Lockerbie guy - when is he going to kick the bucket?

[nonconformist]

There is probably classified evidence against him, that the "observer" was not privy to.


Duh


You think we just parade our active terrorist informants before a public court??

It wasn't a public court

 

[nonconformist]

Then by all means lets have a third trial and see what happens. But until his status officially is changed by a court of law, he is still proven guilty of the crimes he is accused of. There is simply no assumption of his inncence in this particular case. He is now assumed guilty until proven by a court otherwise.

If the trial was so jacked up to begin with why was it upheld on appeal?

Nah, dont answer that. Because that would simply be your opinion, which doesnt really count in a situation where the only thing that does count is the courts verdict.

Like I said, you can assume things all day long. It doesnt change anything until a court officially acts on it.

Welp, let's say that what I know about it probably outbalances what you know a feckload

 

[Ecofarm]

It wasn't a public court

I'm refering to the public records of the court.


Do you really think they've released all of their secret informants and highly sensitive evidence? We don't give up sources to prove something to you personally, sorry bub.


Fact: You are not privy to all the evidence. Why do you assume you know EVERYTHING about this case??


He's guilty. End of Story.

 

[nonconformist]

You're being really equatist

 

[MobBoss]

Welp, let's say that what I know about it probably outbalances what you know a feckload

And until a court rules on it one way or another, what you think you know doesnt mean squat.

Again, the fact of the matter is he was found guilty. It was upheld on appeal. He remains convicted until proven otherwise. You can render your opinion (which really is simply based on what you have read of others opinion on it) on it until the cows come home but it wont alter the facts I just stated. End of story.

 

[Ecofarm]

You're being really equatist

I'm not being equatist. It's just silly to think we know everything about a highly sensitive intelligence case. Then we exceed silly to try and use our limited knowledge to PROVE something! By this logic, every single case that has ever had classified intelligence information was bogus.

We must accept that we DO NOT know everything about this case, and refrain from throwing the Irish judicial system under the bus based on ignorant "what ifs". You know... be rational.

It's just supremely ridiculous to presume we know everything and then spout partial accounts from third parties to cast doubt. I understand this is a big case and "what if he is innocent" is an intriguing proposition. But lacking full disclosure by the government and relying on third party, censored, comments to create this conspiracy is lame.



You do admit that we do not know everything about this case, right?

Further, do you admit that the fact above blows any conspiracy theories and third party censored statements out of the water?

 

[Munch]

The Burns Night bet seems sound so far. A lot of people are going to be upset when he doesn't become immortal.

 

[Mise]

No point discussing this with a liar like MobBoss. He'll just lie and say whatever he wants to prove his point. Of course it would just be a lie, because that's what liars do.

 

[Bill3000]

Fact: You are not privy to all the evidence. Why do you assume you know EVERYTHING about this case??

...

He's guilty. End of Story.

 

[Ecofarm]

You're itchin for a good spar, aren't you Bill? I gotta run an errand but perhaps we can get into a fine row later tonight.


Anyway, I do not need to know everything about the case to know he is guilty. In fact, I don't need to know anything about the case to know he is guilty. It is fair to presume someone guilty who has been convicted and lost an appeal. If you object to that, you might as well scrap the entire justice system.

 

[MobBoss]

No point discussing this with a liar like MobBoss. He'll just lie and say whatever he wants to prove his point. Of course it would just be a lie, because that's what liars do.

/meh. If you want to change your tune and deny you insinuated that this guy was on deaths door when you posted that silly pic of him in the hospital thats your business. I asked early what happens if this guy doesnt drop dead as expected. Apparently its too tough a question for some to even consider....even after he has lived longer than presumably expected.

Bottom line, the guy lived past his 3 month prognosis which you so heartily supported. Again I point out maybe he wasnt so terminal as you thought. If that makes you start calling names then its your problem, not mine.

 

[GinandTonic]

We must accept that we DO NOT know everything about this case, and refrain from throwing the Irish judicial system under the bus based on ignorant "what ifs". You know... be rational.

WTH does the Irish judicial system have to do with anything? Far as I know there is no suggestion he was either a paedophile or a priest.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, Mise put that up long ago saying that was evidence the poor slob only had days to live.

/meh. If you want to change your tune and deny you insinuated that this guy was on deaths door when you posted that silly pic of him in the hospital thats your business. I asked early what happens if this guy doesnt drop dead as expected. Apparently its too tough a question for some to even consider....even after he has lived longer than presumably expected.

I don't need to change my tune, because I never once said that he had days to live. Why won't you just admit that you lied to prove your point? Is it because you're too dishonest a person to even do that? Admit that you lied, or admit that you are categorically incapable of getting simple facts right. I you can't get a simple fact like that right, how can anyone possibly take you at your word?

Bottom line, the guy lived past his 3 month prognosis which you so heartily supported.

Heartily supported? I said I would take the professional medical opinion of the doctors that examined him. I never once said he had days to live, and I never once said that I heartily supported the prognosis. I said I accepted the medical opinion of the doctors that examined him, just like I accepted the judgement of the court that convicted him, and of the court that released him. Please, MobBoss, for your own credibility, learn to read English. Thanks.

Oh, and, btw, if you accept as sacrosanct and inviolable the court's opinion that he was guilty, why do you not also accept the court's opinion that he should be released on compassionate grounds? Is it because you are a hypocrite? The Scottish judiciary convicted him, and the Scottish judiciary released him on compassionate grounds.

Again I point out maybe he wasnt so terminal as you thought.

The doctors treating him have stated publicly that his cancer has spread throughout his body. If you knew anything about cancer, you would know that when it has spread throughout someone's body, it is terminal. How long do you think he has to live? When will he back on his feet and bombing planes?

If that makes you start calling names then its your problem, not mine.

If you continue to lie, I will continue to call you a liar. You asserted in no uncertain terms that I said he only had days to live. Since you will not admit that you were wrong about that, and that you couldn't get basic facts right, the only conclusion is that you wilfully claimed this, knowing that it was a lie. You are a liar.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Moderator Action: Stop name calling.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't need to change my tune, because I never once said that he had days to live. Why won't you just admit that you lied to prove your point? Is it because you're too dishonest a person to even do that? Admit that you lied, or admit that you are categorically incapable of getting simple facts right. I you can't get a simple fact like that right, how can anyone possibly take you at your word?

Ease up Mise. Did you ever literally say it? No. But you sure did try to pull heart strings posting his photo of him being in the hospital and insinuated a great deal in doing so. Its my opinion that you were insinuating as much earlier in this thread. I am also hardly the only one to point this out either. What I stated was simply what I got out of your comments and photos, not the verbatim quote of same. If you consider that lieing then I apologize. I do have some class after all.

Please, MobBoss, for your own credibility, learn to read English. Thanks.

Sigh.

Oh, and, btw, if you accept as sacrosanct and inviolable the court's opinion that he was guilty, why do you not also accept the court's opinion that he should be released on compassionate grounds?

Actually, that was granted solely by MacAskill, and not a court. So to answer you, no, I dont, since there was never any courts opinion that he be released on compassionate grounds.

Is it because you are a hypocrite?

No, its because you werent aware of the facts of his release.

The Scottish judiciary convicted him, and the Scottish judiciary released him on compassionate grounds.

No, they didnt. MacAskill did.

The doctors treating him have stated publicly that his cancer has spread throughout his body.

At least thats the report from the Libyans.

If you knew anything about cancer, you would know that when it has spread throughout someone's body, it is terminal. How long do you think he has to live? When will he back on his feet and bombing planes?

How long do you think he has to live? When someone is released on compassionate gounds arent they supposed to die within a few months of release?

If you continue to lie, I will continue to call you a liar.

Well, I hope not. I would really hate to regret my apology.

You asserted in no uncertain terms that I said he only had days to live.

In my opinion, thats what you insinuated without saying so much in words. You can disagree with my opinion all you want, but it is what it is.

 

[Ecofarm]

He definately meant days.

 

[MobBoss]

He definately meant days.

Well, it would seem that I am hardly alone in how I interpreted that photo.

 

[Karalysia]

I will laugh at all of you when he ascends to an Occulation like state and becomes immortal like Mahdi.

 

[MobBoss]

I will laugh at all of you when he ascends to an Occulation like state and becomes immortal like Mahdi.

Why would that be funny? Secondly, arent you an athiest? What would that do to your athiest belief?

 

[Mise]

ROFL I guess you guys know what I mean better than I do! I was right -there's no point in "discussing" anything with you, MobBoss, because you'll just read whatever you want into what I say.

I never once said he had days to live, I never once believed he had days to live -- I never even gave an opinion on how long he had to live. If you noticed, I haven't voted in the poll, because I'm not a doctor, I'm not an oncologist, I've never even seen the guy. I am in no position to judge how long he has to live, and that is why I accepted the professional medical opinion of the doctors who examined him.

But of course, that just means I believe he has days to live Man, you guys are hilarious. You can't win an argument against what I actually say, and instead have to invent things and claim I said things I didn't. Pathetic.

EDIT: Just saw that it's not a public poll. If you don't believe me, see spoiler:

Spoiler :

But I suppose you'll just see me as having voted for "he has days to live" anyway, so why bother with the facts