Terminally Ill Lockerbie Bomber - Not Dead Yet

chanel

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
3,198
Points
98
Location
People's Republic of NJ
THE Lockerbie bomber was at the centre of a fresh row last night after it emerged he is taking a cancer-busting drug that could keep him alive for FIVE more years.

Terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was prescribed chemotherapy treatment Taxotere after returning to Libya.

Megrahi - sentenced to life for the 1988 jet bombing that killed 270 people - was freed on compassionate grounds seven months ago and returned home to Libya.

Yesterday it emerged the prostate cancer sufferer's condition has now stabilised.

‘Terminally ill’ Lockerbie bomber could live for another five years | The Sun |Home Scotland|Scottish News
 

froggy

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
11,702
Reaction score
2,136
Points
245
See my point about you die the way you live, long slow agonizing death.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,931
Reaction score
16,985
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
That isn't her point. She's complaining that he was released since she thinks if he's terminal he shouild be dead already...

as if anyone on here thought he should have been released in the first place...
 

Tommy Lucchese

The Hustler, Ask About Me
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
140
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
City of Champions!
This was all a horse trade between the US/UK relating to the WMD disarmament in 2003. Libya pays money to the victims, they get their guy back and they give us intel on Islamists through the intelligence back-channel like Syria does.

Worth it.
 

Winston Smith

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
147
Reaction score
18
Points
16
This was all a horse trade between the US/UK relating to the WMD disarmament in 2003. Libya pays money to the victims, they get their guy back and they give us intel on Islamists through the intelligence back-channel like Syria does.

Worth it.

don't forget the $4 bn oil deal . I'm sure that little incentive didn't hurt...
 

Tommy Lucchese

The Hustler, Ask About Me
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
140
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
City of Champions!
This was all a horse trade between the US/UK relating to the WMD disarmament in 2003. Libya pays money to the victims, they get their guy back and they give us intel on Islamists through the intelligence back-channel like Syria does.

Worth it.

don't forget the $4 bn oil deal . I'm sure that little incentive didn't hurt...

Foreign policy isn't missionary work.
 

Winston Smith

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
147
Reaction score
18
Points
16
This was all a horse trade between the US/UK relating to the WMD disarmament in 2003. Libya pays money to the victims, they get their guy back and they give us intel on Islamists through the intelligence back-channel like Syria does.

Worth it.

don't forget the $4 bn oil deal . I'm sure that little incentive didn't hurt...

Foreign policy isn't missionary work.

never said it was, nor am i naive enough to think so. but you do have to admit, the deal leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, no matter how much the british government insists he was released "on humanitarian grounds".
 

Tommy Lucchese

The Hustler, Ask About Me
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
140
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
City of Champions!
don't forget the $4 bn oil deal . I'm sure that little incentive didn't hurt...

Foreign policy isn't missionary work.

never said it was, nor am i naive enough to think so. but you do have to admit, the deal leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, no matter how much the british government insists he was released "on humanitarian grounds".

I'm sure it's unpleasant for the families, but once you start using appeals to emotion as reasons for doing something it can apply to any situation because there's always a downside for somebody.

So, yeah, it doesn't look great, but Americans don't give a fuck about geopolitics in the slightest anyway.
 

Winston Smith

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
147
Reaction score
18
Points
16
Foreign policy isn't missionary work.

never said it was, nor am i naive enough to think so. but you do have to admit, the deal leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, no matter how much the british government insists he was released "on humanitarian grounds".

I'm sure it's unpleasant for the families, but once you start using appeals to emotion as reasons for doing something it can apply to any situation because there's always a downside for somebody.

i agree. foreign affairs shuold come from careful consideration. but you do have to be careful about running international politics without any emotional or moral consideration whatsoever. that kind of realpolitik is partly responsible for WW1.
 

Tommy Lucchese

The Hustler, Ask About Me
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
140
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
City of Champions!
never said it was, nor am i naive enough to think so. but you do have to admit, the deal leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, no matter how much the british government insists he was released "on humanitarian grounds".

I'm sure it's unpleasant for the families, but once you start using appeals to emotion as reasons for doing something it can apply to any situation because there's always a downside for somebody.

i agree. foreign affairs shuold come from careful consideration. but you do have to be careful about running international politics without any emotional or moral consideration whatsoever. that kind of realpolitik is partly responsible for WW1.

I disagree, foreign policy should be a completely emotionless affair. The problem with pre-WW1 Europe was the balance of power at the time, not the techniques.

Historically speaking, we are just spoiled because the Pax Atomica Cold War era was the most stable international system in human history (only two sides, that's crazy). And then Poppy Bush came along and did what had never been done before, he deconstructed the entire international system without a bullet being fired, and he was realpolitik to the core.
 

Winston Smith

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
147
Reaction score
18
Points
16
I'm sure it's unpleasant for the families, but once you start using appeals to emotion as reasons for doing something it can apply to any situation because there's always a downside for somebody.

i agree. foreign affairs shuold come from careful consideration. but you do have to be careful about running international politics without any emotional or moral consideration whatsoever. that kind of realpolitik is partly responsible for WW1.

I disagree, foreign policy should be a completely emotionless affair. The problem with pre-WW1 Europe was the balance of power at the time, not the techniques.

Historically speaking, we are just spoiled because the Pax Atomica Cold War era was the most stable international system in human history (only two sides, that's crazy). And then Poppy Bush came along and did what had never been done before, he deconstructed the entire international system without a bullet being fired, and he was realpolitik to the core.

certainly the balance of power in pre-WW1 europe was a big catalyst, but it wasn't the only one, reakpolitik certainly played some part.

you may have a point with the "spoiled" point. but i'm not sure a muti-polar world such as the one we're going towards is better (not that i have any idea what can be done about it). the cold-war bipolar world did much to create the longest period in europe with no major war. will a multipolar world do that? no sure....
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top