Lockerbie bomber set free

1. 60

   egivposted 14 years ago

   Since when does anybody have sympathy for someone who blew up a commercial airliner?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Since there are terrorists in this world. They tend to stick together. I presume for them, he's a hero?

      replyreport
   2. 61

      blue dogposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      actually, he was set free because he's in the last stages of prostate cancer.  have you ever been around someone who's in the last stages of prostate cancer?  it's not pleasant, nor is it a pretty sight.
      
      it is unfortunate that this man had enough belief in a cause to do what he did.  he paid his dues, now he's paying the price.  it's quite likely that the scottish gov't saw the rising costs in medical bills associated with his incarceration and decided he wasn't worth the effort.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         kephriraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I agree, people saying he was 'set free' are don't really understand his condition. He's not 'free' at all, and he won't even be alive in a few months time.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              that's also true, but have more to do with law suits. Talking about sympathy has more to do with beliefs and strong  convictions

            replyreport
            1. 60

               kephriraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Actually the decision to free him was based on 'compassionate release', which is only available to people with less than 3 months to live and basically just means transfering from prison to medical care for them to die.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes,trough a law suit. Not 'real sympathy ' in that. I don't think scottish people  feel sympathy for this guy 

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Ok, call me a hard-ass, but why should we have any sympathy for this guy? He killed over 200 people. Cancer or not, I think he should be in jail for the rest of his life, whether its three months or thirty years. Maybe he should have thought about it when he was planning these people's murder.
                  
                  I would have great sympathy for him, though, if it wasn't for that whole 'killing 200 people' thing...

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     kephriraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     It's just a general principle of Scottish law, it wasn't invented specifically for this guy.

                     replyreport
2. 60

   readytoescapeposted 14 years ago

   The most disheartening and infuriating issue is this man was welcomed in home Libya as a hero. Thousands cheered not only his release, but primarily his “accomplishment.” This only emblazons and emboldens more with a terrorist mentality.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Terrorists mentality is always emboldened. That's why they are terrorists . More action than thinking in the men of arms, more thinking than action on the leader's part

      replyreport
3. 61

   blue dogposted 14 years ago

   here's a bit more background information.  it's not quite as cut and dried as you might think.
   
   http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/30-0

   replyreport
   1. 60

      tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      So one more of the hypocrite chapters in History !! I'm not going to comment as I'm not American. If I  say everything I think of these wars and cold wars, I'll be banned from hubpages !!

      replyreport
      1. 61

         blue dogposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         all comments welcome, especially your, tantrum.  of course, the article only points out what's known.  it makes one wonder about the rest of the facts.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              I never comment on other countries. For me is a lack of respect, as I will be very harsh and maybe hurt some other people feelings. I only hurt people ,when being attacked. And I don't feel like beginning a brawl on a Sunday

            replyreport
   2. 60

      egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that there are always things going on behind the scenes, honestly who really knows the truth. I highly doubt that it was Iran, however. I did my senior research paper in college on the 1988 Vincennes incident and, despite plenty of mistakes all around, claiming that Lockerbie was a retaliation is mere conspiracy theory.
      
      I think it is clear-cut; arguing for his innocence is irrelevant because he has never been proved so. The argument is about compassion for a killer, not a review of the case.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         If the argument is compassion for a killer, you shouldn't have given names. If not, it is a revision of the case !

         replyreport
4. 60

   kephriraposted 14 years ago

   It does seem to make more sense that it was Iran that did it.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        It does seem to me nobody wants to argue on a Sunday

      replyreport
      1. 72

         AEvansposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You are right not a grand idea!!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             

            replyreport