Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 130

Thread: Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released

  1. #81
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,188

    Re: Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    This has absolutely no relation to the fact that the judicial process cannot alter actual innocence or guilt, and that it is therefore crude and inaccurate to refer to a disputed judicial conviction as evidence of such.
    It's deadly accurate, while the justice system is not a knows-all entity and cannot see who is truly guilty and who isn't, the law system exists so society would know to define who is guilty and who isn't.
    In most of the cases, statistically, the justice system is correct, that is why it is the favored system in Mankind's eyes.
    Apparently. Since you haven't attempted to dispute the suspicious nature of some of the evidence that contributed to his conviction, I'll have to assume that you've conceded that this is a problem.
    No, I'm talking about him being convicted, which an agreement on would pretty much end the debate for my side.

    The evidence being in question is your opinion, it is satisfying enough in my eyes.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    It's deadly accurate, while the justice system is not a knows-all entity and cannot see who is truly guilty and who isn't, the law system exists so society would know to define who is guilty and who isn't.
    In most of the cases, statistically, the justice system is correct, that is why it is the favored system in Mankind's eyes.
    I notice that you continue to avoid the pertinent issue: Judicial rulings are not able to alter factual reality. Since there is significant dispute about the nature of Megrahi's trial, mere reference to his legal conviction is insufficient evidence of his actual guilt. Reference to the evidence itself would be more appropriate, but I'm quite convinced that everyone in this thread who has referred to his guilt knows very little of that, as indicated by the previous references that someone made to a jury trial.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    No, I'm talking about him being convicted, which an agreement on would pretty much end the debate for my side.
    Perhaps it would, but that's mere indication of the insufficient basis for your "side's" position. Legal conviction cannot alter actual innocence or guilt if what actually occurred is different from the judicial outcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    The evidence being in question is your opinion, it is satisfying enough in my eyes.
    Perhaps it is, but since you have not offered arguments or evidence as they relate to the actual nature of the court evidence, that's merely a conclusion without supporting premises, and is thus not logically sound.

  3. #83
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,188

    Re: Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    I notice that you continue to avoid the pertinent issue: Judicial rulings are not able to alter factual reality.
    You noticing that comes as a surprise, as I have indeed referred to this claim in the quoted post.
    Since there is significant dispute about the nature of Megrahi's trial
    A significant dispute? How so?
    mere reference to his legal conviction is insufficient evidence of his actual guilt. Reference to the evidence itself would be more appropriate
    And the evidence is satisfying.
    I would repeat that his actual guilt is indeed defined by the Justice system, while factually a person may be innocent, the definition whether he is one or not is in the Justice System's power, and has always been so since humanity grew a brain.
    One cannot call the establishing of the rule of law a "blind faith" in the justice system, as not following the rule of law would simply be forsaking it, and no sane society can do that.
    but I'm quite convinced that everyone in this thread who has referred to his guilt knows very little of that, as indicated by the previous references that someone made to a jury trial.
    You being convinced so cannot alter factual reality.
    They may know very little of it, and they may know a lot of it.
    Perhaps it would, but that's mere indication of the insufficient basis for your "side's" position. Legal conviction cannot alter actual innocence or guilt if what actually occurred is different from the judicial outcome.
    No, it just shows you that we live in a society that abides the law system, and lets it define its criminals and its innocents.
    Unless you have a better system to suggest, I think we'd stick to it.
    Perhaps it is, but since you have not offered arguments or evidence as they relate to the actual nature of the court evidence, that's merely a conclusion without supporting premises, and is thus not logically sound.
    The burden of proof lies on you as you are the one who claims that the evidence brought against the terrorist were not satisfying.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    You noticing that comes as a surprise, as I have indeed referred to this claim in the quoted post.
    No, you've not done so. Instead, you've commented on the unrelated issue of a sound judicial system being necessary to uphold "order." The merits or demerits of that claim are not at issue in this discussion; what is pertinent is the possible nature of judicial or prosecutorial corruption in this specific legal process. You've not commented on any aspect of that, but have instead pointlessly repeated that Megrahi was convicted. However, since judicial rulings cannot alter reality and there appears to be reasonable doubt about the validity of his conviction, that is quite useless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    A significant dispute? How so?
    In addition to the aforementioned impropriety that would be involved if key prosecution witness Gauci had again been payed for his submission of evidence, there were four separate issues mentioned in the report of UN observer Dr. Hans Koechler. They involved the lack of credibility of a "key" forensic witness, the claim of a retired Scottish police chief who stated that “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan,” the lack of credibility of an FBI forensic specialist who may have had an inappropriate ideological bias, and the "mix-up of forensic evidence recovered on the ground in Lockerbie with material used during a series of test explosions in the course of the investigation." There have also been complaints by Megrahi's defense team related to the non-release of documents that may have diluted the credibility of the evidence of timer fragments found in his clothing. The source of these documents was the CIA, which insisted that they not be released. BBC News reports that these documents "may have undermined the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi."

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    And the evidence is satisfying.
    Mere statement of such is purposeless and irrelevant unless you can provide supporting arguments or evidence. A conclusion without premises is not logically sound in nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    I would repeat that his actual guilt is indeed defined by the Justice system, while factually a person may be innocent, the definition whether he is one or not is in the Justice System's power, and has always been so since humanity grew a brain.
    One cannot call the establishing of the rule of law a "blind faith" in the justice system, as not following the rule of law would simply be forsaking it, and no sane society can do that.
    This is all quite pointless. It's clear enough by now that my contention was that mere reference to his legal conviction provided nothing of any value or substance, since it was that conviction itself that was being questioned. Your task is thus to defend the nature of his conviction rather than repeat the established fact that he was legally convicted, as the nature of that conviction is being challenged.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    You being convinced so cannot alter factual reality.
    They may know very little of it, and they may know a lot of it.
    They may and they may, but since I've provided evidence that the former case is true, I'm of the opinion that my claim is rather well-supported. Conversely, you've not attempted to offer any arguments or evidence for the claims that you have made, and have really made statements rather than claims anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    No, it just shows you that we live in a society that abides the law system, and lets it define its criminals and its innocents.
    Unless you have a better system to suggest, I think we'd stick to it.
    No, it just shows that you're not prepared to discuss the actual nature of his conviction instead of repeat established statements about it. Feel free to discuss the nature of the alleged deficiencies in his case if you can contribute more than this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    The burden of proof lies on you as you are the one who claims that the evidence brought against the terrorist were not satisfying.
    Actually, the burden of proof lies on those who would assert criminal guilt. But even if the burden of proof lied entirely on me in the sole context of this exchange, I've offered substantial evidence to support my claims, while you've not attempted to support what claims you have in fact made.

  5. #85
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,188

    Re: Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    No, you've not done so. Instead, you've commented on the unrelated issue of a sound judicial system being necessary to uphold "order." The merits or demerits of that claim are not at issue in this discussion; what is pertinent is the possible nature of judicial or prosecutorial corruption in this specific legal process. You've not commented on any aspect of that, but have instead pointlessly repeated that Megrahi was convicted. However, since judicial rulings cannot alter reality and there appears to be reasonable doubt about the validity of his conviction, that is quite useless.
    In the post that you've quoted, I said:
    "while the justice system is not a knows-all entity and cannot see who is truly guilty and who isn't".
    Captain Agnapostate, your fleet of ridiculous accusations has just been obliterated.
    In addition to the aforementioned impropriety that would be involved if key prosecution witness Gauci had again been payed for his submission of evidence, there were four separate issues mentioned in the report of UN observer Dr. Hans Koechler. They involved the lack of credibility of a "key" forensic witness, the claim of a retired Scottish police chief who stated that “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan,” the lack of credibility of an FBI forensic specialist who may have had an inappropriate ideological bias, and the "mix-up of forensic evidence recovered on the ground in Lockerbie with material used during a series of test explosions in the course of the investigation." There have also been complaints by Megrahi's defense team related to the non-release of documents that may have diluted the credibility of the evidence of timer fragments found in his clothing. The source of these documents was the CIA, which insisted that they not be released. BBC News reports that these documents "may have undermined the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi."
    A significant dispute would be if both of the sides were equally supported, and they are not.
    Nobody in the 'control room' believes that the terrorist should be acquitted.
    Mere statement of such is purposeless and irrelevant unless you can provide supporting arguments or evidence. A conclusion without premises is not logically sound in nature.
    My claim is well supported by the justice system declaring the evidence satisfying and the terrorist guilty, it is illogical to assume that the law system declaration has no weight on the argument.
    [/quote]This is all quite pointless. It's clear enough by now that my contention was that mere reference to his legal conviction provided nothing of any value or substance, since it was that conviction itself that was being questioned. Your task is thus to defend the nature of his conviction rather than repeat the established fact that he was legally convicted, as the nature of that conviction is being challenged.[/quote]I am still awaiting that alleged challenge in the form of you analyzing the trial and bringing forth your claims as to why the evidence was not satisfying instead of just pointlessly claiming that it isn't.
    They may and they may, but since I've provided evidence that the former case is true, I'm of the opinion that my claim is rather well-supported. Conversely, you've not attempted to offer any arguments or evidence for the claims that you have made, and have really made statements rather than claims anyway.
    You have brought no evidence whatsoever, yet you claim that you did.
    Please point out as to where, so I could be standing corrected.
    No, it just shows that you're not prepared to discuss the actual nature of his conviction instead of repeat established statements about it. Feel free to discuss the nature of the alleged deficiencies in his case if you can contribute more than this.
    This is a baseless claim, I am still awaiting your evidence for the court being wrong on convicting the terrorist.
    Actually, the burden of proof lies on those who would assert criminal guilt. But even if the burden of proof lied entirely on me in the sole context of this exchange, I've offered substantial evidence to support my claims, while you've not attempted to support what claims you have in fact made.
    Wrong, the burden of proof does not lie on me, it lies on the one who claims that a socially accepted decision such as the law system's is wrong.
    This is why people have to appeal to the court when they think its wrong on a specific decision.



    By the way, I have a question for you.
    Let's assume the evidence that was brought against the terrorist was not satisfying, do you support the immediate release of convicted people who's evidence was apparently not satisfying?
    Without any renewed trial? Simply releasing him?
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    In the post that you've quoted, I said:
    "while the justice system is not a knows-all entity and cannot see who is truly guilty and who isn't".
    Captain Agnapostate, your fleet of ridiculous accusations has just been
    obliterated.
    Not at all. While you've attempted to cloak your nonsensical assertions in the garment of some rational argument, it's quite apparent that you're not interested in examining the actual nature of Megrahi's trial and the evidence presented, as you have still not attempted to do so. Instead, you have incessantly repeated a statement about his legal conviction, which is irrelevant, since that is being challenged. Things should work more like this:

    1. You make Point A.

    2. I issue a rebuttal to Point A.

    3. You issue a response to my rebuttal. You do not simply repeat Point A; it has already been addressed.


    It's in the third portion of that process that you're unsuccessful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    A significant dispute would be if both of the sides were equally supported, and they are not.
    Nobody in the 'control room' believes that the terrorist should be acquitted.
    That's probably true. In this thread, at least, there's been no rational attempt to discuss the actual evidence submitted in the prosecutorial effort against Megrahi; there have merely been utterly useless repetitions of statements about his legal conviction. There's apparently an asymmetry of sorts between the two "sides" in that the side that challenges the fairness of Megrahi's trial is relatively well-informed, while the side that upholds the fairness of the trial is not, as evidenced by someone's mention of a jury trial, which did not occur. Regardless, a significant dispute or contention is constituted by sufficient evidence that the prosecutorial case against Megrahi was plagued by deficiencies so severe that his actual guilt and legal conviction are both legitimately in question. There's substantial evidence that that is the case here, all of which you've chosen to ignore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    My claim is well supported by the justice system declaring the evidence satisfying and the terrorist guilty, it is illogical to assume that the law system declaration has no weight on the argument.
    No, it isn't. Firstly, you've made no claim as to his actual guilt or innocence; you've merely repeated established statements about his legal conviction. You have not attempted to address challenges to the conviction, and as seen here, base the entirety of your commentary on that conviction, despite the fact that I've provided evidence of deficiencies present in the nature of his trial that you've not commented on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    I am still awaiting that alleged challenge in the form of you analyzing the trial and bringing forth your claims as to why the evidence was not satisfying instead of just pointlessly claiming that it isn't...You have brought no evidence whatsoever, yet you claim that you did.
    Please point out as to where, so I could be standing corrected...This is a baseless claim, I am still awaiting your evidence for the court being wrong on convicting the terrorist.
    The evidence was offered in the form of the UN observer's complaints about the nature of the trial and my own mention of additional disputes. That would be the portion of my post that you offered a two-sentence and off-topic reply to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Wrong, the burden of proof does not lie on me, it lies on the one who claims that a socially accepted decision such as the law system's is wrong. This is why people have to appeal to the court when they think its wrong on a specific decision.
    Actually, the burden of proof lies on those who would assert criminal guilt, as I commented. That is the case both inside and outside of the courtroom. But no matter who the burden of proof lies on, the more relevant fact is that I've named several alleged deficiencies in Megrahi's trial that you've simply ignored and chosen not to comment on. The apparent reason for this is that you do not know of any response to offer, which is hardly surprising. That there were unjust elements in the prosecutorial case seems rather apparent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    By the way, I have a question for you.
    Let's assume the evidence that was brought against the terrorist was not satisfying, do you support the immediate release of convicted people who's evidence was apparently not satisfying? Without any renewed trial? Simply releasing him?
    If it was legitimately unsatisfying so as to have resulted in an acquittal in his first trial, then perhaps, since the imposition of double jeopardy is also unjust. In this specific case, I'd say that his release was probably acceptable, since the purpose of criminal justice is and must be deterrence.

  7. #87
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,188

    Re: Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Not at all. While you've attempted to cloak your nonsensical assertions in the garment of some rational argument, it's quite apparent that you're not interested in examining the actual nature of Megrahi's trial and the evidence presented, as you have still not attempted to do so. Instead, you have incessantly repeated a statement about his legal conviction, which is irrelevant, since that is being challenged.
    Now you are just trying to dodge it, but it is unavoidable.
    You claimed that I did not refer to this claim, and yet I have.
    Your fleet was already obliterated, there's nothing you can do about it, it's nothing but space junk now.
    Things should work more like this:

    1. You make Point A.

    2. I issue a rebuttal to Point A.

    3. You issue a response to my rebuttal. You do not simply repeat Point A; it has already been addressed.


    It's in the third portion of that process that you're unsuccessful.
    I would suggest that this had something to do with no. #3's success relying on no. #2's success, which was, unfortunately, a failure.
    That's probably true.
    I'm glad we are in agreement again.
    No, it isn't. Firstly, you've made no claim as to his actual guilt or innocence; you've merely repeated established statements about his legal conviction. You have not attempted to address challenges to the conviction, and as seen here, base the entirety of your commentary on that conviction, despite the fact that I've provided evidence of deficiencies present in the nature of his trial that you've not commented on.
    I am here to counter your argument that the evidence is non-satisfying.
    To do that you need to bring your claims as to why it isn't, I'll quote them using the quote button in the lower-right corner of your message box, and then I'll reply to those claims by saying that they're ridiculous and explaining why are they so ridiculous.
    So just bring your claims already.
    The evidence was offered in the form of the UN observer's complaints about the nature of the trial and my own mention of additional disputes. That would be the portion of my post that you offered a two-sentence and off-topic reply to.
    That is your holy evidence?
    A complaint by a UN official?
    You just said that my evidence being the Law system's decision is not an evidence, and now you declare a UN official's complaint against the trial handling by the court "an evidence"?
    Seriously, don't you see the bizarreness and hypocrisy in this statement?
    Actually, the burden of proof lies on those who would assert criminal guilt, as I commented. That is the case both inside and outside of the courtroom. But no matter who the burden of proof lies on, the more relevant fact is that I've named several alleged deficiencies in Megrahi's trial that you've simply ignored and chosen not to comment on. The apparent reason for this is that you do not know of any response to offer, which is hardly surprising. That there were unjust elements in the prosecutorial case seems rather apparent.
    Where are those several alleged deficiencies that you had pointed out? Where are they, Agna?
    Correct, right up there in space, together with your ruined fleet.
    Now would you kindly bring them back to Earth so I could debate them?
    If it was legitimately unsatisfying so as to have resulted in an acquittal in his first trial, then perhaps, since the imposition of double jeopardy is also unjust. In this specific case, I'd say that his release was probably acceptable, since the purpose of criminal justice is and must be deterrence.
    So you're saying that a renewed trial where he'd be acquitted is unnecessary, and that he should just be released while still being a convicted murderer?
    Do you realize that there is no sense of rationality in your words, and that you advocate the forsaking of the law system and its procedures?
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Now you are just trying to dodge it, but it is unavoidable. You claimed that I did not refer to this claim, and yet I have.
    Your fleet was already obliterated, there's nothing you can do about it, it's nothing but space junk now.
    Nope, you've simply engaged in purposeless repetition of an irrelevant statement about his legal conviction without actual discussion of the nature of his trial or the disputes related to his trial. If this were a True Debate, you would have long since lost, and even the casual reader of this thread can quite easily see that you're not faring especially well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    I would suggest that this had something to do with no. #3's success relying on no. #2's success, which was, unfortunately, a failure.
    If #2 was a failure, it was because #1 was a failure also. You never made any particularly sound claim to begin with, so there was really no need to issue a sound rebuttal. All you did was claim that Megrahi was guilty merely by virtue of his legal conviction and ignore the contentions that had arisen about the nature and alleged deficiencies of his trial. You continue to do so even now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    I'm glad we are in agreement again.
    So am I. Based on the length of your responses (despite their lack of content), I was concerned that there might be some misimpression that you were informed about the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    I am here to counter your argument that the evidence is non-satisfying.
    To do that you need to bring your claims as to why it isn't, I'll quote them using the quote button in the lower-right corner of your message box, and then I'll reply to those claims by saying that they're ridiculous and explaining why are they so ridiculous.
    So just bring your claims already.
    I've mentioned six separate claims at this point and have repeated them after the first time you've ignored them. I'm not interested in repetition of facts that you will continue to ignore and not reply to anyway; look at previous posts for consultation of the evidence that you have simply dismissed without reply of any sort.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    That is your holy evidence?
    A complaint by a UN official?
    You just said that my evidence being the Law system's decision is not an evidence, and now you declare a UN official's complaint against the trial handling by the court "an evidence"?
    Seriously, don't you see the bizarreness and hypocrisy in this statement?
    No, that's merely a fallacy bred by your apparent confusion. If I'd merely mentioned that there was a complaint by a UN official without offering further elaboration, you might have a point. However, I instead offered detailed criticisms of alleged deficiencies in Megrahi's trial that you chose not to respond to. Their source wasn't even relevant to their validity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Where are those several alleged deficiencies that you had pointed out? Where are they, Agna?
    Correct, right up there in space, together with your ruined fleet.
    Now would you kindly bring them back to Earth so I could debate them?
    I already stated that they 'involved the lack of credibility of a "key" forensic witness, the claim of a retired Scottish police chief who stated that “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan,” the lack of credibility of an FBI forensic specialist who may have had an inappropriate ideological bias, and the "mix-up of forensic evidence recovered on the ground in Lockerbie with material used during a series of test explosions in the course of the investigation." There have also been complaints by Megrahi's defense team related to the non-release of documents that may have diluted the credibility of the evidence of timer fragments found in his clothing. The source of these documents was the CIA, which insisted that they not be released. BBC News reports that these documents "may have undermined the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi."' You simply ignored that entire comment and delivered an irrelevant ad hominem attack against a UN official so as to avoid actual response to these charges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    So you're saying that a renewed trial where he'd be acquitted is unnecessary, and that he should just be released while still being a convicted murderer?
    If there was no legitimate risk of him engaging in violent or threatening actions, then he perhaps should be, especially if any trial would simply result in acquittal anyway. In the U.S., we have a Constitutional prohibition of "double jeopardy." I know that you unfortunately don't live in a democratic country with a Constitution, so you'd perhaps be unaware of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Do you realize that there is no sense of rationality in your words, and that you advocate the forsaking of the law system and its procedures?
    Which one? Considering the many irrationalities of the legal system itself, your claims seem to be contradictory.

  9. #89
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released

    Just show us your damn evidence Agna

  10. #90
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,188

    Re: Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released

    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus View Post
    Just show us your damn evidence Agna
    I fell off my chair.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •