[This is the heading over the latest Lockerbie post by Adam "Caustic Logic" Larson on his blog The 12/7-9/11 Treadmill and Beyond. It begins as follows:]
I recently started an interesting discussion thread at the JREF forum, fishing for thoughts on why people believe the official line on the Lockerbie bombing so fervently. I hadn't yet encountered any serious questions in the course of previous brilliant and provocative discussions - just a few drive-by statements supporting Megrahi's and Col. Gaddafy's absolute guilt, but never accompanied by evidence of any real knowledge. Among the questions and counter-points I suggested people could offer, if they knew anything, was "Libya admitted responsibility and paid out billions of dollars!" And if they had asked, I would answer like this:
There is no doubt that the Libyan government did issue a statement admitting responsibility, and agreed to pay compensation, among other measures, in 2003. It was an explicit pre-condition, inssted by Washington, to having broad UN sanctions lifted. Triploi has always defended its innocence of Lockerbie, but to function in the global economy, they had to do something. Here they managed to not explicitly break the rule, and using careful (cynical?) wordplay, managed to accept responsibility without admitting guilt. Sanctions were lifted.
[The remainder of the post gives a convincing explanation of how the "admission of responsibility" came about and how it has been (wilfully?) misconstrued in the media.]
Placing to one side choices made when under the cosh of crippling sanctions, the attitude of the BBC comes as no surprise really. At best, they have exhibited themselves either to be little more than a weapon of a corrupt establishment or, being generous, just plain thick. As mentioned in a prior comment on this blog: to take on the responsibility of a company that has gone to the wall by paying off its debts, is worlds apart from saying that one is guilty of having broken the company's back in the first instance. Either the BBC has consciously chosen to ignore this rather basic differentiation or it is beyond their wit to grasp the simplicity of the concept.
ReplyDeleteAt best, they have exhibited themselves either to be little more than a weapon of a corrupt establishment or, being generous, just plain thick.
ReplyDeleteNo need for generosity, I'm sure. It's an honor to be re-posted here. :)
A blog called Mindhacks describes "The persuasive power of false confessions." Perhaps this may add to the mix as to why people believe the official line?
ReplyDeleteFrom "[t]he persuasive power of false confessions",
ReplyDelete"... the APS article takes a different tack. It looks at the psychology of how other people involved in deciding whether the person is guilty or not are influenced by confessions.
Imagine if an accused but innocent person falsely confesses and the other evidence doesn't suggest that they have committed the crime. In this situation, it turns out that both lay people and experts tend to change their evaluation of the other evidence and perceive it as being stronger evidence against the accused.
Some of the studies cited in the article just blew me away: ...."