Democracy v BP Corporatism
 

The last thread was shut. Why?

Mr Almagrahy was released from prison allegedly because bp put prssure on the British judiciary, in return for which BP were awarded drilling rights in Libyan waters.

The big quetio, extrapolating from that is, did BP direct British foreign policy to invade Iraq, in order to share n the spoils of Iraqi oil?

Steve has lost his legs patrolling Northern Ireland. Unfortunate and a total waste.

when the British army came to NI they were welcomed because they protected the Nationlists from the unionists. They soon becam the enemy.

We have a live one.

What I meant to say about Steve is he is typical of most soldiers, harking back to the time when Britain stood alone against Hitler, and people are suppose to accept that this is the purpose of the British army; to fight tyranny wherever it exists. He slapped down Ben and Ben was forced to retreat and grovel, for questioning the British Army.

What BP's interference in British justice, I think, demonstrates the might of this corporation. In the US only the President could release someone convicted of mass murder. Tony Blair pulled every sring and told huge whopppers to get the endorsement of Parliament to join the US in invading Iraq. Exxon and BP are now helping themselves to that country's oil. It is Corporatism; when the will of a country'ss citizens are relegated to those of Big Business. "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

I think this is current as it was only yesterday that Obama was tearing off Cameron a strip for the British govt. releasing Al Magrahy.

I think you should you revise your view of BP's involvement in the release of al-Megrahi (correct spelling). David Cameron announced to a press conference overnight there was no deal for oil.

Think logically about it, why would the SNP(who are responsible for the Scottish Justice Service and Scottish Prisons) listen to a Labour government telling them to change things so that BP gets preferential treatment? Alex Salmond would think all his Christmases had come at once going public with that one.

As for Obama tearing a trip of Cameron, Obama obviously doesnt know what everyone in Scotland knows, that the British Government at Westminster doesnt have the power to interfere in Scottish Justice, without causing a constitional crisis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10691609

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-10716229

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...release-denial

I was aware that it was suppose to be a Scottish judicial decision, I just wonder if it really was, or was pressure brought to bear. Also, even if it was purely a Scottish decision, that doesn't mean that BP did not put pressure on the Scottish judiciary and Legitature; after all chances are the Scots are just as corruptable as the English.

3 months to live when he left jail, 2 years on al-Megrahi is looking heathier than he did when he left hospital in Scotland. His release 2 years ago was a condition of BP gaining drilling rights in Libya, it is being reported. Says it all if true.

"David Cameron announced to a press conference overnight there was no deal for oil." Well he would wouldn't he.

No suppose about it, Kenny MacAskill the Scottish Justice Minister made a statement at the time stating that al-Magrahi's release was not as a result of any sort of external pressure, but purely on compasssionate grounds. Nor were any favours being sought from Libya in connection with the release.

Again, you really should do a little research, he was released on compassionate grounds in August 2009, maths and stuff isnt a strong point but even by my reckoning its less than one year. DYLAC

It's what the news reported. Maybe they were referring to when he first contracted cancer.

Kenny McAacAskill or DavidCameron can say whatever they like. In my view actions speak louder than words.

Wrt Iraq, "BP To Drill 80-100 New Oil Wells In Iraq's Rumaila ".
Once again, actions speak louder than words.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...19-709929.html

Oil was being drilled in Iraq before the us led invasion, companies had licences to drill and export, profits to the Iraqi government were held by a UN organisation and used to buy non blockaded items like baby food blankets etc.

You still dont get it do you, if Salmond and co had been told to release him by Gordon Brown, it would create a constitutional crisis that salmond would have used to force Scotland out of the Union.He would have shouted it from the rooftops about token devolution etc, then run to Scotland for a referendum, something he doesnt do just now because he knows he wont get the percentage he needs. Believe me he would of used the revelation to gain not just national but international support for a totally independent Scotland.

Likewise if BP had gone direct to the Scottish government, it would undermine the SNP, they like to be seen to be squeaky clean.

If you are looking for a conspiracy, look at where the accusations about BP are coming from, oh the US and why, go look at Congressional and Senate reports, where the criticism and inquiries about American companies that ran the rig and did the actual drilling are silenced, so that all the blame goes to BP.

Similarly questions and comments about BP's prompt payment of compensation and American Companies still haggling over overseas compensation years after incidents.(Google Union Carbide - Bhopal India - where claims for serrlement are still waiting since 1984).

You assume Salmond was even in the loop. Ever watched Yes Minister? Widely regarded as an accurate portrayal of the goings-on behind the closed doors of Whitehall, where Mandarins make all the real decisions,and are rewarded with directorships in BP and the like. Or, what if Salmond was not only in the loop, but at the centre of it? How much does BP contribute to Scotland's coffers?

The facts are a mass murderer was released, and BP were given drilling righs in Libya. Britain went to war on spurious grounds,and BP are profitting hugely from it. It reeks to high heaven.

Oh, Iraq were extracting only a tiny fraction of their oil prior to invasion. Saddam destroyed most of the infrastructure in the first gulf war to stop the west getting their hands on it.

To witness Obama and Cameron squabble over the spill you get a true sense of the importance of BP to UK plc; they are for all intents and purposes the same thing. Britain will bend all and any rules to protect BP. This is de facto corporatism.

Except it seems as if he may not have been guilty after all. Lots of iffy evidence used in his trail is being questioned using more modern forensic techniques.

Incidentally your inaccuracies are getting worse, like any good conspiracy nut, you throw some names and facts in to seemingly back up your case but on checking those facts they are wrong.

Saddam didnt destroy the infrastructure in the first Gulf war in Iraq, his troops had set explosives on the Kuwait oil wells shortly after they invaded, they blew them on retreat. Note Kuwaiti not Iraqi oil wells Gulf war 1

In Dance in the Desert 2 he started blowing wells in Iraq. Something the coalition had anticipated and had oil well fire specialist teams standing by as well as special forces teams inserted to stop them from blowing them.

You'll note I didn't say he burned them, he did destroy them, rendering them useless. The capacity was hugely reduced as a result of the first gulf war. (He did set wells on fire though).

I don't really see how that alters the fact that Britain is a corporatist state.

If alMaggy was inocent then he should have got off. He didn't. Nobody gets off cos they might be inocent, not without a court freeing them.

He didnt destroy any of his own wells during or after the first gulf war, the capacity of the wells was reduced because he wasnt allowed to sell the oil, then the UN instigated the OIL for Food Humanitarian program.

With al-Megrahi, his appeal process was thrown out because he was being freed on compassionate grounds, relatives of some of those lost on the flight asked for it to continue, because of the doubt thrown on the initial prosecution.

Can you give me a reference, I can't find one. I have only my memory to go on.

It doesn't really change much anyway, as far as what I am accusing BP and the british govt. of.

Secondly, this was the biggest mass-murder for which someone was caught, (AFAIK), so ill or not compassionate release should never have even been considered, even if he "might" have been innocent.

This is the prize, and they don't have to drill 1000m under water for it:

Funnily enough I was using my memory too. I got invites to both parties. Try Googling 1991 oil well fires gulf war or some such.

I was watching my little b&w portable in bed when GW1 kicked off. It was like a Kennedy moment (wasn't even born) or when Diana died (also in bed watching my little colour portable). It was one of those moments you never forget where you were.

Changing the subject slightly, but still talking about corporatism, here is a snippet of a submission made by a company calle Unocal to the:

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN
REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


I quote: "The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company

This is naked corporatism asking the US govt. to intervene in Afghanistan for the purposes of regime change. Note, it is dated 1998.

It is important to ask why soldiers are dieing in Afghanistan, and to question the terrorism spiel spoon-fed the public; wishy-washy spiel that conflates the Taliban with Al-Qaeda and all shades of baddies.

Back to David Cameron. He has unreservedly said the decision to release Allybaba was wrong, t-totally wrong, thus closing the door on any new enquiry which might shed light on how that decision was arrived at. The truth will not OUT!

Ok lets see if I can explain this in terms you will understand.

Powers over Justice were devolved from the UK government to the Scottish government along with other powers when they set up the Scottish Parliament.

For the UK government to then call an inquiry into the affairs of the Scottish government would show everyone that the Scottish government cant be trusted.

This would upset a lot of people particularly in NI Wales and Scotland. As it would undermine the regional assemblies. People would say what is the point of having the current set up if decisions they make are then questioned.

This in turn would either break up the UK or mean that regional assemblies were simply another expensive white elephant.

The decision taken to release al-magrahi was taken because his lawyer appealed through the Scottish Justice System citing UN Human Rights and European Human Rights guidelines on Terminally Ill prisoners.

The fact the man hasnt died is neither here nor there as some cancer victims do survive a lot longer than prognosis indicates.

The US can call for as many inquiries as it likes, it has no powers over the UK or Scottish governments. It would be like us asking for a review of the decision to give Bush the presidency in either of the elections he won.

I would be more worried that the US have plans to not only have inquiries about UK governmental decisions, leading eventually to them invading us to ensure we manage our affairs for their best interest, than BP supposedly forcing the Scottish Government to release him.

As i said ealier, what if he scotish govt. was gotten at by bp?

What do you mean by "gotten at"?

BP may have lobbied, that is asked for his release as did some humans rights organisations, just as some organisations/lawyers representing the relatives of the dead from the bombing asked for him to remain in prison.

Why dont you claim Amnesty International has bought out by BP, as they also asked for his compassionate release? As did PrisonReform, the AOHR and The Prison and Probation Ombudsman even the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Kenny MacAskill made the decision based on recommendations put to him by his department. Take it up with him.

they tried that divade and conquer in Vietnam too, north versus south, after the usa did some terrorism and blamed the north, the south found out and joined the north, while still appearing to be the yanks friends, they disclosed info on yank positions, fed the info to the north, hence so many great succesful ambushes.

only by joining together and vowing to fight to the last drop of blood, to drive those yank barbarians out, did they succeed.

its a pity how so many countires are fooled by the yanks and brits, ireland divided, korea divided, germany divided, now joined, still war is big business, so we have to ask ourselves, follow the money for war and you will see who profits the most, hence who benefits the most?

I would suggest you find a totally unbiaised, site on recent history and read up, before making claims that make you look like some sort of would be anarchist with learning difficulties.

Oil, blood money, and Blair's last scandal

Is your life worth more to your government than a few pence added to BP's share price? At first, this will sound like a strange question. But sometimes there is a news story that lays out the priorities that drive our governments once the doors are closed and the cameras are switched off. The story of the attempt to trade the Lockerbie bomber for oil is one of those moments

Let's start in the deserts of Iraq – because the Lockerbie deal might just reveal what really happened there. Many people were perplexed by Tony Blair's decision to back George W Bush's invasion, which has led to the deaths of 1.2 million people.

Most critics of the war said the real reason was a desire for Western access to Iraq's vast supplies of oil. This debate has gone on for years. Now it has emerged that Tony Blair plotted to hand a convicted terrorist – the worst in modern British history – to a vicious tyrant in exchange for access to oil for British corporations.

One man was convicted for the mass murder at a Scottish trial in 2000: Abdelbasset al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer. Following the bombing, most Western governments imposed sanctions on Libya that forbade companies from investing there. If you are opposed to terrorism and tyranny, it was a happy ending: an alleged terrorist was tried in open court and convicted, and a tyrant was shunned.

But, within a few short years, Tony Blair was not happy. Why? The oil company BP wanted to be able to drill down into Libya's oil, and tap the profits that would gush forth. Their then-CEO, John Browne, flew to Tripoli in the company of MI6 agents to find out what the dictatorship wanted in return for opening the country's wells. It was, of course, clear that they wanted Megrahi back.

BP has admitted it lobbied Tony Blair to exchange prisoners with Libya. They say they didn't specifically mention Megrahi – but there was no need to: there were no other Libyan prisoners of particular note in Britain.

Blair's administration was so intertwined with the oil company by this point that it was often dubbed "Blair's Petroleum". There was a revolving door between BP and Downing Street: BP execs sat on more government taskforces than all other oil companies combined, while many of Blair's closest confidantes went to work for the corporation. He gave two of its CEOs peerages, and slashed taxes on North Sea oil production. By 2005, he was talking to Lord Browne at Downing Street dinners about what he would do after he left office, with rumours circulating of a move to BP.


There's more:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...l-2033114.html

Okay I think your obsessive hatred of the Briotish Government has blinded you to what you are posting now.

BP admitted lobbying the British Government. not putting pressure on them.

al Megrahi was released by the Scottish Government not the British.


The Labour Government werent plotting in Libya, BP went to Libya to speak to the LIbyan Government to see what they wanted in exchange for oil drilling rights.

BP staff would ask for official/diplomatic protection while talking to the Libyan Government. They wanted to ensure nothing happened to themselves, lots of companies are escorted by MI6 field officers, its part of their job.

The war in Iraq was started by Blair who lied about Iraq's capabilities and intentions. He is not now the government. The release of Megrahi was by the Scottish Government under Salmond.

Nothing I posted in the 2 posts above yours are my words. They are in italics to indicate they were taken from an article which I said they were, ie,

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...l-2033114.html

I'm not too concerned whether it was officially the Scottish govt. or the British parliament who released him. One of the comments stated that BP give the Scottish exchequer £12 billion/year and indirectly employ 10's of thousands.

I note as of now the article has been pulled. Maybe someone's feathers were ruffled.

Edit: it's here now

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...l-2033114.html

My opinion is that British soldiers are being sent to war to bolster the coffers of Britain's largest company. Not to fight tyrants or terrorists.

Also, you said I hate Britain. Why? Because I'm Irish? My opinions are the same as millions of Brits. I did my share of marching down O'Connell Street, shouting for Bush, Blair and Bertie to be turfed out.

I think my opinion about you was formed by garbage in your posts and the way you throw the word Brits about, how would you feel if I started referring to you as my Boggy friend?

Oh right and newspapers always tell the truth, You quote Johann Hari who now makes a living by taking a few facts, adding a lot of rumour and writing an inflammatory thought provoking commentary.

Yeah I know he has one or two awards for some pieces that were actually true, but how many BS conspiracy theiry articles has he wrote in their wake? Its easy to string a conspiracy theory together.

Incidentally I would research your facts again. BP didnt give 12 billion to the Scottish Executive, that would be corruption. (That has a nasty habit of bringing down governments).

I think if you remove the venom from your eyes you will find that figure was quoted as the potential profits for BP from drilling offshore in Libyan waters.

I didn't say that. I said A COMMENT underneath the Independent article said BP cntributes £12b/year to the Scotish exchequer. In taxes.

You or I don't know what the truth is. We debate second-hand news; it's both surreal and academic. (More and more I feel disconnected from the news). As much as I can see, I believe that the British army was sent to Iraq and Afghanistan for profit and not principle.

Now, what does annoy me is the news dressing up the reasons why the British army is deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. I hate how Sky News devote 30 minutes of coffins rolling of transporters, and the dead being carried on shoulders. Like they were heroes. They were professional soldiers who thought it would never happen to them - but they were not heroes. They were pawns in an imperial adventure.

What taxes are those then, the Scottish Parliament doesnt receive money directly from anyone, people who pay income tax, firms paying corporate taxes etc pay to the Customs and Revenue which in turn passes it on to the UK exchequer, top tip - dont quote stuff without checking its factual basis.

You will be saying that BP paid some people from the Middle East to take flying lessons and take one way passage to the Twin Towers next.

As for the way we treat our dead serviceman, thats our business, no one is saying they are heroes, if people want to call them heroes thats fine by me.

They died wearing their countries uniforms, following orders that were given to them, that is sufficient. If someone wants to honour servicemen who fell in the line of duty thats a good thing. Doesnt matter whether they were heroes or not.

A good mutual example would be the dead of WW1, from both Britain and Ireland, lions led by donkeys etc oh and WW2 in fact there was, in fact no not was is still men from the Republic of Ireland wearing the uniform of the Queen. Would you be calling them men traitors then?

I like debating with you. Maybe it's because you're the only one doing it.

What taxes are those then, the Scottish Parliament doesnt receive money directly from anyone, people who pay income tax, firms paying corporate taxes etc pay to the Customs and Revenue which in turn passes it on to the UK exchequer, top tip - dont quote stuff without checking its factual basis.

That's a no-brainer.


Lots of irish men died fighting for the King. As many from the rrepublic as from the North. They thought they'd be rewarded with an independent Ireland. Chris Moyle's grandad (BBC) was one of them.

I think it is wrong that British service men and women think they are fighting tyranny and terrorism, whereas in reality they are fighting for oil.

I'm sitting here trying to provoke Shasown into a reply.

How the British army are just tools of big business. How soldiers fight and die for profit.

But I think she's gone to bed.