Friends of Evil

I've never made a secret of the fact that I detest The Guardian newspaper, and this article on the Lockerbie bomber illustrates why.

Written by a certain Ewen MacAskill, the article makes a weak attempt at seeming "objective", but by the end it is crystal clear what Mr. MacAskill wants: for the United Kingdom to strain its good relations with the United States, and to offend the relatives of the Lockerbie attack's victims, all for the sake of a terrorist who cold-bloodedly murdered 270 innocent people! Why is it that the Guardian's contributors always seem to find room in their hearts to extend humanitarian concern to scum like Abdelbaset al-Megrahi or the members of Hamas - individuals for whom humanitarianism is but an empty word - and yet these same Guardianistas are incapable of showing any compassion whatsoever for the victims of these savages, especially if they have the nerve to defend themselves?

One can't stop al-Grauniad from spewing the venomous "compassionate" rubbish which routinely litters its pages, but the British government would be making a truly monumental mistake: not only would it raise the ire of the American public, but it most certainly would do the same within the UK as well, and it would be just one more grievous offence for which Labour would deserve thorough punishment at the ballot box. It is bad enough that British murderers are all too often allowed to end their days in freedom on "compassionate" grounds (where was the compassion when they were carrying out their crimes?), but to extend such absurd considerations to a mass murderer is simply too much to stomach, let alone to risk damaging important diplomatic ties for.

PS: Predictably, al-Grauniad's addle-pated loony-left commenters have mustered a groundswell of sympathy for this beast on two legs which they have never shown when it's a matter of, say, Israel retaliating against Hamas' rocket attacks. If this isn't embracing evil I don't know what is.

Comments

[Andrew]

What do you make of the theory that it was actually Iran or Syria behind the bombing and the US and UK blamed Libya because they didn't want to cause a rift with Iran/Syria ahead of the first Iraq War (needing their airspace etc)?

[Abiola]

Andrew,

What I think is that while it's certainly not impossible to rule out the sorts of scenarios you describe, those who advocate them fail to put forward any worthwhile evidence in support of their preferred alternatives, while they also fail to explain anomalous facts such as why such a senior Libyan secret service agent should have been serving as an air steward in the first place. Sure, one can raise all sorts of doubts about Megrahi's trial, but that in itself doesn't establish that the preponderance of the evidence fails to support his guilt.

In any event, if this were a matter of guilt and innocence, then the right thing to do would have been to carry out an expedited appeal instead of letting a man who has been tried and found guilty of mass murder to walk free in the name of a smug "compassion" which just so happens to cater to Scottish petty-nationalism by sticking a thumb in America's eye, all the while serving British commercial interests in Libya ...