Sunday, 6 September 2009

Revealed: Blair's role in Megrahi release

Fuck me, this is like a fucking soap opera, except not very interesting, with poor character development and with weak, predictable storylines. So, Tony Blah is now part of the equation?.. That's the last time I'll mention that, I think.

Revealed: Blair's role in Megrahi release

And it seems that Jacobson was right: BP was involved, although the extent to which it actively lobbied Jack Straw is unclear. And as for all these spooks... American spooks amongst them, which kind of undermines the repetitive bleating coming from US politicians, of late (ie, all this tedious whinging about not being informed of the decision to release Megrahi, before it was made public - I suggest you speak to your spooks about that, you fucking halfwits).

Meanwhile, the Libyans are denying that the release had anything to do with trade. OK, let's forget that: anything that comes out of a person's mouth could easily be a lie. Which means that Jack Straw could be full of shit, too.

Nope, I like my method - much simpler... Let's just assume that Megrahi was released owing to the discretionary exercize of compassion by the Scottish Justice Minister. If that story's bullshit, it will soon become apparent. Trust me.


Herrad said...

Hi Matt,
It is all about the oil, also for the US.

Radagast said...

Hmmm. Was it Robertson, or Jacobson, who said something to the effect that "a turd is still a turd, even if you don't call it a turd"?

Nevertheless, it's still possible that MacAskill's decision was made in bone fide. Maybe it just conveniently fitted to needs of BP, Texture, Blah and the rest. Or maybe the Scots' decision is part of an elaborate charade - the release of G'Daffy's bro'-in-law was part of a deal that netted BP a lucrative deal, but that motivation needed to be covered up, lest we be handed hard evidence (as if we needed it), that the people who are, to some extent, in control of our lives, are just grubby little fraudsters. Maybe people are that shallow, and see the world only in terms of amassing large sums of money, which they see as synonymous with power. Maybe some people need to have evidence of their power. Who knows?

Or maybe the Scots' decision was genuine, and the rest of us are just paranoid - determining to hate from a distance, lest at close range we find that the object of our hate is really not so loathsome, after all. That others have benefitted from the decision may just be coincidence, or grubby opportunism.