Lockerbie bomber attends Gaddafi meeting

2011-07-27 07:51

Tripoli - Ailing Libyan agent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, convicted for life over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, made his first public appearance in nearly two years Tuesday at a meeting in support of strongman Muammar Gaddafi.

Megrahi, 59, who has terminal cancer, was released from a Scottish jail on compassionate grounds in August 2009. He is the only man convicted over the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 which killed 270 people, mostly US nationals.

Television images showed an emaciated Megrahi, sitting on a wheelchair, at a meeting of his tribe in support of the embattled Gaddafi’s regime.

His last public appearance was a September 2009 meeting with African lawmakers at a Tripoli hospital.

The fact that he has survived several months after his liberation has provoked indignation in Britain and the United States. Tripoli meanwhile maintains a news blackout on the state of his health.

  • Anton - 2011-07-27 08:13

    What so special about that ???? Terrorists enjoy each other's company !!!

      Hilary Ojukwu - 2011-07-27 09:52


      daaidoos - 2011-07-27 10:17

      I personally don't give a continental crap who belongs to which tribe. Both these scumbags were responsible for the Lockerby bombings and both deserve to die. Team 6 where the hell are you?

      Anton - 2011-07-27 10:34

      Hilary Ojukwu, People from all over the world, would like to give "this very important person" Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi , a present. A sightseeing flight over the Mediterranean. Very very beautiful !! And than , at 12000 meter heighth, we open the door, and throw him out. And than , just maybe, for one split second, he will feel the same as the passengers did ,on the lockerbie flight. Amen !

      Lionel - 2011-07-27 11:40

      Yep that is why this ANC government feels so at home when in Libya or in the company of Gaddaffi. What does a terrorist with terminal cancer and Shabir Shaik have in common? They both don't die from their terminally ill prognosis.

      Hilary Ojukwu - 2011-07-27 12:23

      Anton, Why did they let him go free if they really detest him the way you put it? What about people who have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and others around the world? What about those Italians who massacred over 50,000 Libyans in the past? What about those who sold Africans into slavery? What about them? What about them? What about those who are now working with al-Qaeda in Libya just because of the oil? Open your eyes Anton. If they really hate terrorists, why are they working with them in Libya? Please open your mind.

      Anton - 2011-07-27 14:14

      Hilary Ojukwu, I believe they let him go, through some corrupt deal. The West, and the UK in particular, were very happy to deal with Gaddafi, especially with his corrupt sons. Iraq and Afghanistan ; I don't think you and me will differ much about these wars. For me, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney should also go to the Hague Africans sold into slavery........ The darkest page in world history. It is all about oil........!! I doubt it, why would anybody make it more difficult to get this stuff. Supply was no problem, as long as one paid hundreds of millions of bribes to these lovely Gaddafi sons. And luckily for Europe, there is plenty oil , all over the world. And history in general: How bad and sad much of it is, it has little, if no relevance to the future of Libya. But ultimately it is a choice; To support a murderes crazed tyrant, or the people of Libya. For me it was a easy choice !

      slg - 2011-07-27 17:12

      Hilary, clearly it was a mistake to allow him to go free. Linking Iraq, Afghanistan, and colonial Italy to the decision to protect Libyans from Gadhafi's decision to show no mercy and hunt down like rats those who wanted nothing more than to vote for their leaders would lead to decision paralysis. They are not connected. Libya produces just 2% of the world's oil. It's not about the oil. If it was, the decision probably would not have been taken. Lastly, as a woman, do you approve of Libyan women being raped into submission by Gadhafi's forces?

  • coconuts - 2011-07-27 08:20

    What about our "terminal" Shabier Shaik? So healthy he can play golf

      G-spotWizard - 2011-07-27 12:49

      He reminds me of S.Shaik, they are both dead men walking, attending meetings,playing golf and doing what any other healthy person does. What kind of dead are they?

  • Gary - 2011-07-27 08:20

    screw compasionate grounds, he was a convicted killer. Chuck him out a plane at 50 000.

  • stofsuier - 2011-07-27 08:24

    I thought the british said he only had a couple of months to live??? must have the same life threatening illnsee as ou shabby shake !!!!!!

  • Bernhard Rohrbeck - 2011-07-27 08:35

    5 months of bombing and killing Libyans, in an attempt of trying to avoid Libyans getting killed, the score so far is: Before bombing, there have been less people killed than in "peaceful" Egyptian "transition". Since the bombing raids, the numbers may be somewhere in the ten-thousand. So this is a great success, considering that any attempts for quickly arranged ceasefires and talks have been killed by - whom? European and Us "leaders", for "humanitarian reasons", maybe. Now the new "solution", as Libyans still do not seem willing enough to let go of the government is: Kill more Libyans. Nato announced yesterday, and that is what they have been doing anyhow so far, to bomb any installation, be it farms, food processing, .... Difference now is, it will not be "mistaken", this time it is on purpose. What is wrong with our leaders, at the same time asking, what is wrong with us? We all must be natural born killers, or have been turned into such, as we allow those people to bomb countries back into stoneage, one by one. At the same time, each time, saying, this time is different, it's for humanitarian reasons. WE - are the killers!

      Anton - 2011-07-27 08:53

      Bernhard, I understand, when one is fighting a lost cause, one has to exeggerate a bit. But when you start being silly, like saying NATO has killed 10 000, you must accept , NOBODY will take you any longer serious. Yes there have been casualties, possibly up to one hundred. And sure, that is 100 too many. But these bombings, aimed at military installations, many in suburban areas !!! , have also saved the lives of THOUSANDS. No flipping doubt about this. But, you must continue with your propaganda, The issue is simple; One either supports a murderes THUG or one supports the PEOPLE of Libya ONE CAN'T DO BOTH !!!!!

      Bernhard Rohrbeck - 2011-07-27 09:17

      Anton When reading, you could at least try to understand the meaning of words in the combination given. But I guess you don't want to do this, the other perspective, that you are not capable of this, is not a nice one, so I won't mention it;-) Nato. So you want to tell the world, that the message by Nato, to bomb anything! in Libya is legal? To do anything to increase! the toll so far, is the final solution? Same consequence imbecile "leaders" had for ages, if something goes wrong, we do not change our approach, we deliver more of the same, in this case more bombs, more fighting, more deaths. Anton, are you a warmonger?

      Wes - 2011-07-27 09:38

      Its better than being a moron like you Bernhard. You sprouting utter BS.

      Spade - 2011-07-27 10:02

      Do the majority of Libyans actually support Gaddafi? Gaddafi has shown that he is quite happy to murder his own people, should they not "support" him, so who is to say how many would have died had Nato not stepped in? We can debate forever on Nato's real motives, but I believe the world will be a safer, better place without Gaddafi.

      Virginia - 2011-07-27 10:06

      Bombing is good, to get rid of installations that will eventually become killing machines on opposing citizens of the country. Unfortunately innocent people always get killed in these bombings. Now when you talk about terrorists bombings, that ARE meant for innocent people to be killed, that when you must complain.

      Anton - 2011-07-27 10:07

      Bernhart, If I misread your comment, than I am sorry, but I understood that you blamed NATO for all this madness in Libya. I know you will throw this back at me, but I can only repeat; At the beginning of this year, there were popular uprisings, in both Tunesia and in Egypt. Tunesia went very fast, the President could not run fast enough. Than came Egypt, Mubarak quickly tried to make some possitive changes, but it was far too late. The world started to look at Libya, where some UNARMED brave men stood up, and DARED to challenge Gaddafi. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind, that the West would have much much much rather have kept the status quo, and continue their cozy relationship with Gaddafi and sons. It only cost them a few hundred million dollars a time, to bribe these scumbags, and the West got anything they wanted. Including dismantling Gaddafi's nuclear ambitions. SO WHY ON EARTH WOULD THE WEST UPSET THIS RELATIONSHIP ? Because it AlL changed with ONE press conference. Who will EVER forget Muammar Gaddafi on that day ? We all knew he was eccentric and to many a terrorist. But on this day he showed the world ,he is INSANE and a danger to his own people. For him and his lovely sons, to stay in power, he was prepared to mow them down, by the thousands and thousands. Thank God, the USA , Europe ,countries in the Middle East, and Others would not allow this to happen, and interfered No leader in this whole world, is allowed to turn on his own people!!!

      Bernhard Rohrbeck - 2011-07-27 10:36

      Wes Love & Peace to you too, Wes.

      Bernhard Rohrbeck - 2011-07-27 10:40

      Spade Whenever those countries, so eager to spread "peace and de mock crazy" over the world have "stepped" in, meaning to bomb the s* out of countries, the bloodshed from then on, grew ten- a hundred-, a thousand fold. Great success, ain't it? Stop telling the world, killing people is for saving people.

      Bernhard Rohrbeck - 2011-07-27 10:43

      Virginia So bombing is good, has to be, only solution in the brains of sociopath. One question: Is it Langley, Virginia?

      Bernhard Rohrbeck - 2011-07-27 10:54

      Anton "SO WHY ON EARTH WOULD THE WEST UPSET THIS RELATIONSHIP?" As the story of Libya, the relations with the "west", the relations the present government had, is set into a multitude of dimensions, there is surely no single answer. On thing is for sure: The stories we are told on brainwash, lamewash, spy media, are all, but the truth. You disagree I suppose. So please have a look at the history of all this so called humanitarian wars the good, good west "had" to fight the last decades. Funny, years later, even decades later, it is broadly accepted that lies have been the baseline to capture the opinion of Westerners to accept, even approve to all those wars, waged by killing machines.

      slg - 2011-07-27 17:07

      All this from Gadhafi's decision to hold onto power and not allow people the basic human right to vote for their leaders. In addition to the numbers you estimate, there are thousands more women who have been caused to be raped into submission by Gadhafi and his sons.

  • SHAUN - 2011-07-27 08:53

    Why does N24 keep referring to the botoxed terrorist as a "strongman" in every article? It shows up as some sort of admiration. Looking forward to his death soon.

      slg - 2011-07-27 17:03

      African, you're a racist, like the Apartheid government. Why would you want to be like them? Ironical isn't it.

      Kunta-Kinte - 2011-07-28 16:56

      Does the term 'strongman' mean that he has 'strength of character', moral integrity and loyalty to his people?

  • daaidoos - 2011-07-27 10:12

    Nato why can't you just drop a cluster bomb on these fools. PLEASE do the world a favour!!

      Kingkwagga - 2011-07-27 10:27

      can they drop one on Anton & Bernhart as well....?????

      Anton - 2011-07-27 10:58

      Kingkwagga, I can't talk for Bernhart, but, PLEASE, not on my head !!!!! Just tell me... I will do Anything!!!! I will even love Gaddafi !!!

      Bernhard Rohrbeck - 2011-07-27 11:08

      Anton :-))

  • Luyolo - 2011-07-27 14:42

    The idea is to bomb Libya into complete destruction and remove Gadaffi so that when the new government takes over it wont have any choice but to borrow funds from IMF or World Bank for redevelopment and we all know what those loans can do to a country.Germany has already loaned 100m euros to the so called Libyan Transition Council which is full of western puppets.Britain said they recognise this council as a legitimate government when Libyan people havnt even voted.

      slg - 2011-07-27 17:05

      It's all a big plot against the poor Libyans, nothing to do with Gadhafi not allowing LIbyans to vote, or showing no mercy to those who want to vote, or hunting them down like rats, or having women raped into submission.

  • Nic - 2011-07-28 15:32

    Anton you talk rubbish. That is absolute bullsh*t. I guess you don't have DSTV. You should have watched what the Americans (especially former CIA) said on BBC/CNN documentary. Saddam, Taliban, Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are all products of CIA, for what? For OIL of course. They are killing people everywhere and these are supposed to be our masters on human rights. They could not get Libyan oil for peanuts, hence trying to get rid of Gaddafhi and replace him with their puppets. They were involved in Somalia, but since there is no OIL for them, they left it to rot because there is nothing for them to gain.

      slg - 2011-07-28 15:47

      What does that mean "Saddam, Taliban, Al-Quaeda, Bin Laden are all products of CIA"? Are you suggesting the US is attacking itself? Furthermore, Libya produces just 2% of the world's oil. If it produced more, like Saudi Arabia, it would be more difficult o support the Arab Spring there.

  • Nic - 2011-07-28 15:40

    Anton you are full bullsh*t. Who are thugs and who are the Libyans? There are those who does not want Gaddafi and there are those who wants Gaddafi and both are Libyans. Now Libyan students are stranded all over the world because there are no longer funding for will soon start saying forces loyal to Gaddafi....WTF! They are soldiers for God' sake, they must protect their country, that is what soldiers are for.

      slg - 2011-07-28 15:52

      Gadhafi hasn't allowed Libyans the right to vote in 40 years, like the Apartheid government in South Africa. He openly threatened to show no mercy and hunt down like rats the unarmed Libyan civilians (think 1976 in Soweto) who were demanding that right, following the successful demands made by Tunisians and Egyptians. He had already killed thousands of people, had surrounded Benghazi and was about to invade the city when the international community, including the Arab League, passed UN Resolution 1973.

      Kunta-Kinte - 2011-07-28 16:14

      The reason Ghaddafi has never allowed or held elections for party representatives is that he has applied a system of Direct Democracy: Direct democracy is a form of government in which people collectively make decisions for themselves, rather than having their political affairs decided by representatives. Direct democracy is classically termed "pure democracy". Direct democracy stands in contrast to a representative democracy in which the decisive authority is vested in a subset of people, usually on the basis of election.

      Anton - 2011-07-29 00:17

      Kunta-Kinte, You should write cartoon strips for YOU magazine !!!

      Anton - 2011-07-29 05:00

      Nic, You are quite right, soldiers are there to protect the country, and not the leader of the country. Don't tell this to me, but tell this to all those dictators/tyrants. Maybe, you could start with Mr Gaddafi !!

  • Lehana Motloung - 2011-08-28 21:41

    The NATO cronies are stupid if they think once they install their puppet regime(TNC) that will mark the end of the chaos in Libya. Look at what happened in Iraq after the coup that overthrew Saddam. Now the is endless war and. the same will happen in Libya. Its funny how all who seem to be in favour of the massacring of Libyans say that the NATO intervention is to protect the lives of Libyans. they also dont mention that the Libyans were opposed to the intervention. the only people who welcomed the intervention were the Alqaeda terrorist(TNC)

  • pages:
  • 1