http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439513248328750.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLETopStories

In fact, there are two separate points here: the first is who ordered the release of al Megrahi; and the second is who actually planted the bomb.

Don’t believe for an instant that Britain — and I use the word advisedly, rather than ‘Scotland’; Salmond and his government were instructed what to do by London — would have taken this course without American consent.

I do believe that the US administration gave the go-ahead for this move. I do not know what that desired aim was, although it is obvious that having Libya on-side is a major plus. But do, please, know that Britain would never take a decision like this unilaterally and without American approval. You won’t understand the basics of this (and so much more of US-UK relations) if you don’t know that.

As for the second point: right from his conviction (and, IIRC correctly, even before), people were claiming that al Megrahi was a patsy. Naturally, this allowed the real culprit to go free. I’ve seen various speculations as to who planted the bomb: at various times the Syrians, others and, only yesterday in the Glasgow Herald newspaper, a Palestinian was named as the real bomber.

Why should this information be covered up? Why, as al Megrahi’s conviction has long been held unsound by people who have reason to know, has there been no further discussion? I have no clue. Obviously though, there are many people in high government who do have a clue and the press, as seems to be the norm nowadays, has decided to look the other way.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist by nature; quite the opposite. But if a man like Jim Swire agrees, then I think it’s worthy of attention.

And if we do allow that al Megrahi is a patsy, then should he stay in jail till he dies anyway? Or should he stay there until we find someone else whom we can put in his place?

Some would argue that he shouldn’t have been in there for this crime. Others might say that if he wasn’t guilty of this, he was guilty of other things and so he should be imprisoned, anyway. I suspect it depends on your worldview.

On the whole, though, I think it’s probably wise to apply a sceptical rigour to the labyrinthine motivations behind this. There’s an awful lot of trail-covering going on. The Scottish government were simply the ones left holding the ball when the spotlight was turned on (apologies for the horrendously mixed metaphor!).

Heh. I would’ve settled for a death certificate.

Not I. I, along with many others, predicted that his being sent back home to an adoring public would do almost miraculous wonders for his previously depressed spirits.
It is not only symptomatic of the cowardice of much of the West, it is symptomatic of what people without firm sense of morality (and, perhaps, true patriotism) do when they engage with bullying foreign governments, and it shows wherefore we should try to avoid letting unprincipled people anywhere near diplomatic jobs (or any official post for that matter).
Unfortunately, since a supposedly informed electorate decided that B.H. Obama’s résumé was sufficiently detailed for his being given the top job in your country, I have no high hopes that the current US administration will resist the next diplomatic subterfuge from Libya or Iran or Venezuela…

” … ultimate question. What has happened to the judgment and resolve of the West? ”

==========

As I see it: Western society has become so open-minded that our collective brains have fallen out.

We’ve suspended critical thinking to the point that we can no longer see the logical progression of outcomes: take some noble-sounding step, then of course “x” occurs, so we have to do “y”; one thing leads to another, and ultimately, if we don’t admit error and radically change course, the result will be the destruction of our society.

We have taken great pride in being tolerant and welcoming to other ideas and world-views. At the same time, we’ve lost our awareness that some ideas are better than others, while others when put into action will lead to disaster.

Put into specifics: the ideas and teachings of Islam are destructive to a cohesive, liberal (old-sense), productive society. Islam is essentially parasitic. Without a new “host” society to feed off of, it stagnates and devolves.

I don’t want Western Civilization to be the new “host” of Islam, and yet I fear it’s already too late. We have forbidden ourselves from seeing (and telling!) the truth about Islam being an aggressive totalitarian theocracy. (And I don’t quite know how it came about… isn’t the West supposed to welcome debate and analysis of ideas???) The fact that “there are many peaceful, moderate Muslims” does not negate the history of Islamic conquest and the hundreds-of-millions of “Infidel” lives lost as it has spread through the Middle East, over Southeast Asia, and throughout Africa. That there are individual Muslims who are wonderful people is indisputable; but I have NO DOUBT that Islam itself is a cancer to the world.

So, am I gonna be banned for “hate speech” ?