The Lockerbie Bomber freed

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:08 pm

I'm a little surprised this hasn't been discussed here yet. Is there no interest in it?

If anyone out there is clueless, al Magrahi, the guy convicted of killing 290 people, 189 of them American, was set free because the doctors say he has less than 3 months to live. Part of the agreement to free him was that he would receive a low-key reception in Libya. That part didn't work out so well. Hundreds and perhaps thousands gave him a hero's welcome at the airport. Then Qadhafi (damn I wish the media would reach an agreement on the spelling of his name) himself gave the guy a big hug and greeting a couple days later.

Of course, the US doesn't like this, but just recently said it will not harm ties with Britain or Scotland. However, some in the US, including the FBI director who was involved as a lawyer in the case against the bomber, said that this was an obviously political move. On the plane ride to Libya, Qadhafi's son talked to al Magrahi and according to transcripts, told him that his release was always being negotiated whenever Libya was negotiating energy deals with Britain.

Britain denies this release was politically or economically motivated, saying it was for merciful reasons. But Gordon Brown himself had been talking with Libya about his release 6 weeks ago.

I must admit, I'm feeling some level of OUTRAGE over this. The guy ended up spending 11 days in jail for every person he murdered. At the very least, the families of the victims should have been contacted and allowed to register their opinions before this man was released. I don't think anyone in his right mind could believe Britain's claims that this was not political at all. It was incredibly naive and stupid of Britain to not expect Libya to give this guy a hero's welcome home.

Jag · Post by **Jag** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:12 pm

I knew of a student from my college that was on the plane. She was attending the same British exchange program I had attended a year earlier. Such a sad story.

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:26 pm

It's been interesting to read about the Scottish justice minister's decision, and the role that politics did or didn't play. I can't read the man's mind, but my impression is that he honestly made the decision based solely on Scotland's compassionate release law, and not because of political pressure. Interesting articles about this here and here.

Assuming that Megrahi was released solely on compassionate grounds, there's still an argument to be made that compassionate releases should not be allowed, particularly in egregious cases like this one.

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:01 pm

I don't have problem with this. This guy is just a patriot that did what he was ordered to do. The thing that you need to be mad about is that western governments now are buddy-buddy with the guy that ordered it.

Or are you going to support jailing US pilots who bombed Iraqi? They killed even more innocent civilians than this guy.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:00 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote:I don't have problem with this. This guy is just a patriot that did what he was ordered to do. The thing that you need to be mad about is that western governments now are buddy-buddy with the guy that ordered it.

Or are you going to support jailing US pilots who bombed Iraqi? They killed even more innocent civilians than this guy.

The disconnect between otherwise intelligent people is staggering.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:05 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote:I don't have problem with this. This guy is just a patriot that did what he was ordered to do. The thing that you need to be mad about is that western governments now are buddy-buddy with the guy that ordered it.

Or are you going to support jailing US pilots who bombed Iraqi? They killed even more innocent civilians than this guy.

I was going to give a trademark msduncan response to this, but my Outrage meter shot all the way to the max and broke off.....

msduncan is currently under repair. Please come back later.

ChrisGrenard · Post by **ChrisGrenard** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:22 pm

Yeah.... I'm as confused at msduncan on this one. Nobody but the absolute nuttiest people on the left ever go with the "Our pilots bomb innocents" thing.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:45 pm

There's always tension between eye-for-an-eye and turn-the-other-cheek. I'd like to come down on the side of compassion and forgiveness, but...it's so political that merely humane considerations are swept away. No opinion either way on this one.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:45 pm

ChrisGrenard wrote:Yeah.... I'm as confused at msduncan on this one. Nobody but the absolute nuttiest people on the left ever go with the "Our pilots bomb innocents" thing.

Well, they do. I don't think there's ever been a war where only people who signed up got killed.

Whatever your level of tolerance for "acceptable losses" or "collateral damage" is, it's completely dishonest to completely turn a blind eye to them. They are fact. But the apt comparison is in the attitude of the people doing the killing. Who feels remorse, and who glories in the destruction? You're going to find both kinds on every side.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:12 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote:I don't have problem with this.

It's been established that you will say what you want, not what you actually feel about a subject. You may indeed, actually have a problem with this.

Victoria Raverna wrote:This guy is just a patriot that did what he was ordered to do.

It is fair to say that he was indeed an agent of his country. Much in the way a high ranking Nazi was an agent of his country.

While there is indeed great room for philosophical debate I suppose, most people of the world do distinguish a difference between a soldier following orders vs. 'crimes of war' and/or acts of terrorism. This man was ordered to put a bomb on a plane and kill over 200 totally innocent people.

I'd be just as upset to hear if an American agent did something like that in another country. And wouldn't be shocked to hear if they jailed him, and we didn't get him 'back' when he was 3 months away from dying of cancer.

The bombing of a civilian aircraft, and killing over 200 civilians by design, is a far cry from "Bomb that school, it is actually the enemy hideout! ...we think."

Victoria Raverna wrote:Or are you going to support jailing US pilots who bombed Iraqi? They killed even more innocent civilians than this guy.

This man knowningly targeted hundreds of innocent people in an act of terrorism.
The US pilots killed innocent people while under the belief they were engaging an enemy, in war.

If you want to say that you see no difference, then you are in an extreme minority on that opinion.

Personally, I feel that if they put him away for life, it was for a reason. I think it's odd that his mortality is about to get him 3 months to die at peace with his family. If a society and it's particular justice system's verdict was "life", isn't the point that he will die alone in prison?
Now if their compassion laws established this as typical treatment for any mass murderer who's got 3 months left to live, then I guess it's their law and they need to follow it. It sounds like this one was a bit of a 'call' to make. I am amazed that they decided to let him go. It's seems like the choice actually causes so much more grief and pain than it averts, that the choice is actually obvious to let him die alone in prison.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:47 pm

Don't feed the troll.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:15 pm

See? I knew if I sat here and performed repairs long enough on my Outrage meter that someone like nd would come along and fix it.

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:23 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655" target="_blank

You don't see people going to jail for that.

The aircraft, an Airbus A300B2 operated by Iran Air as IR655, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, UAE, when it was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children,

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:58 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007 ... stry.libya" target="_blank

Nearly two decades after Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Scotland on 21 December, 1988, allegations of international political intrigue and shoddy investigative work are being levelled at the British government, the FBI and the Scottish police as one of the crucial witnesses, Swiss engineer Ulrich Lumpert, has apparently confessed that he lied about the origins of a crucial 'timer' - evidence that helped tie the man convicted of the bombing to the crime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4164422.stm" target="_blank

He told the Lockerbie trial he was in no doubt that a circuit board fragment found after the disaster was part of the detonator.

The trial judges accepted his conclusion.

However, in three separate cases men against whom Mr Feraday gave evidence have now had their convictions overturned.

http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-e ... -21640187/" target="_blank

She said: “It was in one piece when I found it but in the bag there were several pieces and the name Toshiba was only just discernable by then.
“When I found the piece of paper it was more or less intact, a bit tatty round the edges, but it definitely had Toshiba written across it.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 581838.ece" target="_blank

A key plank in the case against Megrahi was provided by Gauci who claimed that he sold Megrahi clothes that were believed to have been wrapped around the bomb. Fraser said that he believes Gauci was a “weak point” in the case and has expressed concern that he was a “simple” man who might have been “easily led”.

“Gauci was not quite the full shilling. I think even his family would say (that he) was an apple short of a picnic. He was quite a tricky guy, I don’t think he was deliberately lying but if you asked him the same question three times he would just get irritated and refuse to answer,” he said.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:39 am

If the case wasn't strong, Megrahi's appeal should have been pushed up to accomodate his medical condition. Appeal by merciful release is not justice.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:18 am

Victoria Raverna wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

You don't see people going to jail for that.

The aircraft, an Airbus A300B2 operated by Iran Air as IR655, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, UAE, when it was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children,

You aren't trying real hard anymore are you? It's like when U2K stopped trying. It just became a sad spectacle until the end. Pathetic really.

According to the US government, the crew mistakenly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter. The Iranian government maintained that the Vincennes knowingly shot down the civilian aircraft. The event generated a great deal of controversy and criticism of the US. Some analysts have blamed US military commanders and the captain of the Vincennes for reckless and aggressive behavior in a tense and dangerous environment.[3][4]

I am sure someone thought the Pan-Am flight was a military flight... yeah...

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:22 am

tjg_marantz wrote:
According to the US government, the crew mistakenly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter. The Iranian government maintained that the Vincennes knowingly shot down the civilian aircraft. The event generated a great deal of controversy and criticism of the US. Some analysts have blamed US military commanders and the captain of the Vincennes for reckless and aggressive behavior in a tense and dangerous environment.[3][4]
I am sure someone thought the Pan-Am flight was a military flight... yeah...

From that same wikipedia:

In particular, Iran expressed skepticism about claims of mis-identification, noting that the Vincennes had advanced Aegis radar that correctly tracked the flight and its Mode III beacon; two other U.S. warships in the area, Sides and Montgomery, identified the aircraft as civilian; and the flight was well within a recognised international air corridor. It also noted that the crew of the Vincennes was trained to handle simultaneous attacks by hundreds of enemy aircraft. (ibid. §4.50) Iran found it more plausible that the Vincennes "hankered for an opportunity to show its stuff". (§4.52)

In addition to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A300" target="_blank

Length 54.08 m or 177' 3"
Wing Span 44.85 m or 147' 2"
Wing Area 260 m² (2,800 ft²)
Height 16.62 m or 54' 6"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat" target="_blank

Length: 62 ft 9 in (19.1 m)
Wingspan:
Spread: 64 ft (19.55 m)
Swept: 38 ft (11.58 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:47 am

silverjon wrote:
ChrisGrenard wrote:Yeah.... I'm as confused at msduncan on this one. Nobody but the absolute nuttiest people on the left ever go with the "Our pilots bomb innocents" thing.
Well, they do. I don't think there's ever been a war where only people who signed up got killed.

Whatever your level of tolerance for "acceptable losses" or "collateral damage" is, it's completely dishonest to completely turn a blind eye to them. They are fact. But the apt comparison is in the attitude of the people doing the killing. Who feels remorse, and who glories in the destruction? You're going to find both kinds on every side.

I don't recall Canadians targeting civilians as a matter of policy in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:49 am

Victoria Raverna wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

You don't see people going to jail for that.

The aircraft, an Airbus A300B2 operated by Iran Air as IR655, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, UAE, when it was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children,

So you believe that the USS Vincennes intentionally killed 290 civilians? Really? What was the motive again?

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:56 am

The Preacher wrote:I don't recall Canadians targeting civilians as a matter of policy in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Is it American policy? I know there have been some ugly incidents, though I'm not aware if they've all been perpetrated by individuals of the same nationality.

And I think more Canadian soldiers have been accidentally killed by Americans than vice versa, but that's based on my perceptions of our media reportage, so if somebody has contradictory statistics, I'm not going to dispute them.

My point was that you can't compare the results of an accident to an intentional attack, regardless of who died or how many. Unravelling the truth of it might be another matter in some cases, but if the official line is, "we got you good, suckers," I think it's safe to say there was a malicious motivation behind it.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:01 pm

silverjon wrote:
The Preacher wrote:I don't recall Canadians targeting civilians as a matter of policy in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Is it American policy? I know there have been some ugly incidents, though I'm not aware if they've all been perpetrated by individuals of the same nationality.

And I think more Canadian soldiers have been accidentally killed by Americans than vice versa, but that's based on my perceptions of our media reportage, so if somebody has contradictory statistics, I'm not going to dispute them.

My point was that you can't compare the results of an accident to an intentional attack, regardless of who died or how many. Unravelling the truth of it might be another matter in some cases, but if the official line is, "we got you good, suckers," I think it's safe to say there was a malicious motivation behind it.

Perhaps the issue is of assumptions. I think (assumption) Chris's point is that our pilots don't target civilians as a matter of policy, not whether there are friendly fire casualties or collateral deaths.

ChrisGrenard · Post by **ChrisGrenard** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:27 pm

The Preacher wrote:
silverjon wrote:
The Preacher wrote:I don't recall Canadians targeting civilians as a matter of policy in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Is it American policy? I know there have been some ugly incidents, though I'm not aware if they've all been perpetrated by individuals of the same nationality.

And I think more Canadian soldiers have been accidentally killed by Americans than vice versa, but that's based on my perceptions of our media reportage, so if somebody has contradictory statistics, I'm not going to dispute them.

My point was that you can't compare the results of an accident to an intentional attack, regardless of who died or how many. Unravelling the truth of it might be another matter in some cases, but if the official line is, "we got you good, suckers," I think it's safe to say there was a malicious motivation behind it.
Perhaps the issue is of assumptions. I think (assumption) Chris's point is that our pilots don't target civilians as a matter of policy, not whether there are friendly fire casualties or collateral deaths.

Precisely. Nobody is going to debate that things go wrong when you're dealing with 3,000 pound explosive devices. And in situations where pilots make horribly wrong decisions, I have no problem with investigating them. But to say, "This pilot dropped a bomb on a target we identified as hostile, and it turned out to be a huge mistake." and then comparing that to when some religious whackjobs *intentionally* kill as many civilians as they can is simply insane.

farley2k · Post by **farley2k** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:08 pm

The irony of these two threadsbeing next to each other is almost amazing!

How many days per victim did the American spend in jail? (since someone pointed out this guy only spent 11 days per victim) It would seem that al Magrahi's real problem wasn't indescriminate killing of innocents but doing it for the wrong country.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:18 pm

And the intellectually bankrupt relativists try to take over another thread.

America's done some bad things in the past, therefore Britain was right or not wrong or who can make any judgement about anything anymore because America's done some bad things in the past, omgz!

What a crock of shit.

Little Raven · Post by **Little Raven** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:40 pm

cheeba wrote:What a crock of shit.

I don't think most people would say that we can't make any judgments just because we've made mistakes in the past. One injustice does not merit another.

But it does perhaps give perspective. Americans hailed Lt. Calley as a hero for massacring civilians in cold blood. Libyans did the same for al Magrahi. Presumably there was a reason why, even if it's incomprehensible to me. Were/Are they all just monsters? Victims of propaganda? What taught Americans to view our Lt. Calley's as the criminals they are, (and I really do think we've made progress on that front) and how can we extend that lesson the Libyans?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:40 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote:In addition to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A300" target="_blank

Length 54.08 m or 177' 3"
Wing Span 44.85 m or 147' 2"
Wing Area 260 m² (2,800 ft²)
Height 16.62 m or 54' 6"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat" target="_blank

Length: 62 ft 9 in (19.1 m)
Wingspan:
Spread: 64 ft (19.55 m)
Swept: 38 ft (11.58 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)

This post shows that you do not know how radar operates and how various craft show up on radar (radar cross section).

farley2k · Post by **farley2k** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:12 pm

cheeba wrote:And the intellectually bankrupt relativists try to take over another thread. America's done some bad things in the past, therefore Britain was right or not wrong or who can make any judgement about anything anymore because America's done some bad things in the past, omgz!

What a crock of shit.

You are welcome to judge Britain all you want. Your just a hypocrite unless you also condemn those same types of actions by your own government. Nothing wrong with being a hypocrite (I am sure I am hypocritical on some issues) but it does sort of make your point a bit hollow.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:04 pm

farley2k wrote:You are welcome to judge Britain all you want. Your just a hypocrite unless you also condemn those same types of actions by your own government. Nothing wrong with being a hypocrite (I am sure I am hypocritical on some issues) but it does sort of make your point a bit hollow.

Really? I have to condemn every bad act in the history of the United States before I can bitch about Britain? Boy it takes a lot of work just to have an opinion on this single issue.

Can I just say I really don't like killing civilians, and that when civilians are intentionally targeted, it's a really bad thing? Can I have an opinion about Britain blowing Qadhafi for oil now?

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:15 pm

cheeba wrote:And the intellectually bankrupt relativists try to take over another thread. America's done some bad things in the past, therefore Britain was right or not wrong or who can make any judgement about anything anymore because America's done some bad things in the past, omgz!

What a crock of shit.

Maybe we should take a new strategy and start winning the relativism pissing contest. There isn't a people or nation on earth that hasn't done seriously bad crap in their past. So when someone starts talking about how poor Lybia isn't any worse than the US -- we just dig further into the past to the great desert death march or somethingorother......

farley2k · Post by **farley2k** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:20 pm

cheeba wrote:Really? I have to condemn every bad act in the history of the United States before I can bitch about Britain? Boy it takes a lot of work just to have an opinion on this single issue.

Can I just say I really don't like killing civilians, and that when civilians are intentionally targeted, it's a really bad thing? Can I have an opinion about Britain blowing Qadhafi for oil now?

Your welcome to bitch about whatever floats your boat, but why do you think no one can say anything critical about it? Your somehow a special case that can't be criticized? Get over it. You post on a public forum - people will make comments. You want to bitch and have no one say anything? Try using Word instead of a web browser.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:27 pm

farley2k wrote:You post on a public forum - people will make comments.

Is it possible to ask them to make intelligent comments, rather than jumping on the relativism train and citing every bad thing that ever happened in the past without actually discussing the issue at hand? Or is that too much to ask?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:33 pm

cheeba wrote:
farley2k wrote:You post on a public forum - people will make comments.
Is it possible to ask them to make intelligent comments, rather than jumping on the relativism train and citing every bad thing that ever happened in the past without actually discussing the issue at hand? Or is that too much to ask?

Nothing occurs in a vacuum.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:49 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
cheeba wrote:
farley2k wrote:You post on a public forum - people will make comments.
Is it possible to ask them to make intelligent comments, rather than jumping on the relativism train and citing every bad thing that ever happened in the past without actually discussing the issue at hand? Or is that too much to ask?
Nothing occurs in a vacuum.

Apparently except moral relativism.

Flatlander · Post by **Flatlander** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:44 pm

I don't like the idea of Al Magrahi being released and handed over to the Libyans after 8 years of prison.

On the other hand, I don't like it when foreign Countries try to meddle in the American Justice system. Our courts are none of your damn business and yours are none of ours.

So as much as I hate to say it, the Brits are perfectly within their rights to release Magrahi. May his death come swiftly.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:22 pm

Libya: Please release the bomber.
UK: Shan't.
Libya: Pleeeeez. U can haz oils.
UK: Well mebbe. But only if you promise not to make a big deal of it and rejoice and throw him a parade and stuff. That would make us look bad.
Libya: Trust us.
UK: OK. Here he is.
Libya: [Holds parades and makes big deal of it and rejoices.]
UK: Oh bugger.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:15 pm

msduncan wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
cheeba wrote:
farley2k wrote:You post on a public forum - people will make comments.
Is it possible to ask them to make intelligent comments, rather than jumping on the relativism train and citing every bad thing that ever happened in the past without actually discussing the issue at hand? Or is that too much to ask?
Nothing occurs in a vacuum.
Apparently except moral relativism.

??

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:46 pm

silverjon wrote: Well, they do. I don't think there's ever been a war where only people who signed up got killed.

Whatever your level of tolerance for "acceptable losses" or "collateral damage" is, it's completely dishonest to completely turn a blind eye to them. They are fact. But the apt comparison is in the attitude of the people doing the killing. Who feels remorse, and who glories in the destruction? You're going to find both kinds on every side.

Nobody suggested turning a blind eye to them. There isn't really a simple comparison at work here "Civilian casualties in war are just like terrorist bombings!" But if you want to flail away and claim that's what people are arguing when they say "you can't compare civilian casualties to deliberate terrorist bombings", you have at it.

I bolded the most irrelevant portion of your post for fun.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:03 pm

Peacedog wrote:Nobody suggested turning a blind eye to them. There isn't really a simple comparison at work here "Civilian casualties in war are just like terrorist bombings!" But if you want to flail away and claim that's what people are arguing when they say "you can't compare civilian casualties to deliberate terrorist bombings", you have at it.

I bolded the most irrelevant portion of your post for fun.

Did you read all the other stuff I wrote where I said there is no comparison, didja didja didja huh?

Some Americans actually do sadistic and fucked up things to innocent people on purpose, with war as their excuse, and sometimes terrible things happen by accident. If the former gets lumped in with the latter as part of the acceptable cost of waging a war, we have a serious problem, is all I'm saying.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:30 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote:I don't have problem with this. This guy is just a patriot that did what he was ordered to do. The thing that you need to be mad about is that western governments now are buddy-buddy with the guy that ordered it.

Or are you going to support jailing US pilots who bombed Iraqi? They killed even more innocent civilians than this guy.

Blowing up a plane full of innocent civilians is hardly a patriotic act.......

farley2k · Post by **farley2k** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:18 pm

Scuzz wrote:
Victoria Raverna wrote:I don't have problem with this. This guy is just a patriot that did what he was ordered to do. The thing that you need to be mad about is that western governments now are buddy-buddy with the guy that ordered it.

Or are you going to support jailing US pilots who bombed Iraqi? They killed even more innocent civilians than this guy.

Blowing up a plane full of innocent civilians is hardly a patriotic act.......

But dropping an atomic bomb on a city of civilians is? Or were those men not patriotic when they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

And this isn't an attempt to bring back up the relativism stuff it is just remembering what Obi-Wan said "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on your point of view"