This is the title of a post earlier today on Kurt Rudder's blog. It deals with the importance of documentary films challenging the "official" version of events. One paragraph reads:
"There is a hunger among the public for documentaries because only documentaries, at their best, are fearless and show the unpalatable and make sense of the news. The extraordinary films of Allan Francovich achieved this. Francovich, who died in 1997, made The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie. THIS destroyed the official truth that Libya was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. Instead, an unwitting 'mule', with links to the CIA, was alleged to have carried the bomb on board the aircraft. (Paul Foot's parallel investigation for Private Eye came to a similar conclusion.) The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie has never been publicly screened in the United States. In this country, the threat of legal action from a US Government official prevented showings at the 1994 London Film Festival and the Institute of Contemporary Arts. In 1995, defying threats, Tam Dalyell showed it in the House of Commons, and Channel 4 broadcast it in May 1995."
The full text can be read here.
The post appears to be simply a reproduction of an article by John Pilger published on 16 September 2006, which can be read here.
This movie has long been discredited. It was financed by Libya. Francovich is a fraud and you know it. Have you no shame?
ReplyDeleteThis movie was the most outlandish and totally discredited film ever made. Most of the people in it had absolutely no idea what happened with regard to the Lockerbie bombing and were either known fabricators or flat out liars. How can you even publish such rubbish??
ReplyDelete"...The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie. THIS destroyed the official truth that Libya was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie..."
ReplyDeleteTHIS did NOT destroy the official truth that Libya was responsible for PA103, as exhibited by the court in the refusal of Megrahi's first appeal. I hope the court repeats history in the second appeal. He is NOT innocent. Perhaps he did not do it alone, but neither he nor Libya are innocent.
On another note, why didn't you post any articles on the $2 Billion+ arms deal Libya attempted to do w/ Putin? A little too close to the actual truth perhaps??? THIS (among other things, like Ghadaffi's petulent remarks of late) is a direct example of Libya's continued terrorist fortitude. Not to mention a violation of the UN agreeement Libya made when the sanctions were lifted.
I report what I find on internet news sites and in blogs that seems to me to relate to the Lockerbie disaster. I do not include general items relating to Libyan foreign relations or to terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI detect a growing sense of panic in the above three comments. Could it be the beginning of a realisation that Megrahi's conviction is going to be overturned?
Keep dreaming. The Appeal Court has scheduled dates for more debate on PII AND additional dates for hearing scope of appeal. If the appeal were going to be overturned based on Megrahi allegedly not getting a fair trial as a result of PII, the Court would not be fixing additional dates for scope of appeal hearings.
ReplyDelete" I do not include general items relating to Libyan foreign relations or to terrorism."
ReplyDeleteAhhh.. but you do. The Megrahi issue is all about Libyan terrorism. The main reasons sanctions were lifted are because Libya turned over the TERRORISTS, and admitted responsibility in the PA103 bombing, . Yes, yes, you've rebutted the latter by saying Libya didn't admit responsiblity for Megrahi; only their official(s). Yet you neglect to note that Megrahi WAS a Libyan official. If this has nothing to do with Libyan foreign relations or terrorism, and you don't report on it, then, what exactly is this blog about????
The last comment demonstrates a serious misunderstanding. Libya has accepted responsibility for the acts of its officials. It has not denied (nor have I) that Megrahi was such an official. The point is that if Megrahi's conviction is overturned there is then no judicial finding against any Libyan official and, hence, nothing for Libya to accept responsibility for.
ReplyDeleteThe immediately preceding comment also demonstrates fundamental misunderstanding of Scottish criminal appeal procedure. The appeal court must hear all the submissions on all the permitted grounds of appeal in one and the same sitting. It accordingly follows that the court must, in advance, decide the competency of all of the ground of appeal that the appellant wishes to argue at that sitting. That the court is to hear submissions (a) on PII and (b) on whether grounds additional to those supported by the SCCRC can be argued, says nothing whatsoever about the strength or otherwise of those grounds of appeal in respect of which there is no competency challenge.
I detect a growing sense of panic in the above comment. Could it be the beginning of a realisation that Megrahi's conviction is NOT going to be overturned?
ReplyDeleteThanks to "theDossier", anyone can view "The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie" documentary online at http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_cover-ups.htm (scroll down to number 48 from its library of more than 80 controversial films).
ReplyDelete