amongst western politicians that his return and the triumphalism is somehow a surprise or that it is as unsavoury as they make it out to be...what were they really expecting?

Yeah, very true, especially considering the welcome and medals given to the guys who shot down the Iranian passenger jet by the US, they didn't give a feck about the families of those victims, so they shouldn't be surprised, that the Libyans don't care either and have carried on in such a manner.

Wertz wrote: »

It's a slap in the face of relatives, sure...but the fact remains that there was questions surrounding his guilt so his release looks like a sentence quosh and therefore a victory for the man and for his country...

Yeah, true enough. The Libyans consider (right or wrongly) him a innocent man who was wrongfully convicted, so hence there celebrations.

Ickle Magoo

Allowing a man to go home to die when there are serious misgivings surrounding the validity of his guilty verdict was the only sensible thing to do.

The Scot Nats in Hollyrood are not known for their support of the Westminster Labour - far less placing themselves in the firing line for the sake of a Blair-driven trade agreement.

Jesus Juice

If its ''BREAKING NEWS'' on Sky I wouldnt bet on it!!

galwayrush

Apparently, there is a good market for Scottish Flags in Libya atm.

Wertz

wes wrote: »

Well, I could be wrong, but once an appeal is started, I assume it has to be brought to completion.

Perhaps so...most coverage I've seen/heard seems to put the appeal in a backseat position at best...it's my gut feeling that it'll quietly drop due to lack of new evidence or witnesses. I'm far from a legal expert though so I could be totally incorrect.

wes wrote: »

Its certainly plausible that the whole thing is a oil deal, but there are problems with that version too, in that the Scottish government is not the same as the Labour government, and that the current Scottish government, are a nationalist government, whom are in opposition to Labour, so why would they help them out on the oil deal? Also, these deals were started years before this as well, and I see as unlikely that the Libyans would delay something so lucrative, over one man.

A devolved parliament and it's derived justice system are unconnected from a UK labour government...but the greater "good" still has to be served.
One could see this whole thing as a very convenient way for the UK to do it's business; ie leave such a contentious prisoner release decision to a devolved parliament whom it can only weakly criticise, and can't (supposedly) influence, knowing full well it may piss off allies and international organisations...in other words, use Scotland as the scapegoat to avoid looking like it's weakened it's stance on international terrorism (especially in return for drilling rights).

As for why the SNP might help out a labour government it opposes? Scotland has it's own history of oil, rights to which were tangled up with the UK/EEC amid much disdain from the scottish...that aside, oil provides a huge part of scotland's economy and employment, particularly on the refinery side....but North sea oil reserves are in decline and becoming harder to extract in a cost efficient manner....perhaps libyan oil exports could be a way to fill the gap...I mean there's little difference in a tanker coming from a rig in the forties or some libyan port and through the gibraltar strait. Oil companies have a large presence in Scotland...it makes sense that they would have some level of influence on a political level.

Forget about politicians and relatives here...big business ultimately pulls a lot of the strings and politicians haven't much choice but play ball if they want their country/region to benefit from the business being done in their tax catchment area. Add to that the energy security it brings to that region, and there are several reasons for the scots to go along with any "suggestions" from the UK and the big business that it represents.

Ask yourself why the Scottish would go ahead with this release knowing full well the negative reaction it would attract from the US primarily...what's in it for them except for looking as though they are independent/self determining and yet weak and overly liberal? Arguably the fallout could damage foreign investment in Scotland...soemthing best avoided in the world economy at present.
If the conviction was unsafe then an appeal should have run it's course before a release was granted (terminally ill or not)...American's mightn't have liked it but at least it was all somewhat legal looking instead of looking like what it does now; being soft on mass murderers and brushing aside the grief of victims.

Perhaps the justice minister wanted to avoid Scotland looking bad by allowing an innocent man die in jail, if that was later found to be the case...but right now they just look like they've been had.
There had to have been something more in it for them...and if the UK were really that opposed to this going ahead, there would surely have been more "behind the scenes" influence brought to bear to head the decision off at the pass and avoid the current fallout.

Ickle Magoo

I wondered that when I saw the footage, who knew that saltires were so easy to get your hands on in Libya?! :pac:

FridaysWell

galwayrush wrote: »

Apparently, there is a good market for Scottish Flags in Libya atm.

Hahaha very true see them waving them around. . .

Dictators seem to like Scotland for some reason. . . Idi Amin?

Oh and last year in Libya, Braveheart was the most popular film and music. No joke. Someone working there said the Libyans were obssesed by it, all their ringtones was the theme hehe

Ickle Magoo

Wertz wrote: »

Perhaps the justice minister wanted to avoid Scotland looking bad by allowing an innocent man die in jail, if that was later found to be the case...but right now they just look like they've been had.

Tbh, I think that's the most likely explanation & I agree that's how it looks, I got a bit mad at all the saltire waving because I don't think it had anything to do with the Scots doing the Libians a favour...if there was a chance that Megrahi was innocent and was not going to live to see his sentence quashed or his appeal even heard, I don't think the Scottish government had much of an option - in humanitarian terms.

Ickle Magoo

FridaysWell wrote: »

Hahaha very true see them waving them around. . .

Dictators seem to like Scotland for some reason. . . Idi Amin?

Oh and last year in Libya, Braveheart was the most popular film and music. No joke. Someone working there said the Libyans were obssesed by it, all their ringtones was the theme hehe

Lots of people like Scotland, I don't think it's limited to dictators. There's something about a very small nation punching above it's weight that is quite endearing, I think. :cool:

wes

Wertz wrote: »

Perhaps so...most coverage I've seen/heard seems to put the appeal in a backseat position at best...it's my gut feeling that it'll quietly drop due to lack of new evidence or witnesses. I'm far from a legal expert though so I could be totally incorrect.

Well, I am not really sure either way myself as well.

Wertz wrote: »

A devolved parliament and it's derived justice system are unconnected from a UK labour government...but the greater "good" still has to be served.
One could see this whole thing as a very convenient way for the UK to do it's business; ie leave such a contentious prisoner release decision to a devolved parliament whom it can only weakly criticise, and can't (supposedly) influence, knowing full well it may piss off allies and international organisations...in other words, use Scotland as the scapegoat to avoid looking like it's weakened it's stance on international terrorism (especially in return for drilling rights).

As for why the SNP might help out a labour government it opposes? Scotland has it's own history of oil, rights to which were tangled up with the UK/EEC amid much disdain from the scottish...that aside, oil provides a huge part of scotland's economy and employment, particularly on the refinery side....but North sea oil reserves are in decline and becoming harder to extract in a cost efficient manner....perhaps libyan oil exports could be a way to fill the gap...I mean there's little difference in a tanker coming from a rig in the forties or some libyan port and through the gibraltar strait. Oil companies have a large presence in Scotland...it makes sense that they would have some level of influence on a political level.

Forget about politicians and relatives here...big business ultimately pulls a lot of the strings and politicians haven't much choice but play ball if they want their country/region to benefit from the business being done in their tax catchment area. Add to that the energy security it brings to that region, and there are several reasons for the scots to go along with any "suggestions" from the UK and the big business that it represents.

Ask yourself why the Scottish would go ahead with this release knowing full well the negative reaction it would attract from the US primarily...what's in it for them except for looking as though they are independent/self determining and yet weak and overly liberal? Arguably the fallout could damage foreign investment in Scotland...soemthing best avoided in the world economy at present.
If the conviction was unsafe then an appeal should have run it's course before a release was granted (terminally ill or not)...American's mightn't have liked it but at least it was all somewhat legal looking instead of looking like what it does now; being soft on mass murderers and brushing aside the grief of victims.

Perhaps the justice minister wanted to avoid Scotland looking bad by allowing an innocent man die in jail, if that was later found to be the case...but right now they just look like they've been had.
There had to have been something more in it for them...and if the UK were really that opposed to this going ahead, there would surely have been more "behind the scenes" influence brought to bear to head the decision off at the pass and avoid the current fallout.

Well, I still don't see how Scotland directly benefits from these deal imho. They may keep a few refineries going, but how much is that worth to the economy? Seems to me that England will get the most out of the deal, as opposed to Scotland. If the Scots, did this for the oil, they must have gotten a lot more from Brown to take the risk they are taking.