tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post5542777966957070567..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: Some reflections following Tony Blair's appearance at the Iraq InquiryRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-12935658425010953242010-02-02T18:36:17.334+00:002010-02-02T18:36:17.334+00:00But did the intelligence services exploit an unfor...<i>But did the intelligence services exploit an unforeseen terrorist atrocity or was the disaster expected and planned for?</i><br /><br />Unless I am mistaken, <b>baz</b> does indeed believe that the disaster was expected and planned for.<br /><br />If that is the case, could he please explain why:<br /><br />1. Of all the many US carriers, Pan Am was chosen?<br /><br />2. Of all the different PA flights, Pan Am 103 was chosen?<br /><br />3. Of all the dates in the 10-week <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan" rel="nofollow">Reagan</a>/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush" rel="nofollow">Bush</a> <i>interregnum</i>, 21 December 1988 was chosen?<br /><br />There is of course an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan_Am_Flight_103_conspiracy_theories&oldid=155485090#South-West_Africa_.28Namibia.29" rel="nofollow">all-embracing theory</a> that can explain why specifically Pan Am Flight 103 on 21 December 1988 was sacrificed in revenge for the July 1988 shooting down of the Iranian airbus by the US Navy.<br /><br />Maybe former President Bush Snr's Democratic challenger in the 1988 presidential election, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/13/us/dukakis-backers-agree-platform-will-call-south-africa-terrorist.html" rel="nofollow">Michael Dukakis</a>, could hazard a guess at the explanation.Patrick Haseldinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10133417620510887039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-91343486733688156522010-02-01T13:30:50.153+00:002010-02-01T13:30:50.153+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Patrick Haseldinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10133417620510887039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-52437240174711456482010-02-01T11:17:44.949+00:002010-02-01T11:17:44.949+00:00Not a presumption I would share from reading Ruth&...Not a presumption I would share from reading Ruth's comments which refers to Lockerbie as "a joint excercise between the US and British intelligence services and Iran using the services of a terrorist group." I'm not sure they needed the "terrorist group" save to convince "Iran" that they had carried out a revenge attack.<br /><br />The "elimination" of Heathrow had a lot to do with the Scottish Police retaining control of the investigation and the information relating to the PFLP-GC "Autumn Leaves" group led to the conviction that if the bomb was built in Neuss it must have arrived at Heathrow directly from frankfurt. Astonishingly the Police had made real progress in solving the case and simply threw it away by dismissing the notion that one of Khreesat's devices could have been introduced at Heathrow.<br /><br />On a different level to the Police investigation there were the interests of the "intelligence" services who had wider considerations and a different agenda from "the truth". (See my article Lockerbie - Criminal Justice or War By Other Means.") Intelligence is not Criminal Investigation - it is often the art of politically motivated deceit which is heart of "Lockerbie".<br /><br />I do not think it is credible to claim the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was forseen or planned for in 1988. It wasn't foreseen until it happened.<br /><br />I suggest Iran/Syria were exonerated of the Lockerbie bombing because there was no practical alternative to doing so short of war and the bombing was exploited for existing objectives vis a vis Libya. The creation of a false solution (any false solution) was the objective. Otherwise I thought Ruth had a good handle on the situation!<br /><br /> But did the intelligence services exploit an unforseen terrorist atrocity or was the disaster expected and planned for?<br /><br />I personally find it inconceivable that the CIA's then Director the squeaky clean William Webster would have had any truck with such a scheme. However the foiling of "Autumn Leaves" and the measured response to the "Vincennes Incident" in the scale and timing of the Lockerbie bombing suited the partisan electoral interests of George H.W. Bush. I understand that when President Mr Bush routinely by-passed Mr Webster acting as his own CIA Director. <br /><br />It was a former CIA officer and business associate of Jeb Bush, Richard Lawless who supposedly held a number of meetings with Iranian officials in the months before "Autumn Leaves." Another CIA officer Thomas Twetton, head of Covert Operations for the Near East, took credit for the disruption of the Libyan based Abu Nidal group, and was promoted to Deputy Director Operations. His son-in-law was numbered as a Lockerbie victim making his daughter a very wealthy widow.<br /><br />As I have previously pointed out Libya's material support for the IRA gave the British Security Services a motive to implicate Libya. Indeed Stella Rimington publicly boasted that it was MI5 who "identified the two Libyan culprits."bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-50317398131689426932010-01-31T00:16:52.524+00:002010-01-31T00:16:52.524+00:00I think the whole thing was a joint exercise betwe...<i>I think the whole thing was a joint exercise between the intelligence services of US/UK and Iran using the services of a terrorist group to appease Iran's fury at the shooting down of their civilian plane.</i><br /><br />Presumably, the terrorist group <b>Ruth</b> is referring to is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/13/us/dukakis-backers-agree-platform-will-call-south-africa-terrorist.html" rel="nofollow">apartheid South Africa</a>.Patrick Haseldinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10133417620510887039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-23914909046640772932010-01-30T17:06:06.428+00:002010-01-30T17:06:06.428+00:00I thought initially the investigation was centred ...I thought initially the investigation was centred on the Syrian/Iranian connection. If that's the case then it doesn't make sense why they didn't investigate the break in at Heathrow right from the beginning as they would have had no need to implicate Malta. Surely if this was the case, it wouldn't have mattered where the bomb was planted other than causing deep embarrassment to the airport authority.<br /><br />Maybe the intention was to divert the investigation to Libya after a while but why?<br /><br />I think the whole thing was a joint exercise between the intelligence services of US/UK and Iran using the services of a terrorist group to appease Iran's fury at the shooting down of their civilan plane. Soon after the shooting down, US/UK attacked Saddam and if this war had been engineered by UK/US as I think it was it would have been planned way in advance. Hence, the US/UK would have needed Iran with them and working together with Iran to blow up a plane would surely have satiated Iran's appetite for revenge.<br /><br />To me all the reactions of politicians, investigators etc fit this scenario. The extraorodinary omission of Thatcher to mention Lockerbie and her fear of it, the statement by an American politician that the US knew what had happened and that no one would ever know, the failure of the government to secretly feed the media with anti-Iranian propaganda using the Lockerbie bombing. There are many, many other indicators including the UK's desperation to avoid Megrahi's appeal and the lengths they went to avoid it. I don't think we, the public, have been informed of all the details/machinations? of Megrahi's release.Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07713759926710072249noreply@blogger.com