4
   

BP admits to lobbying for release of terrorist prisoner

 
 
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 12:00 pm
@JPB,
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 12:01 pm
@JTT,
If you want to start a thread about Afghanistan then I'll join you there. For a day or two, at least, I'd like this one to be about BP, the oil spill in the Gulf, and BP drilling rights off the coast of Libya and how they came about.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 12:04 pm
@Butrflynet,
Never heard of him, Bfn, but I agree with everything he said.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 12:13 pm
@JPB,
Me too, and what we are very slowly beginning to realize is that it is now occurring inside the US.

John Perkins, author of 'HoodWinked' and 'Confessions Of An Economic Hitman'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perkins_%28author%29

JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 12:19 pm
@Butrflynet,
Interesting...
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 12:31 pm
http://campbellbrown.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/15/senators-question-whether-bp-played-role-in-pan-am-bombers-release/


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/15/bp-oil-spill-libya-lockerbie
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 12:55 pm
@Butrflynet,
From the Guardian link
Quote:
On paper, companies would be banned if more than 10 workers are killed at any of their facilities or they have been fined more than $10m for polluting waters, over the previous seven years. Firms would also have to prove they have paid in full for any damages or cleanup costs resulting from an oil spill.

In reality, however, this would only apply to BP. The company is expected to face billions in fines for the Gulf disaster, and had a history of safety and environmental violations well before the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion killed 11 works and ruptured the wellhead in April.

Congressional hearings have since focussed on BP's history in the US, which include more than 700 safety and environmental violations over the last five years – compared with fewer than 10 for the other big oil companies.

Most of those violations were unrelated to offshore drilling, including a 2005 explosion at a Texas refinery that killed 15 workers and a badly maintained pipeline that spewed 200,000 gallons (910,000) of oil along Alaska's North Slope.

The ban would not apply to existing leases, and would still allow BP to act as a minority partner on leases.


Part of me thinks this should apply to existing leases too.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 12:56 pm
@Butrflynet,
And...

Quote:
But another amendment, due to be taken up today, would require the US government to consider an oil company's safety record before awarding offshore contracts rather than choose the highest bidder.

"We allow them to drill no matter what their environmental, safety or public health record may be," Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who proposed the amendment, told the Platts Energy forum."I think we have to give the secretary the discretion to say: 'Look you have got such a history here. You are not going to be allowed to drill unless you clean up your act'."


Jesus... ya think?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 01:23 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
point back to American support of terrorism


Finally, an admission that you were mistaken. It would have been nice if you had been a little bit more honest about it, but hey, if that's how you want to handle it, Cy.


Do you really have to be such a ******* idiot, JTT? One can only assume that you do so on purpose, it can't be random.

I do not admit that you are correct about this or anything; I only admit that you persistently try and steer all conversations around to your preferred topic. Which is extremely boring and immaterial.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 05:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Interestingly, after the bombing of Pan Am103, Pan Am had a study done by a New York firm.

Quote:
The shocking contents of this report ... were summarized in an November 1989 Toronto Star article headlined "Pan Am bomb linked to double -dealing CIA drug plot". According to the Star, the groups of CIA agents who died on Flight 103 were en route to the US to personally inform their superiors about another CIA clique (dubbed "CIA-1" in the Pan Am report) involved in an illegal arms and drugs operation to secure the release of American hostages held in Leabanon.

A pivotal figure in the hushed up affair was Manzar Al-Kassar, the Syrian heroin dealer who supplied weapons to the Nicaraguan contras (at Oliver North's behest) [which of course had nothing to do with US government terrorism. I know this because Cycloptichorn tells me that the US government doesn't do terrorism] and to Arab terrorists.

...

At one point, said the Star, CIA-1 learned from Al-Kassar of a plot by [Ahmed] Jibril to bomb Pan Am Flight 103, but CIA oficials, fearing they might blow Al-Kassar's cover and jeopardize the hostage rescue scheme, never conveyed this information to the appropriate authorities.

Unreliable Sources - by MA Lee and N Solomon


Did this report jumpstart that always ready to seek the truth American media. Nope, "the American press dropped the story like a hot potato".

0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 09:12 am
Cameron and Obama discuss the release but disagree on whether there should be an official probe of the decision.

Quote:
Cameron said at a joint White House news conference with Obama that any role that BP may have played in the Lockerbie release "is a matter for BP to answer." But he went on to say there was no evidence that Scotland's decision was swayed by BP.

Cameron said he and Obama were in "violent agreement" that the release was a mistake.

However, they did disagree slightly over the issue of an investigation. Several U.S. senators have proposed an investigation, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has called on both British and Scottish officials to review the situation.

Obama said he welcomed such a probe and that it was important that all facts be released to the public. Cameron said he, too, agreed that all the facts should released. But, he added, "I don't think there's any great mystery here. ... I don't need an inquiry to tell me it was a bad decision. It was a bad decision." more
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 07:08 am

US senators seem to think they can require British politicians to come and give evidence to a congressional committee.

Why do they think that?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 12:37 pm
@McTag,
Quote:
US senators seem to think they can require British politicians to come and give evidence to a congressional committee.


You'd think that they would have learned their lesson when they invited George Galloway. He certainly put them in their place.

US Senate owned by George Galloway
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-NK8bWiJoQ

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 07:57:59