[Omen]

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.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Omen

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

[Omen]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Omen

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).

[Omen]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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.

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.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Omen

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.

[Omen]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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.