Libyan Embassy Shooting

[Mofo8]

Saw this on the ITN News Channel earlier.

http://www.itv.com/news/1355281.html

They were more specific on the broadcast. The building the camerman saw the weapons being carried into was apparently a government owned building at the time (which was next to or near the embassy)

which casts an interesting light on this:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960508/debtext/60508-04.htm

I do love my conspiracy theories

 

[xane]

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960508/debtext/60508-04.htm

Because Tam Dayell is such a totally unbiased MP, right !

wikipedia.com

Dalyell is vocal in his disapproval of military action and 'imperialism'; from his opposition to action in Borneo in 1965 he has contested almost every British action - arguing against action in Aden, the Falklands War (especially the sinking of the General Belgrano), the Gulf War and action in Kosovo and Iraq, saying, "I will resist a war with every sinew in my body". He was also a strong presence in Parliament concerning the Lockerbie bombing and Libya.

I do love my conspiracy theories

And I do love shooting them down

 

[Mofo8]

*sigh*

I can start to see a pattern forming here. If someone you disagree with has an opinion on something then you dismiss it out of hand. I especially like the bit where you completely ignore the ITN news story.

I'm hardly likely to be able to turn up a quote from bloody Thatcher or something.

 

[Munkey]

Thatcher is vocal in her approval of military action and 'imperialism'; from her lack of action in Bed since 16, she has approved almost every British action whilst in power - ranging from action in Aden, the Falklands War (especially the sinking of the General Belgrano), the Gulf War and action in Kosovo and Iraq, saying, "I will approve a war with every wrinkle on my body". She was also a strong presence in Parliament concerning the Lockerbie bombing and Libya.

 

[Paradroid]

Mofo8, that itv link is dead....

Is this the same one?

http://www.itv.com/news/1355280.html


Btw, what does it matter if he's anti-war?
What relevance does that have?

Does being anti-war mean;
you have no brain?
you're unable to think clearly?
you're unable to see/hear facts, then report on them?

Considering the list of expert witnesses he's referred to, who were dismissed, it seems rather dodgy.

It's like; imagine I'm an activist/spokesman for animal rights campaigns, does this mean I have no credibility if I report on apparent "wrong-doings" in a vivisectionists?

Of course not.
I'm a well balanced individual, who isn't blinded by any "faith".
And I refuse to treat people with that same inferred stereotype.

Just because Mr. Tam Dayell is an outspoken anti-war personage, that doesn't make everything he says invalid - providing, of course, we're talking about the reporting of facts and not opinions.

I surmised, from reading the article, certain facts that don't "sit-right", hence, I think it's dodgy.

 

[Mofo8]

Yup, that's the same story. Dunno why they changed the URL though.

 

[Tom]

How can anyone argue against defending our terratory, with regard to the Falklands conflict?

 

[xane]

Just because Mr. Tam Dayell is an outspoken anti-war personage, that doesn't make everything he says invalid - providing, of course, we're talking about the reporting of facts and not opinions.

Facts can be just as misrepresented, by their abscence.

From the same link:

(The Minister of State, Home Office, Mr. David Maclean)

...
The problem with experts looking at evidence 12 years after the event is that none of their opinions has been tested in court before a jury. Dr. West's (the pathologist in the original incident) opinions, his analysis of the body and his painstaking reconstruction of the bullet's angle of entry into the body and through the tunic were presented at the inquest. His evidence was tested and the jury believed the evidence that was presented to it. It is preposterous that a programme should do a reconstruction and invite any number of experts--who did not examine the body and who were not present at the time of the incident--to offer opinions and comments when they do not have the full facts.
...

Sure, its about facts, not opinions.

In the terms of a conspiracy, there is only one here, that of a known pro-Libya campaigner attempted to get his "client" off the hook in a terrible crime.

I certainly would not doubt Dayell's "facts" or "opinion", but I certainly question his motives, and why these are things are being brought to light when Libya has agreed to finally co-operate in the investigation. Surely in the interests of fairness we should wait until the investigation is complete and its facts are presented, and a final conclusion is reached ?