Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 54 of 54

Thread: Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Last Seen
    12-23-09 @ 05:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    616

    Re: Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Try again sport it was Mossadeq not the Shah who overthrew the democratic government of Iran
    Link ?

    ~10 characters~

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Last Seen
    12-23-09 @ 05:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    616

    Re: Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'

    Quote Originally Posted by P/N View Post
    My only question is, are you unwilling to provide proof or you can't provide proof? And you really don't need to answer because I already know. I suppose that makes you the joke now doesn't it?
    thats great son.

    now get a life.
    Last edited by NEUROSPORT; 09-01-09 at 12:38 AM.

  3. #53
    Global Moderator
    Silent Bob for President!

    RedAkston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    33,832
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'

    Yawn.........
    Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

  4. #54
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    09-05-09 @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1

    Re: Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'

    People seem to be overlooking or ignoring some other relevant facts in this...

    Scotland did not release al-Megrahi under the transfer agreement BECAUSE Salmond recognised it would be linked to the other negotiations. That was raised with UK Government. MacAskill deliberately did not release him under that process, in order to distance the Scottish Government from the suggestion of a link...which it was obvious would be forthcoming.

    Scottish Government is currently headed by the SNP whose politics oppose those of the Party which heads the UK Government. Salmond and Gordon Brown hardly grunt at each other. Salmond, as some of you have mentioned in other threads, has spent his entire time as leader of the Scottish Parliament, implementing policies directed at draining commonly funded taxes out of the UK coffer and into Scotland, with the sole aim of annoying the English enough to make them push for dissolution of the UK union.

    Why would he kowtow to Westminster?

    The other small point is the danger of continuing the previous relationship with Libya. Libya is known to have funded the IRA, there is a correlatory headline only this week regarding that issue. It housed terrorist training camps and is suspected of supporting all kinds of other seriously aggressive behaviour toward the UK.

    Some countries invade under such circumstances. Blair went there and started diplomacy. I personally, don't mind that.

    Oil...fair enough. Developing the relationship won't hurt economically. But Scotland is an oil producer.

    Btw...England is not.
    Last edited by andyvi; 09-02-09 at 04:46 PM.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

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