you like that word, huh. I used it a few quotes back and you seem to have picked it up a lot lately. Sigh.... I like it too. Sorta like the feeling of hot new shoes and a dress that seem to fit just right, but no date. Sorta like this topic of discussion. Sighhhh. Thank gawd. Please, ugh. let’s not bring her into this. But that said, after reading your comments, are you sure that Jo G hasn't maybe gotten your JREF password and isn't commenting on your account? These comments are not the kind of comments I've seen from Rolfe in the past which don't twist comments of others. Kinda creepy. Am I mistaken?
I'm sorry if you think anything I've sad has twisted your meaning in any way. I suspect we're back to "two nations divided by a common language".
So why in a great deal of responses to my comments does it seem that way? You all get bent out of shape when I don’t comment “for a week” and then when I comment, it seems you think I should tow your line, with the exception of when you half heartedly agree to disagree, following comments where you’ve completely disagreed? Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand, I’m the underdog in this forum, but please don’t play it as though it’s anything different than what I’ve said about Swire, and your defense of him.
I don't think anyone was getting bent out of shape by your absence from the forum, but there was some frustration that when you returned it was to comment on the petition rather than on the discussion of the evidence which had been posted.
Also, nobody is expecting you to toe any line whatsoever. What I was hoping for was a clear explanation of your reasons for believing the way you do, and an outline of the evidence you base these beliefs on. I want to understand
why you're so sure Megrahi's guilty, when I simply can't see the evidence.
The odd thing is, you s
houldn't be the underdog on this forum. In general, posters on this forum detest and despise "conspiracy theories", and take a default position of defending the "official version" of whatever incident is being discussed. You only have to look at the rest of the posts in the CT section, and especially in the 9/11 subforum, to see the usual drill. A year ago, any thread on Lockerbie tended to attract a steady stream of people who were very keen to support the official version, but lacked sufficient familiarity with the evidence to make a structured case. I'm not really sure why none of these people have come to your support now.
Absolutely. You all tear to pieces and ridicule anyone who speaks for / from the other side. How is Swire such a saint in this perspective?
I've been trying very hard not to ridicule anyone. However, in any debate, poor quality and irrelevant evidence does tend to get taken to pieces I'm afraid. It's the nature of the beast. I'll repeat, though, I've never seen Jim Swire ridicule, tear to pieces or bad-mouth any of the Lockerbie relatives who believe Megrahi to be guilty.
Per my comments above, suggest you get a mirror and look at your own comments not being so benign in the same context of criticizing opposing views / adverse inferences.
I never said what she should have done. What I said / inferred was that I had hoped we might have made eye contact, and without words, perhaps given each a kind glance in understanding in that two opposing sides,that we were in the same, very sad situation. I thought more of you than to go down the CL / Jo G path in twisting my words that were meant as heartfelt into something nasty. I hope I'm wrong on the latter.
If I've misunderstood you, I apologise. I had interpreted the tone of much of what you were saying as drawing inferences I didn't think were justified. I can see you hoped you might have made eye contact with Aisha (I'm sorry I don't actually know her surname because I know it's not Arab custom for a wife to take her husband's surname, they consider it disrespectful to her own family). However, I can also see why she might have felt too awkward to respond in that way. I thought from your account that you were inferring from her avoidance of your eyes that she knew her husband was guilty.
ummm… I think you agreed with me on that one.
That the Maltese baggage handlers should have come to Zeist? Indeed, who could disagree? However, you appear to be inferring from their absence that they were,
en masse, complicit in facilitating the smuggling of the bomb on the plane, and in falsifying the paperwork. This is where we disagree, as I find their stated reason for boycotting the trial, that they were thoroughly fed up with not being believed and unwilling to attend a trial where they were likely to be treated as suspects, to be perfectly believable.
Megrahi should have done a lot of things. Including not working for terrorists. Lest he be accused of being one.
Well, that he was "working for terrorists" is an assumption, though one not totally without foundation. However, I would state again, and most emphatically, that this debate is about whether he was complicit in the bombing of Pan Am 103. If he was not, then he should not have been convicted, no matter what else we might suspect him to have been involved in. Punishing someone for something they didn't do, "because you deserve it, you must have done
something," isn't generally held to be valid after the age of about twelve.
Twisting agsin. I never mentioned Interpol WHERE did that come from??? I thought I was commenting with Rolfe, not Jo G..
You said, "If Swire is so committed to "justice" and the idea that it was not Megrahi who bombed PA103, why does he spend so much time on Megrahi's case, rather than
trying to find evidence on the alleged "true culprit" whom he believes took his daughter's life? "
Seems to me that trying to find out who actually bombed that plane is a job for Interpol or a similarly resourced criminal investigating authority, not a retired GP. If he's commited to the idea that it wasn't Megrahi, then spending time on Megrahi's case seems quite rational to me, especially if he believes the best way to get a properly-resourced investigation into the identity of the real culprits is to have Megrahi's conviction quashed.
So, it’s okay for others to criticize me, but I’m not allowed to respond. That seems rather one sided and contrary to how you’ve portrayed JREF to me.
Perhaps "criticise" was a poor choice of words. "Bad-mouth", maybe. My concern, quite honestly, was for the very unfortunate impression you were creating on the forum by your choice of words. However, if you choose to stand by them, then that's your decision of course.
Okay. Stop right there.. I DO NOT, and NEVER HAVE stated that I represent all of the US victims / families. What I have repeatedly stated, is that I comment on my own ideas, beliefs and opinions. I may reiterate experiences, but I am in no way, shape or form presenting in my comments here, or anywhere else, that I am representing US family members or victims of the tragedy.
Another misunderstanding. Of course you don't speak for anyone but yourself. However, you're known here to be a member of the US families of Pan Am 103 group, and nobody but myself knows who you actually are. You could be any one of them. Therefore, it's quite likely that readers may form the impression not "this is the attitude Bunntanas shows", but "this is the attitude of the US families." If you're comfortable with that, then fine, I suppose.
Oh, give me a break. Swire , Dr. Swire, Jim, whatever. The media, Black, etc. refer to him in the same manner - "Swire" (with the exception of my expletive).
Divided by a common language again, possibly? There are situations where referring to someone by their unadorned surname is considered to be perfectly polite. Artists and musicians for example. Referencing someone's scientific work. And then there are situations when it isn't. My impression was that your use of Jim Swire's unadorned surname was intended to be in the latter category. Please forgive me if I'm wrong about that.
You all have wondered in many comments about why other family members don’t comment more in forums like this. Perhaps the above explains a lot.
Well, I was only trying to help. I'm not sure what you expect, though. It's not as if everyone is simply going to shout, hallelujah, Bunntamas believes Megrahi's guilty, we must have been wrong all along. It's about evidence, and persuasiveness in presenting your point of view. Eschewing that in favour of peripheral irrelevancies and unsupported inferences doesn't usually bring out the best in other posters. Presenting what seems to be a bitter and disrespectful attitude to another bereaved relative just doesn't leave a good taste in anyone's mouth.
I know, this sounds like preaching. All along, I just want to understand why you believe what you believe. I don't feel I'm any further forward with that, and it's frustrating.
Rolfe.
