In FrontPage this morning I discuss the curious new revelations about Obama's stance toward the release of the Lockerbie jihadist:
[...] And so the key question that should be posed to Barack Obama today is why he believed that "compassionate" release was preferable for this remorseless mass murderer than time in a Libyan jail. And if his administration approved of al-Megrahi's "compassionate" release, or at least had green-lighted it as a possibility before it occurred, why were U.S. officials "surprised, disappointed and angry" when it actually happened? Were any quid pro quos involved, either from Libya, whose strongman Muammar Gaddafi has lavishly praised Obama, or from Great Britain?Obama should also be asked, if the White House press corps were not so anxious to further the President's agenda, why this monster deserved any kind of compassion whatsoever, even if the reports about his terminal cancer had been true. Why should Abdelbeset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi, of all people, not die in prison for his pitiless crime of blowing an airplane out of the sky four days before Christmas and killing everyone on board? Isn't even the contemplation of "compassionate release" for such a man a miscarriage of justice for those who were killed, and an indication of a moral myopia staggering in its severity on the part of British authorities and Obama?
Given Obama's oft-repeated desire to establish relations with the Islamic world on the basis of a "mutual respect" that remains ever-elusive from the Islamic side, as shown in the new book I have written with Pamela Geller, The Post-American Presidency, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he directed U.S. officials to approve of al-Megrahi's "compassionate release" as yet another gesture of good will toward the Islamic world. Yet these gestures of good will remain unreciprocated. Al-Megrahi is free, his crime unpunished. Will anyone ask Barack Obama why?
Will anyone ask Barack Obama why?
I don't want to ask him anything, I just want to wave good-bye...soon...
Was there a 'deal' in this release? Of course, there always is...The crooks are so brazen they now operate out in the open...
Because Hussein will "stand with the Muslims." End of story.
The referenced Telegraph article in the FrontPage piece quotes U S Ambassador to the UK, Louis Susman:
''It is quite clear that the US government was strongly against the release of Megrahi. We had a mutual understanding with the British Government that if he was tried and convicted he would serve his entire sentence in Scotland."
''The fact that the justice minister [Scottish] made a decision on compassionate grounds to release him was something we were not in favour of.
''We obviously had conversations with them in which we strongly objected to any type of release.''
It strikes me as extremely disingenuous of RS to state that "it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he [Obama] directed U.S. officials to approve of al-Megrahi's
"compassionate release" as yet another gesture of good will toward the Islamic world." Of course, it is also not beyond the realm of possibility that in an epiphenomenal moment Osama bin Laden will tomorrow publicly convert to Judaism. Or that a myopic author will twist facts to support his point of view and hype a book.
What's disingenuous about it ?
When Obama orders an entity like NASA to focus on " making the Muslim world feel better about their contributions to science ", anything is possible.
And that's just one example.
When things get stuff, he will stand with the Muslims. he said so himself.
Having said that, I think it is more likely, that per usual, Obama is 100% disinterested in foreign policy, that this incident was read to him like a fourth-grade primer lesson, that he had no proactive thought about what should or should not happen to this murderer.
There isn't a more disengaged Antoinette on the face of the earth right now. No single incident is to stand in the way of his reshaping the economic and political skeleton of the United States.
If her name was "Natasha Obama" he might show a spark of interest, but her name was "Kate Hollister," and she was someone else's daughter, and so it doesn't matter to him.
If he was surprised, it was because he didn't realize the State Department's position was abhorrent to people of moral character. If he was disappointed, it was that people are distracted by the discovery and therefore takes the spotlight off him. If he was angry, it was because no one told him he was supposed to give a rip about the death of 279 people and it made him look stupid to his friends in the media.
Al-Megrahi is part of the ongoing decades of worldwide jihad and the Obama admn. has secured his right to continue a terrorist agenda.
Does anyone here want to wager Al-Megrahi will not? And even so, were the lives of almost 300 innocents so expendable that this filthy animal be freed?
The media, meaning those who are close enough to ask Obama or his press secretary about this, place a higher value on that access than on truth.
LOL! "things get tough"! I'm writing phoenetically. Ick.
Is Treason an Impeachable offense?
I know, the left doesn't think it's treason. Just like bowing to the Saudi King was just a gaffe and "apologizing" to "victims" of American foreign policy was "pressing a reset button" and letting the Russians screw us in Georgia and in Poland was a "new direction" in diplomacy.
But what about the President's indifference to the Iranian Revolution? To his studied apathy to the blood of freedom seeking Iranians on the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities? Can the President possess the hubris to think that he sweet talk the murderous mullahs and that the blood of patriotic Iranians is immaterial?
Would any American stand idly by while a people rebels against tyranny?
Treason.
Excellent questions all. I doubt we will ever receive an answer to any of them.
For *an American president* to back the release of a mass-murderer of American civilians is profoundly shocking. I have become more and more disturbed by Obama's stances and actions as a candidate and in office, but even so, I am just stunned by this.
Part of the issue may be that al-Megrahi is probably innocent and in reality Lockerbie was a revenge attack perpetuated by Iranians in retaliation to the the US bombing of Iran Air Flight 655, which killed 290 civilians. Note which civilian airline bombings receive attention and which don't. Is Spencer outraged that nobody was punished for killing 290 Iranian civilians, or is outrage only for white, wealthy victims.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3920
For one thing, that Iranian plane NEVER IDENTIFIED ITSELF. The Americans onboard the ship could not be sure it wasn't an attack, and indeed, the plane was probably ordered by its MUSLIM government NOT to ID, in order to DELIBERATELY cause an incident. Do you remember that this incident happened not long after the Stark was attacked and sunk? Of course the Yanks were nervous.
As for why the Americans were there in the first place, well, if you people weren't so horribly criminally uncivilized, no one would have to keep an eye on you Muslim scumbags.
Forget our president. Scots died in the Lockerbie bombing. Don't Scottish leaders care about their OWN countrymen? What message his this release sent to the survivors of those died in Scotland? Whatever Obama's opinion on this release, he wasn't the man in charge. Are we to believe that his opposition might have kept this murderer in prison? Nonsense! The Scottish government needs to accept full responsibility for the outcome. Where is Gordon Brown anyway?
Yes, White Lion, your argument makes a lot of sense. Basically the Iranian government says to the crew "Here's a sweet idea. Don't identify yourself to the American warship so they'll shoot you down and we can they sort of have something to complain about even though there's little we can do about it. Also we can proceed to quit the Iran-Iraq war for fear of additional attacks on our civilian airliners."
As absurd as that is, we already know it is false because as National Geographic showed they were broadcasting a code indicating they were a civilian aircraft.
And it's all irrelevant to my point. There's good reason to think al-Megrahi is innocent. Check my link and see.
As for your National Geographic, well, I can TV-up you - MAYDAY was the one who reported that the plane did NOT identify. Why should superior Muslim plane ID to lowly kuffar, right?
And a rat is more innocent than this two-legged disgrace to animate life.
Since when did Libyans become the fall guy, for the Iranians ?
Even though the Libyans admitted that they were responsible for the bombing, that's still not good enough for you..
Nothing that you wrote about makes any sense - conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, ad infinitum..
Typical leftish drivel.
Paul, read the link from fair that I have above. Your question is answered there.
And there's no conspiracy. It's no more a conspiracy to say that the media is highly selective in what they discuss as it is a conspiracy to say that Microsoft attempts to maximize profits and market share. Who are the media and what product do they deliver? They are major corporations intent on maximizing profits that delivers privileged audiences to wealthy corporations. What kind of a picture of the world would we expect to emerge from such an institution? A picture that is useful to their owners and customers.
So if there is something to be gained from a corporate perspective in belief in a particular story then we should expect the corporate institution that is the media to report that which perpetuates that story. It was not useful to have Iran as a villain at a certain stage in their history (when we wanted their help in expelling Saddam from Kuwait) whereas it was useful to demonize Libya and Qaddafi, so this is what emerged. That's the kind of thing that an institutional analysis of the media would predict would occur. So really it's the opposite of a conspiracy.
"It's no more a conspiracy to say that the media is highly selective in what they discuss as it is a conspiracy to say that Microsoft ..."
blah, blah, blah
I'd wager to say that after reading your name, most here do not bother eyeing your propagandizing posts.
mr. spencer: i have been bloggong here for a month.
i was born and raised in Iran in a very conservative muslim house hold. while as a teenager I was forced to participate in many islamic activities by dad(had no choice) I developed a hate and disdain for Islam bejond Imagination. i then studued aothe religions and mainly Judaism and chrsitianity and i finnal realized about 25 years aog that religion was the sigle most significant yet the biggest tragedy man kind has ever pull. so in veiws religions are evil. but i MUST TELL YOU that Islam in particular is a violent and brutal religion. no question about it.....
the reason though I am on this site just like evryone alse here I too have a vested intrest to do all I can to make sure that htese Jidahist are not going to come here and destroy our way of life. after all I work in new york city and have been for thirty years and I personnally witnessed when the second tower hit, and I an a senior exceuteive at a major entertainment company and after they attacked the second tower i immiadtly orderd our people to leave the building. our office are 15 blocks for the empire states building and I was cinvinced toses bastards were going to hit it and I smelled the burnt bodies south of 14 street. one other reason I like this site unlike Pajamas media and its founder Roger Simon who borrowde a chapter form the dispacable Iranian government silencing dissent and only hearing theri own BS this site listens to dissent and it is great...and is also very clear to me that you repeoprt all jidahist and expose them for all their crimes no matter who is directed to. which cleary means that you are impartail and you are not anti muslim or Islam, unlike Pjamas media. and this is great.. however when i most bloggers here I cansee that they are blindly despise muslims and portray just about every muslim aas a terrorist/pigs/violent..etc.. and this is so far from the truth. it cleary seems that there are a alot of angry people here though there also voices here with reasons. I think you have a duty and a responbibilty to expose the Jihadist like we all do. but to go ahead and od this without educating people only feeds more anger and frustration and honestly it we are not going to get anywhere. for exaple you have a blog here that says Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over Egypt once Mubark goes. i happen to agree with you. they will. but what you do not bring to the table is why Muslim brotherhood is going to take over. unless the reader here undersrtands why they are going to fire up anti muslim and anti Islam rhetorice and at the and of the day nothing gets caaomplished. in the case of muslim brotherhood, we give egypet 20 billion $$ a year, only for a dictator to stay in power to tortue it is own people, and rule a country with 30 centuries of culture and 75% of Cairo does not have a zipcode!!!! and only to rule a country that mubarak has to ge to germany to take his gall bladder removed. so you see he a running a country of 8o million people and he has not trained a f...ing doctor or built a f....ing hospital good enough that he needs to go to germany!!! you see how pathtic this is? so yes the muslim brotherhood as disppacable and as this disgusting and trerrositic they are they will be runnung the country, and that is because they are offering an alternatine to the eguptain people, one in whiich they offer hope and proserity. and people who are denied prosperity, freedom, education do listen to altervatives. that is why just about every muslim country is pathteticand that is one reason why the muslim extremist are growing. this issue has to be addressed. another thig essential here for the readers and bloggers to understand is islam. if the reader and blogger study the 7th century, theri way of life. cultur sociecomnomy, economy ang geasogaphy etc... they will see a lot of the stuff that Islam put in place made sense then and not know. here are a few example:
muslims are not allowed to eat pork, because the did not know how to cooki tso they said no more pork. not true today.
muslims are not allowed to consume alcholic beverage because the arabs were bunch of drunks then and they fought like cats and dogs, so they saud no more booz.. not true today.
thet allowed men to take 4 wives because men were killing each othe revry minute through a war or tribal disputs and so on... and the reader should also realize the dark days of chritianity. it took a few centuries before it corrected it self and with Islam and its f...ing radicals it will also take a centry or tow. we are in a long haul. thank you
ps: as you can see I can noe spell, and I am in 19550,s technology when it comes to computers
I did read your link. There are a lot of theories floating around, but still the question remains - Why would the Libyan government accept responsibility, for something the Iranians did ? Especially after Reagan dropped a few bombs on Qua daffy.
I don't buy the argument that the US government and the MSM are so powerful, that they can manipulate the leaders of countries like Iran, Iraq, and Libya, to that degree.
The article does not answer this question satisfactorily.
Paul, I'm not saying the media made Libya accept responsibility. As far as why they would "accept responsibility for the actions of it's officials" without actually expressing remorse or regret for the fact that people were killed, I think that's pretty obvious. They preferred that to hundreds of thousands of starved children, as was imposed on Iraq via UN Sanctions.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7868.doc.htm
Miriam or (Maryam?) The first victim of Islam is and always will be Muslims.
Watch the temperature of this blog when we are discussing "honor killings" and Islam's treatment of women. The victims of these actions are Muslims and you will not find any kuffars celebrating the death of a "honor killing" victim. You will find Muslims celebrating the fate of a woman who defies her family and is ritually killed. The victim is a Muslim.
I know that it is thirty years too late, but welcome to the United States.
"Al-Megrahi is part of the ongoing decades of worldwide jihad and the Obama admin. has secured his right to continue a terrorist agenda.
Does anyone here want to wager Al-Megrahi will not? And even so, were the lives of almost 300 innocents so expendable that this filthy animal be freed?"
Exactly. al-Megrahi is a mass-murdering filthy beast, a sub-human.
Like al-Jon. Who defends the mass-murdering filthy beast al-Megrahi. islamic Barbarians.
" They preferred that to hundreds of thousands of starved children, as was imposed on Iraq via UN sanctions ".
I completely disagree.
First, since when does any dictator care about whether or not their people starve ? If Qua daffy feared possible UN sanctions, it would not be because of starving children. It would be because sanctions would have an effect on him personally.
Second, even if sanctions had been imposed, the idea that humanitarian aid would have not been permitted, is ludicrous.
And even though the " oil for food " program was a farce, there were no hundreds of thousands of starving children in Iraq.
You actually made my point for me. Who benefited from the " oil for food " program ? That great humanitarian, Saddam Hussein. Not the people of Iraq.
tanstaafl: thank you. I came here in 1976 and went to pittsburg. although I live in NJ and work in NYC, i am a big steelers fan!! not speaking English when I came here, this country gave me the oppurtunity to get as high on the ladder as I could possibly wanted and I did. only in America! sadly and tragically you are right.. this is such a violent and unforgiving religion!! there needs a lot of work done. education, economic,and democracy should be fostered at all times. this would defenitly reduce the activities of Jihadist. However brue force must be used at all times when neccesary...
Be well
Your view of Qaddafi and Saddam is a right wing cartoon, Paul. Wicked though these people are, they don't enjoy watching their countrymen starve, nor is it good for them, which is why Saddam aggressively protested Oil-for-Food.
As far as casualty estimates, we can accept your assertions or the documentary record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Casualty_Estimates
FYI , I despise islam and do not trust any muslims. That does not mean I hate muslims , it means I do not nor will I ever trust a muslim. I will re-consider trusting a muslim when they leave islam.
Do not assume that everyone hates muslims, pay attention to what they say and "why does it bother you so much if you hate all religions but islam most"?.
You still seem to be dancing around your supposed rejection of islam and your love/hate relationship with muslims-taqiyya?
Please answer the following questions with either yes or no.
Do you hate islam?
Are you an apostate?
Do you trust muslims?
" Specific numbers depend on the source ", states your link to wikipedia.
Do these sources take into account all possibilities ? It depends on who you listen to. You yourself are distrustful of the media ( with good reason, I might add ).
And using Saddam as a legitimate source of protest,in any capacity, is astounding, to me ! This was a man who had no problem with gassing the Kurdish population, when it suited his purpose.
You may call my beliefs a right wing cartoon, but your counter arguments do not hold water.
Jon, I looked at both cases. The Lockerbie bombing and the Iranian shooting down.
You are partially right, the Iranian plane did send out signals but on civilian freq. The US ship had sent several messages asking them to id themselves. They were confused with an f16 that was on the ground ready for takeoff. They mistook its call signs for the Iranian jet liner. The Iranian jet was heading for them and while not iding themselves. The US ship shot it down when it came very near. This was a mistake.
On the other hand the Lockerbie bombing was a deliberate act of mass murder by the Libyans. It was by pure luck they found the evidence among the scattered wreckage of the plane. The evidence was in the form of a piece of circuit board from a particular radio that carried the bomb. This radio was sold in Europe to this Libyan terrorist. He was aided by the Libyans to make this bomb. This was a deliberate act of state sponsored murder and this terrorist should have been executed.
Paul, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "using Saddam as a legitimate source of protest." I'm just replying to your caricature that he enjoys watching his own people suffer.
You know who else had no problem with Saddam's gassing of the Kurds because it suited their purposes? That would be the Reagan administration, which blocked Congressional efforts to condemn Saddam's actions for fear it would hinder his aggression against Iran. And his far larger crime of crushing the Shiite rebellion that might have overthrown him in 1991 was also supported and enabled by Bush Sr even though he was the one that called on the Shiite's to revolt. Hundreds of thousands of dead right there, including mass graves that Republicans expressed all kinds of shock about finding after the 2003 invasion. "Saddam filled mass graves!! Oh the humanity." Of course they supported it while it happened and could have stopped it but didn't. Their deaths served our government's purposes.
Just sayin. Anyway, the point is this conviction of al-Megrahi is very dubious. That's the main point.
desidude, I understand that Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down while ascending as opposed to the downward approach that is typical of an attack trajectory from a jet fighter. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
"The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down."
As far as Libya's guilt, take a look at this, which I had posted above.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3920
Jon as I mentioned already the shootdown of the Iranian plane was a gross error on the part of the US ship.
Your link to an article on lockerbie bombing muddies the conclusions. This guy obviously feels Iranian hand in this when no solid evidance is presented. This is theories and conjecture, not a good article.
Many people felt that the evil regime of the ayatollah ass raisers were responsible for that. But unfortuntly all the evidance points to the libyans. I don't think libya could deny the evidance and the ayatollahas or their henchman ever took credit for this bombing though they could have, because of the shootdown of their airliner.
I believe that the release of this libyan terrorist is another crime done to the families of the lockerbie victims. shame on the Bama administration for having a hand in this outrage. Hillery and co should resign. The bama needs to be impeached.
My belief is that Magrahi was framed.
His release was part of a conspiracy to circumvent the appeal which may have opened a huge can of worms in this disgraceful episode.
Many years ago I read the highly compelling Private Eye/Paul Foot telling of the tale, Lockerbie, Flight from Justice which forensically examines the evidence and points the blame not towards Lybia but rather Iran.
But and here's the big but, he should not have been freed in such a non transparent and cavalier fashion. That's not justice, more the dirty dealing which allows the real Islamists to wag the fingers of opportunistic guile which they are so adept at.
There are more than enough real miscreants out there for whom the blind eye of political correctness protects in a swaddling blanket of fake pluralism and 'outreach'.
Lockerbie was without doubt a Muslim outrage and a portent of things to come.
Those 'things to come' and the signals pointing to them have been grieviously plastered over and ignored for so long that it's now deemed acceptable for Muslims in the name of the religion which slaughtered 3000 innocents to now build a triumphalist edifice on the spot of their outrage.
Magrahi is a straw man and a pawn in a huge game of oil, politics and deception. Forget him. Concentrate on the daily torrent of Islamic abuse and the real Jihad which is slowly enveloping the West.
While interesting, the debate over the real villain in the Lockerbie bombing is secondary to the central thesis of this post by RS, to wit, the dhimittude of Obama in agreeing to a compassionate release of al-Megrahi.
From a reading of the underlying reportage it seems to me that it is disingenuous to insinuate Obama agreed to a compassionate release as a gesture of good will to an unappreciate Islamic world. First, the US did not want him released. It appears that if he was going to be release against our wishes (and apparently in violation of an earlier agreement we had made) the US opted, for reasons not discussed, for a compassionate release in lieu of a prisoner trade. There is simply no basis to claim that Obama or the US favored a release as a gesture of good will to the Islamic world. Unless one has an agenda that includes denigrating this president.
Bottom line. I support the condemnation of the Islamic belief system by RS and his associates, but I think his condemnation of Obama is sometimes based upon manufactured facts and a political point of view that is slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun. Confession: I have not read his latest book but will get around to it when I can obtain a copy here in Brasil without purchasing it.
OBAMA, BORN A MUSLIM, PROVES ONCE AGAIN THAT HE LOVES MUSLIMS MUCH MORE THAN CHRISTIANS AND JEWS!
do i hate Islam: yes more than you can Iamgine. i was one.
am I opstate.. I am an athiest who hates all religions.
do I trust muslims, yes very much so. let me add a few more question which you should also be asking:
do I trust gos?f....no is he is not out there.
do i turst moses, jeses, muhamad? f....no
were these to three indivisual were good people. no they were evil.
do I trust Ayatollahs: f....no
do I trust Imaam? f....no
do I trust Rabbis? f....no
do i trust grand rabbis?f....no
do I trst priest, bishops, airchbishop, Pope? f....no
do I trust dali lama?f....no
do i trust any one in any religion's heirarchary?f....no
conclusion: all of the above mentioned people are dispacable dooshes.
so let's get real. if it wern't for these dooshes listed here we would not be having this conversation. would we now?
You hate islam, yet you trust muslims. Hmm, excuse me while I try to make sense out of that one ...
Hey since you love Jihad Watch and respect Robert Spencer, then please consider reading one of his books:
"Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is And Islam Isn't"
Not all religions are the same, so it's important to educate yourself on the difference before passing judgment. Thank you, and take care.
Under Sharia law, Muslims are privileged and never executed for killing a non-Muslim. Since keeping him in jail when he is ill might kill him, in letting him out Obama is just being "respectful" of Sharia law . . .
Under Sharia law, Muslims are privileged and never executed for killing a non-Muslim. Since keeping him in jail when he is ill might kill him, in letting him out Obama is just being "respectful" of Sharia law . . .
"Miriam" ,thanks for finally answering the questions. I'm not interested in the questions you added.
I am interested in your answer to "Do you trust muslims? If you despise islam and believe it to be a fraud with inbuilt mechanisms for deceiving people, why on earth would you trust it's followers? It doesn't make sense.
You still sound conflicted about it and that keeps me on my guard. Time will tell, won't it?
And to answer your last question, if it weren't for islam and only islam we wouldn't be having this conversation.