Saturday, 11 September 2010
Radio Four Megrahi programme
The topic for the edition of BBC Radio Four's The Report to be broadcast on Thursday, 16 September at 8pm is "the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi". I agreed to be interviewed for this programme on condition that it concerned itself not merely with the circumstances of his release but also with the circumstances of his conviction. This condition was accepted and I estimate that 95 per cent of the interview of more than one hour that I gave related to the investigation, trial and conviction, rather than the release. But it's all in the editing, of course.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
MISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeleteWer hat am Ende den 'schwarzen Peter' ?
Es ist bedauerlich, dass Mr. Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, alias "Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad" die wahren entscheidenden Hintergründe seines Besuches am 20. und 21. Dezember 1988 in Malta nicht enthüllen will.
Es würde das "Urteil-Mirakel" der Scottish Justice in der Lockerbie-Affäre, welche heute zusehends zu einem "schwarz Peter-Spiel" ausartet, ein abruptes Ende bereiten und endlich neuen Ermittlungen, in eine andere Richtung, den Platz freigeben...
Es bleibt dabei, Mr. Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi und Libyen können abgestützt auf unveröffentlichen Tatsachen, mit dem PanAm 103 Air-Disaster nichts zu tun gehabt haben. >>>
Only a computer "Babylon" translation, German/English
Who has the 'black Peter' at the end ?
It is unfortunate that Mr. Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, alias "Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad" not wants to reveal the crucial true background of his visit on 20th and 21st December 1988 in Malta.
The Scottish "Judgement Miracle" of Al-Megrahi in the Lockerbie-Affair, which appreciably degenerates to a "black Peter play", can come thereby to an abrupt end and open finally the place for new investigations in another direction...
It remains thereby, supported on reserved facts, Mr. Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi and Libya can have to do absolutely nothing with the Air Disaster PanAm-103.
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
URL: www.lockerbie.ch
I wish you well, Professor Black. As a UTA relative the BBC will only carry my views on that atrocity and not my well worked out position on Lockerbie.
ReplyDeleteI did slip in the fact that Libya was not guilty of Lockerbie at the end of a Jim Naughtie interview on Toda, though, which went out live.
By the way, an interesting theory has occurred to me: Is the sainted Bunntamas Frank Duggan in disguise? B seems to like FD, but whether FD is capable of maintaining such sustained dissembling, I doubt. Perhaps not.
I admit that last had crossed my mind too, but on the whole I think he's probably just someone who has had his entire thinking moulded by Duggan and is merely following his lead. It's not really important though, and he has a right to remain anonymous if he wants to.
ReplyDeleteWhat is far more revealing is his inability to articulate any coherent case to support his view that Megrahi carried out the bombing. All he can do is hand-wave about Megrahi's supposed background and associations, and even that evidence isn't exactly independent or well-attested.
We have far more damning evidence of this nature against Jibril and his cronies in the PFLP-GC. We know where when and how they were making bombs similar to the one that downed PA103, and we have evidence they were paid by Iran, who wanted revenge for IR655. What we don't have, which is what (ostensibly) killed the case against them, is any evidence of a PFLP-GC member being in a position to have introduced the bomb on to the plane.
If in fact there is also no evidence that Megrahi was in a position to have been involved in introducing the bomb onto the plane, then in fact the evidence against him is orders of magnitude weaker than the evidence against Jibril. He was never shown to have had explosives in his possession, or to have had any background in bomb-making, or to have been involved in any previous incidents.
If there is no evidence that the bomb was carried on KM180, or indeed was ever anywhere near Malta, the case against Megrahi collapses completely. (Given that the evidence for him having purchased the clothes from Gauci collapsed some time ago.) And yet all Bunntamas can say is that of course there's no evidence, it would have been covered up!
Well of course there's no evidence that a member of the PFLP-GC put the bomb on the plane at Heathrow (or Frankfurt), it was covered up! Hello again, square one! Actually, there's overwhelming evidence of a cover-up at Frankfurt, but none at all of a cover-up at Malta. (Oh right, the cover-up would have been covered up....)
This is conspiracy theorising of a far more specious nature than anything we have suggested. That this, plus insults, shouting and avoiding the question, is all that Bunntamas has to say on the matter, is far more revealing than knowing his identity.
I doubt the evidence of Iran paying th PFLP GC. This is a typical CIA canard - we've got the paying in slip to prove it, sort of argument.
ReplyDeleteI've been looking for this sort of evidence for years. Can you direct me to it, please?
Secondly, $10M is likely to make considerable changes in somebody's life. But neither Mr Nidal nor Mr Talb seem to have been enriched by their Iranian largesse.
Anybody, apart from CIA plants got any corporate accounts for PFLP GC or PPSF?
What we don't have, which is what (ostensibly) killed the case against them, is any evidence of a PFLP-GC member being in a position to have introduced the bomb on to the plane.”
ReplyDeleteActually, this has always intrigued me about this aspect of this case. I would have expected if Libya had wanted to clear its name it would have put considerable resources (from its intelligence agency) into finding out what really happened. Has it? After all, it was one (or two) of its agents being stitched up! Did they not care? Again, I would have expected, with its extremely close relations within the Arab world of espionage, to have quickly rounded on the real perpetrators and have produced the (altimeter triggered) smoking gun. Did it? Why not? Instead, they seem to have been waiting for the truth to emanate from the ‘west’ – which is a forlorn hope. Why do we not know (exactly) the alternative, (ostensibly) truthful, set of events, including the characters, which lead to the bomb being placed on that plane? I surmise, therefore, there is a smidgen of Libyan involvement here.
I think, Blogiston, this is from a position of hindsight.
ReplyDeleteRemember that the Heathrow break-in was not known to the defence until the first appeal, by when it reality its knowledge came too late, as appeal courts hate to second guess primary judgements on evidence.
Then, if we look at how my take, coming twenty years after the attack is fairing. Not that well, yet. Had Libya come to the intelligent conclusion that the US and Iran did it, who would have believed them?
Wouldn't it simply be dismissed out of hand that they a party being blamed were simply pot calling kettle, and their arguments thus dismissed.
Also, I don't think Libya the JSO/ESO or whatever has simply had the patience to do what I have done.
Charles: Leaving your claims aside, my point is as soon as the Scottish Police arrived in Sliema in August 1989, there must have been alarm bells ringing in Tripoli. They must have been predicting there could be underhand or covert retaliation to their previous terrorist activities. No? Was it not obvious to them what was going down, when there was a sudden flurry of activity in Malta and less in Frankfurt? So, why no counter operation to uncover the real perpetrators? They would have been miles ahead, by contacts across the Arab world alone, to discover what really happened.
ReplyDeleteThe British had made it perfectly clear that underhand ideas like abduction of Megrahi and Fhimah were out of the question, and if the Americans used entrapment or kidnap the case would fail before a Scottish court.
ReplyDeleteWhy the CIA and FBI co-operated with a Scottish trial, when entrapment or kidnap would not be an issue before a US court, is not for me to say, but it was within the powers of a US administration through its infinitely complex prosecution processes to have brought the case in America. After there are those we never tire of telling us that the greatest number of victims on the plane were from the US.
It is my belief that there were several conflicting processes going on in the US. The Administration wanted to sweep the matter under the carpet at the first opportunity, and the public charges against M&F made sure they would never voluntarily leave Libyan jurisdiction.
But an oh so sentimental Congress change US law three times almost obliging the Administration to seek the eviction of M&F into a jurisdiction where they would get the tender and inexpert mercies of a Scottish prosecution and defence, to get a conviction in a tame Scottish court and an enormous payout from Libya.
How much is a life worth anyway? Certainly not, I suggest the $857,142,857 and 14c award by the Eastern Federal US District court to the relatives of 7 US citizens who died on UT-772.
Call me unduly cynical if you like that but that's the nub of it.
Testing. Comments made on another post are failing to appear.
ReplyDeleteWeird.
ReplyDeletemy point is as soon as the Scottish Police arrived in Sliema in August 1989, there must have been alarm bells ringing in Tripoli. They must have been predicting there could be underhand or covert retaliation to their previous terrorist activities. No? Was it not obvious to them what was going down, when there was a sudden flurry of activity in Malta and less in Frankfurt?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that follows, Blogiston. You're assuming that Libya was hyper-aware of what was happening in the Lockerbie investigation, and if they really had nothing to do with it this may not have been the case.
Crawford also explains that the D&G were undercover in Malta at first, posing as an advance security detail in respect of an upcoming visit Prince Philip was due to make to the island. They weren't outed for several months, and even when they were, they were investigating a cell of the PFLP-GC on the island, not Libya.
Despite Bunntamas's assertions, Malta isn't Libya, so why would some Scottish police chasing up a Palestinian cell on Malta necessarily ring any alarm bells in Tripoli?
They didn't start investigating Libya seriously until the autumn of 1990.
So, why no counter operation to uncover the real perpetrators? They would have been miles ahead, by contacts across the Arab world alone, to discover what really happened.
It's still a good question though. My main thought is that it might have been pointless. If as we assume, the CIA knew perfectly well it was the PFLP-GC already but had some motivation for not wanting this to become a matter of public record, then more proofs from Libya weren't likely to be heeded any more than the existing evidence was.
RB: I estimate that 95 per cent of the interview of more than one hour that I gave related to the investigation, trial and conviction, rather than the release. But it's all in the editing, of course.
ReplyDeleteThese kinds of tips are appreciated. I want to see the final production and the editing and have something to compare it to. You can tell they've done creative editing when Professor Black, in clearly spliced micro-segments says "it's quite clear that ... Mr. Megrahi is ... guilty ... as sin."
On Bunntamas, I agree with Rolfe. He's got a right to remain anonymous, and I doubt Duggan would actually be so lame as to impersonate one of the family members he represents. I still think Brian Flynn is the most likely, despite the denial, but I feel it's counterproductive to try too hard to unmask someone as if their identity matters more than their (lack of) arguments.
I think we should stop naming real people on this blog like this. It can store up legal trouble for the blog owner.
ReplyDeleteBunntamas is whoever he is. We shouldn't speculate tho by naming real folk as contenders. Let's not risk trouble. There is a mindset among a small group certainly who think as Bunntamas does but why even pay attention when they are so unwilling to listen to evidence which sinks their theories on Megrahi?
I agree with Jo G's comment and advice. Those seeking the truth should ignore anyone who cannot or will not think openly and logically. Anyone who attacks those who simply seek the truth like Bunntamas does necessarily has some sort of agenda other than determining the real truth.
ReplyDeleteI use my real name but my Uncle Ben doesn't not and his whispering in my ear "Don't tell them folks about the two plain theory!"
ReplyDeleteI;m am tellin you his theory would link WTC and Locherby the year before emmensely imbarissing by all means. And they would all be burning more than a pile of quorn yes sir when they see it.
I think we should stop naming real people on this blog like this. It can store up legal trouble for the blog owner.
ReplyDeleteBunntamas is whoever he is. We shouldn't speculate tho by naming real folk as contenders. Let's not risk trouble.
Even if there's no prospect of legal repercussions, Bunntamas has a right to his anonymity if he wants to preserve it. So you're right, we shouldn't name names.
There is a mindset among a small group certainly who think as Bunntamas does but why even pay attention when they are so unwilling to listen to evidence which sinks their theories on Megrahi?
If it really was such a small group then I'd be inclined to agree with you, but I'm not sure it's so small. We keep being told that all the US relatives, thanks to the attentions of the egregious Mr. Duggan no doubt, are convinced of Megrahi's guilt. And that's quite a lot of people. The documents released by the Scottish government also included representations by bereaved relatives of Lockerbie town victims - a Mr. and Mrs. Boyes and a Mrs. Somerville - who expressed their distaste for those who declared Mr. Megrahi to be innocent "without having any proof".
I find this very peculiar. Of course it's understandable that people who simply know there was a guilty verdict should believe the accused to be guilty, but we're talking about people who should have some understanding of the evidence. I can only imagine that they have been told that Megrahi was definitely proved to be the purchaser of the clothes, and that the bomb suitcase was definitely introduced at Malta on to KM180.
If I believed the first, I'd be certain Megrahi was guilty, and if I believed the second I'd be pretty suspicious even if not certain. In reality, we know that the first is simply not true and the second is a gossamer-thin inference that doesn't withstand any serious scrutiny. Now all these people can't be like Bunntamas. I'd seriously like to understand how they can look at the flaws in the evidence and continue to declare Megrahi guilty.
But we don't get to talk to these people, we have to make do with Bunntamas. I find Bunntamas seriously interesting. Is this sort of "stick-fingers-in-ears-and-hum-real-loud" really the only argument the US families have?
I agree with Fullinquiry. Bunntamas has some sort of agenda. It seems to be the same agenda as Frank Duggan and we know where he's coming from. Ex-spook, employed to keep the US relatives in the dark and feed them you-know-what so that they don't break ranks. That in itself is interesting.
But it's been twenty years. It's a big internet out there. How can arguments such as "Tony Gauci was interviewed 19 times and gave 19 statements because there were 19 jurisdictions involved - people from 19 nationalities died. Of course there are some inconsistencies" survive? I mean, "that's not even wrong".
So the agenda is interesting and the tactics are interesting, and how they're managing to keep all the US relatives toeing the line is interesting.
Very Strange. Having problems posting. Have I been booted? HA!
ReplyDeleteSorry for the double post. I was having problems posting. Was gettting error messages. More to come....
ReplyDeleteCont'd
ReplyDeleteIf in fact there is also no evidence that Megrahi was in a position to have been involved in introducing the bomb onto the plane…
Outside of him ooohhh so ironically being on Malta the day the bomb was planted, traveling on a false passport, his and Libya’s relations on Malta, and with Maltese security. Ohhhh I can already see the litigious remarks from Jo… Spare me darling.
then in fact the evidence against him is orders of magnitude weaker than the evidence against Jibril. He was never shown to have had explosives in his possession, or to have had any background in bomb-making, or to have been involved in any previous incidents.
If there is no evidence that the bomb was carried on KM180, or indeed was ever anywhere near Malta, the case against Megrahi collapses completely. (Given that the evidence for him having purchased the clothes from Gauci collapsed some time ago.) And yet all Bunntamas can say is that of course there's no evidence, it would have been covered up!
Well of course there's no evidence that a member of the PFLP-GC put the bomb on the plane at Heathrow (or Frankfurt), it was covered up! Hello again, square one! Actually, there's overwhelming evidence of a cover-up at Frankfurt, but none at all of a cover-up at Malta. (Oh right, the cover-up would have been covered up....)
Right. I have some ocean front property in the middle of the Libyan Desert for sale, where testing on timers designed to blow up airliners were conducted. Wanna buy it? You and Caustisc flicked your wrist at old DIA reports I posted on JREF, but you continuously purport what you read on the web and in the news as fact. Pot…Kettle…. I’m sure you’ll think my theory around the fact that Iran ordered and paid the PLO, PFLP-GC, Syria, their members etc. for the attack on an American Airliner, then after Autumn Leaves they became too “hot” under the investigative microscope, so they handed the job off to the Libyans, who were all to happy to carry out the orders, considering the Regan fist shaking at the middle East. The Pallestinians trained the the Libyans, but not well enough. The Libyans, with their stupid egos haphazardly got the job done, but haphazardly. Haphazardly being the operative word, in that they knew Libya had financial and political control over Malta, which was the easiest spot to introduce the bomb. Again, easy, and ego being operative words. Do some research on Libyan control over Malta and Megrahi's affiliates. I think you mentioned in a previous post that you had no idea who Moussa Kusa was. Laughable, considering your' "learnedness" on this case. Suggest you did deeper and earlier. Maybe YOU might change YOUR mind.
This is conspiracy theorising of a far more specious nature than anything we have suggested. That this, plus insults, shouting and avoiding the question, is all that Bunntamas has to say on the matter, is far more revealing than knowing his identity.
Sorry for the shouting. Seemed to me the only way to get through to you, considering you simply brush aside the fact that Megrahi’s affiliation w/ Libyan terrorists and his “ironic” Malta presence on 12/21/88, and his LAA affiliations at Malta aside. Too bad for you that the Judges didn’t.
Okay, I posted a big long post before "cont'd." that showed up, and now it's gone. I'll try to post it again, but that means you'll have to read it inversly, e.g. next post, prior to post starting w/ "cont'd". But since you all seem to read backwards anyway, shouldn't be a problem.
ReplyDeleteAlso the fact that it seems you're holding your breath for my next post, I'm sure you'll do all you can to figure it out. HA!
For some reason I can't post the beginning of the the post above. I'm giving up. Not worth it. Later CTs.
ReplyDeleteAhhh... It finally worked. Read the above, most recent post first, then go to the one before it for the correct order, in reply to Rolfe's comments.
ReplyDeleteWell. I thought it did. But now it has dissapeared. Screw this. I'm done.
ReplyDeleteBunntamas: Sorry for the shouting. Seemed to me the only way to get through to you, considering you simply brush aside the fact that Megrahi’s affiliation w/ Libyan terrorists and his “ironic” Malta presence on 12/21/88, and his LAA affiliations at Malta aside. Too bad for you that the Judges didn’t.
ReplyDeleteAgain, good sir, if you can pay attention for just a wee second. The central part there is Megrahi's presence at Luqa. You've shown absolutely no grasp so far of the implications of the fact that there is no credible evidence of any bomb being on Malta that day.
Until you can convince me in detail what's so all-powerful about the evidence for a bomb coming from Megrahi's "ironic" position, you must remain in my mind .... (left out). And a conspiracy theorist with ... (left out).
Bunntamas, there have been issues with lost posts over the weekend - everybody has been affected. It seems to be some instability in the software, and generally affecting longer posts. It was mainly confined to that very long thread of over 200 posts, but if it's affecting other threads now we all need to be careful.
ReplyDeleteThe best bet is to copy your post to the clipboard before you hit preview or publish, or hold it in Notepad or somewhere. That way if it vanishes in the aether, you can just paste it back in. Some posts have been disappearing again shortly after being posted, so re-check the thread too.
You couldn't have been "booted" anyway. If you look at that train-wreck of a thread, you'll see Prof. Black remark that the software doesn't allow him to exclude any poster, only to delete posts they make after they have made them. And speaking personally, I can't see any sign that you've done anything to warrant censure anyway.
PS. I think you have had a post appear and vanish again, as there seems to be something missing from your sequence. I found the only way round this was to split such a post into smaller bites and post it that way.
ReplyDeleteOutside of him ooohhh so ironically being on Malta the day the bomb was planted, traveling on a false passport, his and Libya’s relations on Malta, and with Maltese security.
ReplyDeleteBunntamas, I've said this before and Caustic Logic has said it as well, but let's try it in bite-size chunks.
His being on Malta on the day of the bombing is only relevant if the bomb was also on Malta that day. There is no evidence at all that the bomb was ever on Malta.
I'll say it again. There is no evidence the bomb was ever on the island of Malta, on 21st December or any other day.
I am now going to try to post, in three short sections, the missing part of Bunntamas's comment (comments are e-mailed to me, even though they may subsequently disappear from the site). They should be read before the Bunntamas comment, above, that starts "cont'd".
ReplyDeleteBunntamas part 1
ReplyDelete"I admit that last had crossed my mind too, but on the whole I think he's probably just someone who has had his entire thinking moulded by Duggan and is merely following his lead. It's not really important though, and he has a right to remain anonymous if he wants to."
Thanks Rolfe. You are correct. Again, I’m not Duggan, nor that Cameron person. And I appreciate the respect for my privacy. Heaven forbid any one of you find out who I am. Considering the manner by which you all tear each other to bits here in comments and on JREF. I can only imagine what would happen if anyone were to know my identity. You all pontificate about “principles” and “points”, whilst dredging up data that has been posted and printed in the media for 21+ years. Yet within all of the people, posts, print, pining and polls no one has been able to topple the verdict.
Bunntamas part 2
ReplyDelete"What is far more revealing is his inability to articulate any coherent case to support his view that Megrahi carried out the bombing. All he can do is hand-wave about Megrahi's supposed background and associations, and even that evidence isn't exactly independent or well-attested.."
Per, above, and in other comments by me, the only thing you all talk about is what has already been discussed in many venues. Nothing has been done about it by you all. The trial, verdict, refused first appeal and failed justice for Megrahi petition are results. You all blather on here with no results, outside of self preserved ego stroking about repeated blather. Yes, yes, I hear you already clamoring on about the SCCRC. So what??? They said a miscarriage of justiceMAY have occurred. Why didn’t hasn’t Megrahi pursued this? And speaking of “inability to articulate”, why is it that no one answers the questions I Pose, hmmmm??? Why is it that Megrahi and/or his family haven’t aligned with all of you, and the Justice for Megrahi campaign to prove his alleged innocence? Unless I missed it, I didn’t see Megrahi’s signature, nor any of his family members, nor any of his (former) Libyan or Malta employers’ names on that petition. Frightened about upsetting the apple cart? Wouldn’t want any bad apples re: Megrahi spilling out into the Scottish / UK / Malta mire?
Bunntamas part 3
ReplyDelete"We have far more damning evidence of this nature against Jibril and his cronies in the PFLP-GC. We know where when and how they were making bombs similar to the one that downed PA103, and we have evidence they were paid by Iran, who wanted revenge for IR655. What we don't have, which is what (ostensibly) killed the case against them, is any evidence of a PFLP-GC member being in a position to have introduced the bomb on to the plane."
You have no evidence. What you have is what you’ve read in the media, and what’s posted in your CTs. You bluster on here and on JREF as if that’s evidence. You blast others with differing views and expect them to produce more REAL evidence than what has already been presented. Sorry, but I’ve been all through this since the beginning. I have zero desire to rehash what has been posted and printed, but not proven in court, or henceforth beyond trial and first appeal with your seemingly pathetic Scottish and UK governments. Further, don’t ask me to reply on SCCRC until someone actually decides to move forward with this.
I dare YOU to go find some REAL evidence. When you do, I’ll respond. Until then, as I’ve said in other comments and on JREEF; I’ll pop in here & there for a good laugh. Particularly at your recent pining for me and my identity when I don’t post. LOL.
Thanks, Prof Black. If the instability isn't confined to the very long thread, is this something you could take up with the people who run the Blogger site?
ReplyDeleteYet within all of the people, posts, print, pining and polls no one has been able to topple the verdict.
ReplyDeleteBunntamas, remember I said you were like someone butting into a discussion on whether marijuana should be legalised, simply shouting "but it's STLL ILLEGAL".
We are discussing whether the verdict was sound or justified. Pointing out that it exists is spurious.
Yes, yes, I hear you already clamoring on about the SCCRC. So what??? They said a miscarriage of justice MAY have occurred. Why didn’t hasn’t Megrahi pursued this?
Indeed. First, it's not their job to second-guess the appeal court. All they are ever going to say is that it may have been a miscarriage of justice. The fact that they said it at all is what's important. That, and their reasons for saying that.
All the published reasons, as you know, were concerned with the reliability of the assumption the judges made about Megrahi being the person who purchased the clothes from Tony Gauci. As I said above, if I believed Megrahi had bought those clothes, I'd be agreeing with you that he's guilty. However, I can't see any evidence at all that he did. Even Tony Gauci said it wasn't him.
I've never seen you support the assertion that Megrahi bought the clothes. So could you address that point? Either explain to us why you still think he bought the clothes despite the evidence the SCCRC put into the public domain, or explain to us what connection you think there is between Megrahi and the bombing if he didn't.
And second, Megrahi dropped the appeal because he has cancer and believed at the time he wouldn't live to see it through the court. As maybe he wouldn't have, had he remained in Greenock jail.
Why is it that Megrahi and/or his family haven’t aligned with all of you, and the Justice for Megrahi campaign to prove his alleged innocence? Unless I missed it, I didn’t see Megrahi’s signature, nor any of his family members, nor any of his (former) Libyan or Malta employers’ names on that petition.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what pressures Megrahi is currently under, and indeed I don't think it's for us to second-guess his choice of how to handle the matter or indeed what he does with whatever time is left to him.
Technically, he could still be recalled to jail. It seems unlikely that would happen, but who knows what might transpire if he or his family started to make too many undesirable waves.
He has continued to assert his innocence in the strongest possible terms throughout this sordid affair. What more do you want?
You have no evidence. What you have is what you’ve read in the media, and what’s posted in your CTs. You bluster on here and on JREF as if that’s evidence.
ReplyDeleteI take it you're referring to the evidence against the PFLP-GC? IN addition to a gread deal of media reporting of the very solid facts of their activities, as uncovered by the Frankfurt police, we have the evidence presented in court. Go back over that lot some time, and see how much detail is known about their activities.
Once again you seem to retreat to an assertion that the court verdict cannot possibly be wrong. If that's all you've got, then there is indeed little point in further debate. Court verdicts are wrong fairly frequently, and in many cases it has taken a lot more than ten years to get the error righted.
The point I and others are making is that once you realise there is no evidence that the bomb was ever anywhere near Malta, there is more evidence of the background sort you are relying on against the PFLP-GC than there is against Megrahi. The court held that Megrahi was guilty primarily because he was assumed to have bought the clothes. Everything else essentially flowed from that. (Though it was actually necessary to assume quite a lot of the "everything else" in order to justify the assumption that he bought the clothes.)
So, heaps of background evidence that the PFLP-GC were intending to bomb airliners and making bombs extremely similar to the one involved, was trumped by the assumption that Megrahi had actually been linked with some actual contents of the bomb bag.
Take away that assumption, which is what the SCCRC did, and it all falls apart. Unless you can explain how it doesn't.
I’m sure you’ll think my theory around the fact that Iran ordered and paid the PLO, PFLP-GC, Syria, their members etc. for the attack on an American Airliner, then after Autumn Leaves they became too “hot” under the investigative microscope, so they handed the job off to the Libyans, who were all to happy to carry out the orders, considering the Regan fist shaking at the middle East. The Pallestinians trained the the Libyans, but not well enough. The Libyans, with their stupid egos haphazardly got the job done, but haphazardly. Haphazardly being the operative word, in that they knew Libya had financial and political control over Malta, which was the easiest spot to introduce the bomb.
ReplyDeleteYes, well, it's a theory. What it lacks is any evidence, as far as I can see.
Complete absence of evidence of there being any bomb on Malta, either constructed there (as the prosecution alleged) or transported there, and complete absence of any opportunity for anything untoward being smuggled on to KM180, is something you need to face up to.
You continually assert "but it was covered up!". That's not good enough. Claims that something has happened and been covered up have to rest on something more than there simply being no evidence that it happened at all. What makes you think something was covered up? Oh, Megrahi was on Malta that day, and the Libyans are bad people. That's circular reasoning.
There's something else you need to take on board. Megrahi was apparently alone at the airport that morning. He didn't go airside and he didn't meet anybody else. He couldn't have put the bomb on the plane himself, and he was never convicted of having done that. Just of being an accessory.
This idea of a comprehensive cover-up by God only knows how many Maltese citizens, that has held firm for 20 years despite the most intense scrutiny and investigation, and not one person in all that time has grassed, in spite of knowing the magnitide of the atrocity that resulted, is a far more outlandish conspiracy theory than anything you're accusing us of supporting.
Do some research on Libyan control over Malta and Megrahi's affiliates. I think you mentioned in a previous post that you had no idea who Moussa Kusa was. Laughable, considering your' "learnedness" on this case.
ReplyDeleteI asked what relevance all your stories about Megrahi's alleged acquaintances had to do with the price of fish, actually. I'm sure Moussa Kusa knows a lot of people. So does Ahmed Jibril for that matter. I could just as easily argue that one of the latter "must have" smuggled the bomb on at Frankfurt somehow, because of all we know about these people's backgrounds and what they were up to.
There's no evidence the "Autumn Leaves" raid put a serious crimp in the PFLP-GC. All but two of those arrested were released almost immediately. And have you investigated why that was, may I ask? Only one of the bombs being prepared was seized. There's no reason at all they couldn't have gone right on with what they were doing.
And at least there is evidence of an actual cover-up at Frankfurt, for anyone who wants to take that line, and a possible route of introduction of the bomb there. Just as there is at Heathrow.
So why are you looking at Luqa, the one airport with virtually watertight security data to show they are in the clear, and shouting that there must have been a massive conspiracy there?
Suggest you did deeper and earlier. Maybe YOU might change YOUR mind.
I might. But to do that I want to see evidence, not handwaving about irrelevancies and vague injunctions to "dig deeper".
If you can't unearth some actual concrete information to link someone in this chain of acquaintance you're so fond of to the actual bombing of Pan Am 103, you've got nothing.
Who made the bomb? Where? How and where did it get into the baggage system? Unless you have concrete information on this, and can link it to Megrahi, you're just spinning in circles.
you simply brush aside the fact that Megrahi’s affiliation w/ Libyan terrorists and his “ironic” Malta presence on 12/21/88, and his LAA affiliations at Malta aside.
ReplyDeleteAnd here we are, full circle. Megrahi's presence at Malta that morning is only ironic (or, in fact, bloody suspicious) if the bomb was also on Malta at that time.
Declaring that it was but this was covered up (in marked contrast to the blatant ineptitude of the rest of this alleged plot, by the way, which was so incompetent it only succeeded by a string of lucky breaks, and gave itself away by a ridiculous and unnecessary conspicuous purchase of new, traceable clothes), and that your evidence for the cover-up is that there is no evidence, isn't getting you anywhere.
yet another pontification on what's wrong with Bunntamas and all Dugganistas everywhere:
ReplyDeleteIf the official story were really true, it could be jointly:
1 - used as a legitimate basis for indictments and thence crippling economic sanctions
2 - used to rightly convict one of the two accused in a court of law and allow sanctions to end once compensation was rendered by Libya
3 - be discussed at length and in detail after the fact without fear of it falling apart like the Cinderella spell after midnight.
If the facts of the 3-D world we inhabit match the legal reality, the facts of Megrahi's guilt should be something these people know front to back. It would be easy to shut us down by showing the ruling was more like science than magic. They call it fact of the science type, but defer to the formulaic encoding with the reverence afforded the magical class. Not good.
The evidence in its details, like how we tottally know the bomb came from Malta aside from Megrahi being there, should be Bunntamas'forte.
It's not.
It's noted.
Take it as a challenge, folks. Sharpen up over there.
ReplyDeleteI kinda don't want to post after that for fear of diluting Caustic Logic's excellent points, but basically what he said. If this story were true, it could be discussed at length and in detail after the fact without fear of it falling apart like the Cinderella spell after midnight.
ReplyDeleteCan I steal that?
(in silly mystical voice) You could not steal from me what wasn't mine. It is blowing in the wind, my friend.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDamn, that was tonight! I missed it. Someone should have reminded me.
ReplyDeleteListen again is your friend I suppose.