[In this fallow period for Lockerbie-related news, here is the text of a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in The Herald and posted on this blog three years ago today:]
In 1986, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher colluded with US President Ronald Reagan in facilitating the bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi – revenge for an alleged Libyan terrorist bomb in Germany.
Inspection of the Gaddafi family residence of the time, preserved as a ruin ever since, and seen on our screens again these days, makes it obvious that the US bomb which partially destroyed the residence had been intended to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi (“New Gaddafi blitz”, The Herald, March 21).
Instead the blast and shrapnel killed Gaddafi’s adopted daughter Hannah, aged 18 months, asleep in her bedroom. Some 30 Libyan civilians died too that night. Their relatives still grieve as we do.
In 1993, nearly two years after the publication of indictments of two Libyan citizens for their alleged part in causing the Lockerbie disaster, Lady Thatcher wrote, in praise of this action, in The Downing Street Years.
She wrote: “First it [the bombing raid] turned out to be a more decisive blow against Libyan-sponsored terrorism than I could ever have imagined … the much-vaunted Libyan counter attack did not and could not take place. Gaddafi had not been destroyed but he had been humbled. There was a marked decline in Libyan-sponsored terrorism in succeeding years.”
Two years later [ie two years after the bombing raid] the Lockerbie tragedy occurred.
In 1991, when the indictments were issued, I first visited Gaddafi to beg him to allow his citizens to appear before a Scottish court. I also asked him to put up a picture of Flora on the wall of Hannah’s bedroom, beside one of Hannah. Beneath we put a message in Arabic and English. It was still there in 2010 when I was last in Tripoli.
It reads: “ The consequence of the use of violence is the death of innocent people.”
Even forbidden as we private citizens still are, to see the secret documents from those days, the sentiments of Flora’s message remain secure. I hope the plaque will not be destroyed in a second attempt at assassination. Libyans should decide their own future, as we ours.
Why is it fallow, though? It shouldn't be fallow. Maybe the media are tired of it?
ReplyDeleteThis is not an endorsement of her policies, but due to her Methodist upbringing I believe Thatcher was an honest politician who considered lying a sin – and to avoid lying politicians avoid answering the question.
ReplyDeleteThus her memoir account of the Tripoli raid and the absence of a counter-attack by Libya should be taken as true.
But her omission of an account about Lockerbie indicates she knew the truth but could not reveal the truth and to avoid lying did not mention it in her memoirs!
PS. She told Tam that she did not know about Lockerbie and did not write about things she knew nothing about!
But this is obvious nonsense because when she refused to hold a public enquiry at the behest of US she would have a duty to ask why.
Thatcher was as capable of lying her pretty little head off as any other politician, and more than some.
ReplyDeleteWell yes, but there is a question of degree and we are talking about her memoirs.
ReplyDeleteShe would want to give a good impression of herself and her decisions and would omit rather than lie about the bad things.
I doubt she would want to produce a testament to her time in office that could be traduced as a lie.
I know you are a shameless dissembler and Blair was a remorseless liar, but Thatcher did retain a sense of honour and would argue her case if she could, except over Lockerbie she couldn’t.
Insults again, Dave? Pity this blog doesn't have an ignore function really.
ReplyDeleteThatcher had an ego the size of Everest. She was utterly impervious to criticism and assured of her place in history. I don't know why she chose to tell the truth about Lockerbie in her autobiography in the way she did, but I very much doubt that it was some sort of high-minded George Washington moment.
More likely the early signs of Alzheimers.
You’re doing it again, Thatcher did not tell the truth about Lockerbie in her memoirs.
ReplyDeleteShe did by implication say Libya wasn’t involved, but the truth would have been an explanation of why she refused to hold a public enquiry at the behest of US.
She couldn’t tell us, it’s a state secret, so she didn’t mention it.
MISSION LIFE WITH LOCKERBIE, 2014 -- Go on ground to new facts:
ReplyDeleteAfter the bombing on Libya by the United States, on 15 April 1986, Leader Gaddafi gave among other things, the following announcement - via MEBO studio link, on radio 'Arab Voice' in Tripoli:
"The country is now officially renamed the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah"...
"Reconciliation between Libya and the United States was impossible so long as Reagan is in the White House; of the president he said, He is mad. He is foolish. He is an dog."
Gaddafi said he had no plans to attack the United States or U.S. targets. He claimed that Reagan wanted to kill him. Gaddafi's speak was devoid of passion and even the celebrations appeared unusual.
+++
After two and a half years, there was no motive for the bombing of PanAm 103.
Abdelbaset al Megrahi and Libya have nothing to do with the Lockerbie tragedy. Justice for both condemned !
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Telecommunication, Switzerland. Webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
MISSION LIFE WITH LOCKERBIE, 2014 -- Go on ground to new facts:
ReplyDeleteAfter the bombing on Libya by the United States, on 15 April 1986, Leader Gaddafi gave among other things, the following announcement - via MEBO studio link, on radio 'Arab Voice' in Tripoli:
"The country is now officially renamed the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah"...
"Reconciliation between Libya and the United States was impossible so long as Reagan is in the White House; of the president he said, He is mad. He is foolish. He is an dog."
Gaddafi said he had no plans to attack the United States or U.S. targets. He claimed that Reagan wanted to kill him. Gaddafi's speak was devoid of passion and even the celebrations appeared unusual.
+++
After two and a half years, there was no motive for the bombing of PanAm 103.
Abdelbaset al Megrahi and Libya have nothing to do with the Lockerbie tragedy. Justice for both condemned !
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Telecommunication, Switzerland. Webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
Well of course there was not a marked decline in Libyan sponsored terrorism in the years to come. Lady Thatcher wasn't telling the truth but the object of her memoirs, like most political memoirs, is an endless dirge of self-justification.
ReplyDeleteMrs Thatcher had supported the US PR adventure because she needed US support to stop the USA being used as a safe haven for Republican terrorists and a source of PIRA funding. Flying jets from the UK was an entirely political decision.
In response to the bombing raids Gaddafi vastly increased his support for the PIRA supplying hundreds of tons of advanced weaponry which was only discovered with the interception of The Eksund in November 1987. Britain paid the price for this US operation (the US at the time being virtually immune to a Libyan response.)
The problem was Operation Grand Canyon was a failure but the US (and British) objective of regime change remained and blaming Libya for Lockerbie was an attempt to further this objective.
p.s. Dr Swire's inscription would seem to imply that his daughter's death was linked to the death of Gaddafi's adopted daughter. But apart from the fact Hannah wasn't dead, it was just a PR stunt, the official version of events is that Lockerbie was Gaddafi's revenge for the bombing.