Well it looks like we’re going to have a desert nomad setting up his pavilion in Englewood NJ soon.
Could someone explain this for the benefit of non-americans. Wild stab in the dark would be it’s some sort of Obama reference.
Sorry to rain upon your racist assumptions, but I was actually referring to an actual desert nomad who is the subject of the thread you are posting.
Interesting that the first thought that popped into your mind was Obama though. Shows how YOU think. 
Of course I believe it. I’ve seen the same photos in the papers and news footage as you have.
The point is not that he was received back as a hero, but that you think this is justification enough to advocate mass destruction of civilians. If your country is at war with another country, then there will inevitably be non-military fatalities. If your country is not at war with another country and you just want to bomb them to show them and their government the error of their ways, then you’re thinking like a terrorist.
This man is either the Lockerbie bomber or he isn’t. For anyone who believes he isn’t then of course his release is to be welcomed and celebrated. For anyone who believes he is then their ire should be directed at the Scottish parliament who released him. I don’t hear you calling for the Scottish Parliament to be bombed back to the stone age, so it’s pretty obvious which you believe.
Personally, I think bombing anyone should be avoided at all costs.
What on earth is racist about that? How in hell do you perceive a non-US doper not picking up an obscure reference to an unstated US news item as ‘racist’? You appear to be doing some incredible reaching.
The subject is al-Megrahi, not Quadafi.
Most obscure references on this board are something to do with partisan political squabbles in the US; why should this have been an exception? Since Obama is occasionally characterised as a Stealth Muslim, this might appear to be a reasonable assumption, but as he said, it was a stab in the dark guess.
You’re weird.
You think that it’s common for people to believe that Obama is a Bedouin and it not be racist? Come now, he was accusing me of making a racist joke.
Actually no, the subject is Qaddafi and the welcome he gave al-Megrahi.
Thus why making a joke about his racism works. He assumed I was making a racist joke when I wasn’t so I twisted it.
LOL, obtuse is the word I’d use. 
I’m with Jjim on this. To ask about an obscure reference and asked if it was linkd to the POTUS is hardly racist.
Racist.
Cutting back to the chase, it does remind me of the welcome given to those murderous bastards from the Munich Olympics Massacre upon their release to Libya.
Sweet fuck, your idea of a biting comeback is a variant of “I know you are, what am I?”.
The only thing demonstrated by me asking whether a cryptic reference of yours refers to the President is that I think you’d be capable of an idiotic remark. I’d say your attempt at a rejoinder proves that beyond any doubt.
The fairly transparent miscarriage of justice which has occurred is reviewed in the previous thread, Lockerbie bomber to be released, which offers links to more information.
I think people here get stupider every week.
More racism.
Yes, but they actually did it.
Because bombing an entire country / people “to the stone age” over a bit of rejoicing by… I dunno some score of their fellow nationals over the return of one of their own is barbaric, insane and cretinous all in one shot? Or that perhaps if you understood that from the Libyan point of view - not without factual validity or perhaps plausibility - the man was set up or was a fall guy for the Americans?
Well, given your reaction, not only are you of the same species, but you are also of the same mind-set as those celebrating - a barbarian in the end, just that you happen in this occasion to be on the other side of the issue from them.
Does this mean you deserve to be bombed?
Hmmm, maybe it does.
In COMPLETELY unrelated news, William Calley says “whoops, sorry, but I was following orders.”
Bother, you beat me to it.
I guess I let my anger get the best of me. Of course I don’t support bombing innocent civilians, but it disconfirms what I have been told to believe.
We have been told that these terrorists are a small minority of middle easterners and that most are peace loving people who just want to live their lives in obscurity.
We have Tim McVeigh, they have Osama bin Laden; no differences at all.
The problem is that McVeigh wasn’t met with cheering crowds. We don’t elect people like Tim McVeigh to positions of power. I find it hard to agree with the general consensus that the attitude of terrorism in the middle east is just an aberration instead of the norm.
Eh? You had a reception party that seems partially officially ginned up on behalf of the fellow, on the basis the Libyans believe the man to be actually innocent.
Where do you draw the relationship between a quasi official welcome for a fellow they think innocent and "The Middle Easterners"™ thinking rather escapes…
I find it hard to follow your piss-poor logic, although you continue to resemble the very people you hate in your mode and method of thinking, or reacting.
Perhaps rather clarity is needed.
The fellow in question was a State Agent, so this is rather less like your McVeigh (who after all bombed his “own people” - to compare someone with McViegh you’d want to see a domestic terrorist in the Middle East released to popular joy). A direct analogy to this might be an American agent perceived as unjustly convicted or imprisoned and then released… hmmm, like the American hostages in Iran in 1979-1980.
Again keeping in mind that perfectly rational and reasonable outside observers have seriously called into question the evidence and trial that led to this fellow’s imprisonment. Nevermind Libyans under a dictatorship whose controlled press has pushed the idea of his innocence.
Where by the way does “elected” come into the picture? Libya is an eccentric military dictatorship led by a guy who came to power in a coup - as a colonel I think.
No, I think your OP pretty much confirmed you’re precisely like “them” only on the other side of the equation.
Or, say, Lt. William Calley.
Two young ladies, both convicted spies, were recently sent back to the USA, where they were received by cheering crowds and popular public opinion. Why does the US condone spying on a sovereign nation?
Could it be because they were not spies at all, and the trial that convicted them was a politicized sham?