Merged al Megrahi and the Lockerbie bombing

[Rolfe]

Not really, apart from why is it extraordinarily difficult to get anyone to take seriously the idea that Megrahi didn't do it and was framed, even though there's credible evidence by the shedload to support it, but the minute one of Gadaffi's ex-thugs deserting the sinking ship makes a completely unverified and actually quite senseless statement, the media are all over it like a rash?

ETA: Oh yes another question. Why has everybody deserted the thread that was started yesterday in CE&SI about this? We had Scrut doing his usual, and Wildcat, and a few others pointing fingers and sniggering about CTs. All I did was suggest they read some stuff and come back and argue on the basis of the evidence.

Tumbleweed.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

In a parallel universe, where there was actual evidence that Megrahi did what he was alleged to have done, I'd say it was a sure thing. You don't blow your nose in Tripoli without written permission in triplicate from the colonel. There would have been no other possible reason for him to have done such a thing.

And anyway, he certainly didn't act alone, even in this parallel world. He was never convicted of having put the bomb on the plane - it was recognised he couldn't possibly have done that. He was only convicted of being at the airport where the prosecution had hallucinated the bomb went on the plane, and the inference made that he must have had a hand in it somehow.

But he was there alone, and never went airside, and never met anybody, and didn't even have any checked-in luggage with him. And there was strong evidence that there was no unacccompanied luggage on the flight the bomb was supposed to have been on. Yet, somehow, it was decided that somebody else put the bomb on the plane, but because Megrahi was catching his plane for Tripoli at the same time, he must have had a hand in it.

That's what he was jailed for life for.

So no, even the prosecution didn't think he acted alone!

Rolfe.

 

[zooterkin]

Come to think of it, does it really matter? We know Megrahi did it, he's been tried and convicted and all credible evidence points to him.

What credible evidence would that be?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What credible evidence would that be?

The evidence that points to his guilt. Unless you want to believe the CIA or the Jews framed him.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The evidence that points to his guilt. Unless you want to believe the CIA or the Jews framed him.

CIA. Might be some Jews in there, I dunno. Jalil is full of hot-air. Hi s supposed real-world evidence only lines up with the paper version of the attack, not the 3-D version. The best clues there (not accepted but still the best) have the bomb entering container AVE4041 at about 4:30 PM up in London.

Darat, sorry. But it's important in considering this guy's veracity when he says he's got real-world clues of a crime that only seems to have happened on paper and in legal technicalities.

 

[Aepervius]

The evidence that points to his guilt. Unless you want to believe the CIA or the Jews framed him.

Go read the thread on this forum and otherwise on the story. And you know, sometimes being declared guilty does not mean you are. There were even people which were condemned to death and executed by over zealous prosecutor. Albeit a small minority but the point is , non zero.

I am not saying that that guy was innocent, I am saying there is suffisent doubt on the story to take a skeptical "undecided" opinion.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

CIA. Might be some Jews in there, I dunno. Jalil is full of hot-air. Hi s supposed real-world evidence only lines up with the paper version of the attack, not the 3-D version. The best clues there (not accepted but still the best) have the bomb entering container AVE4041 at about 4:30 PM up in London.

Sounds like you're arguing the case, and directly ignoring Darat's mod box. Rolfe did the same thing and I reported it.

If you want to argue the case, open a thread in CT and do it there. We're trying to keep this thread on track.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Go read the thread on this forum and otherwise on the story. And you know, sometimes being declared guilty does not mean you are. There were even people which were condemned to death and executed by over zealous prosecutor. Albeit a small minority but the point is , non zero.

I am not saying that that guy was innocent, I am saying there is suffisent doubt on the story to take a skeptical "undecided" opinion.

I'm not interested in arguing the case. There is a CT thread for that.

The courts found him guilty. That means he is guilty, both as a legal matter, and for the purposes of this thread.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Okay then, for the purposes of this thread Megrahi was obviously ordered to cary out the bombing by Col. Ghaddafi. And while this man Jalil claims direct knowledge of that order, I propose that the two things are not really related. I can't explain why, of course. But I predict no proof forthcoming, with some lame excuse, or perhaps of great interest, a forged document on official paper signed by some other high-level defector. (There seem to be a lot of them all of a sudden). Or something like that. We shall see where it goes.

 

[quixotecoyote]

The courts found him guilty. That means he is guilty, both as a legal matter, and for the purposes of this thread.

Sounds like you're arguing the case, and directly ignoring Darat's mod box.

If you want to argue the case, open a thread in CT and do it there. We're trying to keep this thread on track.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Sounds like you're arguing the case, and directly ignoring Darat's mod box.

If you want to argue the case, open a thread in CT and do it there. We're trying to keep this thread on track.

No, just stating a fact. He was found guilty.

So there!

 

[Bunntamas]

Interesting the way nobody seems to want to look or discuss or debate when you spend two years going through the actual evidence with a fine-tooth comb,

RE: "actual evidence" are you referring to the actual evidence presented at trial and at appeal, which resulted in actual guilty and refused verdicts? Or are you referring to the tabloid trash, blatherings, scribbelings and seriously laughable cartoon animations of CTers on blogs and forums? As you very well know, methinks (and the courts, as well as the mods who - rightly so - consistently send your "two years of 'research' " to the CT forums) the former is considered actual evidence, (hence Megrahi will die guilty as tried and convicted) and the latter is... well... relegated to the CT forum.

then one bad guy with an agenda mouths off

"Bad guy with an agenda mouths off"??? You think the Libyan Ambassador is a bad guy? HAHAHA!
Sorry darling. The real bad guy is the dearly close ally of the Gaddafi Regime, reporting as a Libyan secret service agent to Gaddafi's brother-in-law, Abdullah Senussi - same guy (Senussi) who fled the UK after threatening to assassinate Brittish officials and the Saudi Prince. Bad Guys??? The bad guy is one, so dear to the Libyan regime that Gaddafi sends his thug Sennussi in to argue with the UK and Scottish government whores, who are so hungry for their BP oil deal with Libya that they will do and say anything for Megrahi's release; even bow to the Libyan terrorists' threats that the UK will suffer dire consequences, if Megrahi dies in scottish prison. And of course, the Scottish government whores itself out (once again, for the gazillionth time, over hundreds of years) to the UK and releases the real bad guy.

Libyan ambassador is a bad guy? No, Don't think so. The bad guy is not one who is saying Gaddaffi ordered the bombing of PA103. The real bad guy carried out the bombing of PA103, on orders from his boss and his boss' boss, and is now (hopefully) dealing with the karmic consequenses of hanging by his family jewels (allegedly, according to Scottish government whores and doctors consulting with lame medical consultants; some - if not most- paid for by Libyan legal defense); henceforth in a coma in Libyan hospital on life support (unless that's another CT you cooked up, which I wouldn't doubt).

and suddenly everybody wants to play.

What, you think you, the Justice For Megrahi group, and the other CTers are the only ones who can "play" in this arena? I'm quite certain that A LOT of folks have been sitting on the sidelines after having gotten fed up with the bullying by you and yours. Now they're speaking, you bully / accuse them of "wetting" themselves, being drunkards, and now, "suddenly" playing. Wow. Sorry to enlighten you darling, but it's not sudden. We've all been watching. Some of us have endured your bullying. Others (probably more rightly so, in not wasting their time on responding to your CTs, nasty remarks and bullying) have been watching and waiting for a break on (in addition to the rulings of the courts) what we've known all along as true, to come forth - AGAIN,:

Gadaffi ordered the bombing of PA103, just like all of the other terrorist attacks Libya conducted, Senussi followed Gaddafi's orders, and Megrahi followed Senussi's orders. And Boom. Lockerbie is littered with airliner wreckage and 270 INNOCENT DEAD -at the hands of Gaddafi, Sennusi, MEGRAHI and yes, Bollier. If you and/or CT would have bothered to look into the Gaddafi / Sennusi / Megrahi relationship (instead of hand waving it when I brought it up eons ago when I first joined JREF) in your "research" you might have noticed the issues and complicities here. But no, you're so hell bent on Megrahi's innocence, you accuse others of ignoring the facts and yet you ignore them yourselves.

You can blather all day long for two years and then some. Not everyone will stand up to your bullying or bother to waste their time on your silly CTs. Bottom line is, Megrahi was, is and forever will be a terrorist, aligned with Gaddaffi, via the same family tribe as Sennussi, who is in the same family as Gaddafi. Blood seems to be thick in the Libyan tribes and Megrahi's blood is intertwined with Gaddaffi's via his tribe being the same as Sennusi's. Sadly, the blood on the streets in Libya and Lockerbie is on Gaddaffi's and his thugs hands, same as it is now with the Scots and the UK in releasing Megrahi the terrorist to his terrorist family / tribe in Libya.

Trust me, more of those whom you view as "bad guys" will undoubtedly come forth with REAL evidence; thicker than a flimsy piece of paper (how interesting that R. Black predicted this. He must have a great PR agent playing back-up for him) and the blood on the Libyan regime's (including Megrahi's) hands.

Whatever now / then will you do with all the screeds of text on forums and blogs and time you spent in the Lockerbie CT forums? Whatever could you have done with those two wasted years? Again all around... sad.

~B.

 

[Bunntamas]

i'm not interested in arguing the case. There is a ct thread for that.

The courts found him guilty. That means he is guilty, both as a legal matter, and for the purposes of this thread.

amen!!!

 

[Bunntamas]

No, just stating a fact. He was found guilty.

So there!

AMEN again!

 

[Bunntamas]

FYI - for those of you in the UK, who are new to this argument; I'm an an American, and a family member of one of the victims of PA103. I have been accused by CT comments in this forum of drunken posts, because opposing commenters perceivedthe time-frame of my posts a result of "drunken partying in the wee hours" Said comments were made by those who are apparently are unable to decipher/ comprehend world time differences between the UK / Scotland and that the world does not reovolve around them - go figure.

Admittedly, I made a few posts including typos and run-on rants - out of passion, NOT drunkedness.

I have also been accused of having to be treated with "kid gloves" and responders to my comments having to "walk on egg shells", due to my status as a famiy member of a victim of PA103. Please be advised, that I never requested, nor expected responses to my comments to be treated with any sort of bias, per above as a result of my being a family member.

However, I did expect the comments to twist my comments in such a manner, based on their grasping at having nothing else to which to resort to outside of lame rag media straws and their own scribblels, blatherings and b"Bart Simpson" like cartoons.

Just sayin'. CT Bullies will go to no end to "try" to (unsucsessfully) "prove" their points.
~B.

 

[Caustic Logic]

RE: "actual evidence" are you referring to the actual evidence presented at trial and at appeal, which resulted in actual guilty and refused verdicts?

Yes, she does mean, and I mean, that actual evidence, as well as the manner (slipshod at best in spots) it was considered. You are pretty adamant about avoiding the evidence, and the absurd intepretations twisted into it, and just skipping to the legal technicality that you've become so deeply attached to (for understandable reasons). Do you ever wonder why the evidence seems so blurry? Is it the always zipping past it without looking clearly?

Or are you referring to the tabloid trash, blatherings, scribbelings and seriously laughable cartoon animations of CTers on blogs and forums?

That too. Anything relevant I crave and devour. The animation of course is mine, and you apparently still don't get what that was I was animating - the complete incompatibility of the evidence Tony Gauci gave with your villain, whom he only pointd at twice and said "similar to the man" and "not [exactly] the man." The actual details of the man, and the day of the sale, prove that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was in fact "not [at all] the man."

Youtube link to first half

Hint for the observant: I gave Tony an extra finger! And admittedly I set up the height change poorly so it seems less impressive a difference than it is ("six feet or more" to 5'8"). And the shopper's wiggling didn't do what I meant it to. The easily amused could easily bust a gut laughing at this, it's so totally amazingly horrible.

But please do see the second half, at 1:50 in for a sequence that should be unsettling to anyone who believes in Megrahi's guilt. I'm sure Bunny gets a giggle too from watching Tony reveal, under oath at the solemn Camp Zeist, that he knows just where his evidence contradicted Megrahi's guilt, that Megrahi must be found guilty for Tony to get his $2 million and avoid a beating from Paul for forfeiting his $1 million, and alters or fudges it at every single discrepant point. Flippin' hilarious, side-splitting comedy gold. Black comedy, of course.

Libyan ambassador is a bad guy? No, Don't think so. The bad guy is not one who is saying Gaddaffi ordered the bombing of PA103.

Ex-Justice Minister, not ambassador. The man who for years ran dictator Gaddafi's "justice" system, and is only now jumping ship. (perhaps the "ex" goes further back, haven't had time to read up much yet) But he's your new hero and darling, birds of a feather, and so on, isn't that the formula? As soon as they become desperate babbling idiots trying to stutter out just what you want to hear, these murderous thugs are your greates allies, and the clear "good guys."

I'd be sickened, Bunntamas, if I could really make a leap like that. I'll leave such acrobatics to others, however.

If I'm still "walking on eggshels," I'm just enjoying the soft crunching sound they make.

 

[Buncrana]

...in examining one of the grounds, the Commission formed the view that there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988.

Although it was proved that the applicant was in Malta on several occasions in December 1988, in terms of the evidence 7 December was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to purchase the items. The finding as to the date of purchase was therefore important to the trial court’s conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser.

[...] additional evidence indicates that the purchase of the items took place prior to 6 December 1988. In other words, it indicates that the
purchase took place at a time when there was no evidence at trial that
the applicant was in Malta.

SCCRC Decision


Anyone, pointedly those who are breathlessly parroting that Megrahi was found 'guilty', wish to offer any comment on the above?


We are all only too well aware that Megrahi was found 'Guilty' at Camp Zeist and rather that working yourself into an unnecessary lather, which is what it appears, it'd be curious if anyone from the 'Guilty' camp can actually address these critical issues.

Anyone?

Come on don't be shy, let's hear it, because as you know only too well, the 4 year investigation carried out by the SCCRC quite evidently concluded that "that the purchase took place at a time when there was no evidence at trial that the applicant was in Malta."

And that being the case, you and I know quite explicitly that this means one thing and one thing only: Megrahi was not the purchaser of the clothing and any tenuous connection between the bomb and Megrahi alluded to at Zeist is severed.

Oops!

Thus, the courts original 'Guilty' verdict, no matter how endlessly repeated, becomes an untenable and invalid point of argument and looks, quite frankly, desperate and irrational.

 

[Caustic Logic]

SCCRC Decision


Anyone, pointedly those who are breathlessly parroting that Megrahi was found 'guilty', wish to offer any comment on the above?


We are all only too well aware that Megrahi was found 'Guilty' at Camp Zeist and rather that working yourself into an unnecessary lather, which is what it appears, it'd be curious if anyone from the 'Guilty' camp can actually address these critical issues.

Anyone?

Come on don't be shy, let's hear it, because as you know only too well, the 4 year investigation carried out by the SCCRC quite evidently concluded that "that the purchase took place at a time when there was no evidence at trial that the applicant was in Malta."

And that being the case, you and I know quite explicitly that this means one thing and one thing only: Megrahi was not the purchaser of the clothing and any tenuous connection between the bomb and Megrahi alluded to at Zeist is severed.

Oops!

Thus, the courts original 'Guilty' verdict, no matter how endlessly repeated, becomes an untenable and invalid point of argument and looks, quite frankly, desperate and irrational.

Yeah, you CT bully, with your deceptive so-called "legal rulings by an independent review body." The point Bunntams is trying to make, and it seems to slip by you, is he dropped that appeal they authorized, and the judges' ruling stands. Basis in reason or not, they decided that's when the sale happened and so it MIGHT have been Megrahi, despite no identification from Gauci or anyone. And so it was Megrahi, since blah blah blah, and that's all that matters. Guilty=guilty, her side wins, we lose, haha. Shows us bullies right.

 

[zooterkin]

The courts found him guilty. That means he is guilty, both as a legal matter, and for the purposes of this thread.

Which is not the same as saying that we know he did it, which is what you originally said.

 

[zooterkin]

...
The real bad guy carried out the bombing of PA103, on orders from his boss and his boss' boss, and is now (hopefully) dealing with the karmic consequenses of hanging by his family jewels (allegedly, according to Scottish government whores and doctors consulting with lame medical consultants; some - if not most- paid for by Libyan legal defense); henceforth in a coma in Libyan hospital on life support (unless that's another CT you cooked up, which I wouldn't doubt).

Sorry, you've lost me. What do you mean by the highlighted portion?

What, you think you, the Justice For Megrahi group, and the other CTers are the only ones who can "play" in this arena? I'm quite certain that A LOT of folks have been sitting on the sidelines after having gotten fed up with the bullying by you and yours. Now they're speaking, you bully / accuse them of "wetting" themselves, being drunkards, and now, "suddenly" playing. Wow. Sorry to enlighten you darling, but it's not sudden. We've all been watching. Some of us have endured your bullying. Others (probably more rightly so, in not wasting their time on responding to your CTs, nasty remarks and bullying) have been watching and waiting for a break on (in addition to the rulings of the courts) what we've known all along as true, to come forth - AGAIN,:

Are you suggesting Rolfe is a bully? If so, I suggest you report the offending posts (assuming there are any; seems unlikely to me, from all the posts of hers that I've read.)