• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dialog on Lockerbie theories

Caustic Logic

Illuminator
C
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,494
Hello, all. I'm fishing for genuine thoughts regarding a controversial issue with broad political implications.

Imagine some person wearing a fedora hat walks up to you and tells you al Megrahi and the Libyans were framed for the Lockerbie bombing. Now pretend this is a person you know and respect, so you have to take their little delusion seriously for a moment. What would you argue back with? How much do you really know? What questions would you have? Just starting from where you are at the moment.

Do you even care if someone has reason to believe the killers of 270 people have gone free while the Libyans were harassed as their escape cover?

I'm asking because I'm curious about the other side of the Lockerbie line I find myself on the "wrong" side of. There are a lot of people who believe the official story and invest anger and opinions in it. I was wondering why and what's the nature of their belief and understanding of the issue.

So I guess I'm that guy in the fedora, and say thanks for anyone that does share.
 
1. I don't know you.

2. I don't respect you.

3. I don't have to take your delusion seriously.

4. Conspiracy Theories forum is down the hall, third door on the right. Go there, provide your "evidence", and then we can discuss it.
 
shemp said:
1. I don't know you.

2. I don't respect you.

3. I don't have to take your delusion seriously.

4. Conspiracy Theories forum is down the hall, third door on the right. Go there, provide your "evidence", and then we can discuss it.
Click to expand...

Ooooh, zing. Thanks for the comment. It's not much different than I expected - people who aren't good at pretending.

This may not be the right forum, but I'm not looking to argue a conspiracy theory, but rather get a feel for the socio-political climate on the issue. There seems to be a big gap in understanding between those who look closely at it and those who just watch the news and trust. So far I'm guessing all the "he's guilty shut up" people category are in the latter category. 'cause none has tried to show how much they've studied it.

Oh, and it has been brought up in the CT category, plenty as I'm sure you've noticed. No one has a cogent counter-argument to the "delusions" presented/supported by Rolfe, Buncrana, Dan O., Glen B, Ambrosia, Professor Yaffle, myself, and others. I don't recall you popping in with any reality checks yet. Pick your poison if you'd rather discuss it there.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85523
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153971
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155657
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158909

But for here, since you're the only biter, could you just explain what you already know and why you're satisfied with those conclusions? What's the best evidence for Megrahi's guilt in your opinion? A top five, or certain way of assembling the clues? Details?

If you don't know, check out for example Giaka's testimony. Amazing detail of the plot all know to him, the smoking gun touted for years by Cannistraro at the CIA as breaking the Libyan plot on Malta down in "excruciating detail," re-paid fairly well (no details), under witness protection still, presented at the Camp Zeist trial as the star witness, and was dismissed thusly. So no, that's not the best evidence... pick another one.
 
shemp said:
3. I don't have to take your delusion seriously.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true once it's established that he is deluded.
But this brings us to the point of Caustic's o/p, it seems to me. What is your basis for believing the official line?

Of course, saying "Life is full of such complex subjects and I can't study them all. The decision was made by a court and I'll go with that, by default" is perfectly reasonable. But this doesn't justify saying "You are deluded" does it?
 
GlennB said:
This is absolutely true once it's established that he is deluded.
But this brings us to the point of Caustic's o/p, it seems to me. What is your basis for believing the official line?

Of course, saying "Life is full of such complex subjects and I can't study them all. The decision was made by a court and I'll go with that, by default" is perfectly reasonable. But this doesn't justify saying "You are deluded" does it?
Click to expand...

Well, I used delusion first, without the " I should've used. Quoted back I'm not so sure, but it did sound pretty dismissive.

That's totally true about presumption of guilt being reasonable. I don't mean to dismiss the official story lightly (as you know, we haven't been "light" about it) or begrudge someone for accepting it at face value. But there's this mass of people you can see in less educated fora just spewing vile uneducated certainties into nuclear proportions. Why haven't we wiped Libya from the map? Nuke Scotland! Oil deals! Angry and stupid!

But seriously, these are the people I want to talk to, with a website (team effort?). Presuming I can get their attention somehow, get them to realize with a winding gut shot that we do indeed have something here, I'd like to know what "average Joes" would want to know. Okay, this forum is a bit aove average on average, but there are many here, biting their tongues, with opinions of the conventional kind but not familiar yet with the case against the case against Megrahi.

I can actually answer questions here as best I can. but mainly I'd just like to hear what they are.

Sorry it's kind of nerdy. Thanks.

Specifics, especially - with 9/11 you could ask "where did they send the passengers?" "how did they fake the TV feeds in real-time? "How did they get Osama to confess on video to details of the plot?" There are things you've eard about this too, certain witnesses and pieces of evidence - what seems to fail about the "Megrahi is innocent" line?
 
Sorry, but the "let us be skeptical and start from scratch while ignoring the official line because we all know officials sometimes lie" is just a typical conspiracy theory literary device.

The "let's start from scratch" idea is simply a literary device that really means "let's ignore the official story and all the evidence that supported it in the first place, and start from whatever information I just happen to have lying around." This is the same sort of "reasoning" used by creationists, 9/11 truthers, holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, etc.

But it's nonsense. The point is, those who give the official story ALREADY DID the work to prove it, usually (as with the holocaust and evolution) many, many times over. If you have any evidence AGAINST the official story -- and it better be very good evidence -- by all means provide it.

But we are under no obligation at all to start from scratch, over and over again, every time some schmuck who fancies himself a "rebel" who is "skeptical of official stories" feels like it.
 
Skeptic said:
Sorry, but the "let us be skeptical and start from scratch while ignoring the official line because we all know officials sometimes lie" is just a typical conspiracy theory literary device.
Click to expand...

No. The official line is specifically not being ignored. In fact it's the very source of all the hoo-ha. If interested, check Caustic Logic's links above.
 
Wow, instead of just saying "I dont know" or just not answering, you gotta insult the guy.

Right out of the guitar center training manual
 
As I have said elsewhere when this topic has been brought up, if you have evidence that disproves al Megrahi and Libya's involvement, don't just talk about it on an internet forum. Take it to the authorities, and if they won't do anything about it, take it to a good investigative journalist, or write it up yourself and submit it to one of the major magazines.
 
It's December 27th and al-Mergrahi is still alive. Now reports that he had
almost €2.2m in a Swiss bank account during his trial.

The Scottish government got spanked bad.​
 
You're not going to get anywhere, CL. These guys don't want to take the trouble to examine the evidence.

I've said it before, the Camp Zeist verdict was political, and as far as the actual evidence goes, I wouldn't give anyone a parking ticket on the basis of that lot. And the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission thought there was a reasonable possibility there was a miscarriage of justice. The official UN observer to the trial thought it was a farce. And so on.

However, you want devil's advocate. I'd have to go with what Cannistraro isn't saying out loud, which is that the entire Maltese airline security service was completely in the pocket of the Libyan government, from the humblest baggage loader to the chief of security. That in fact quite a lot of people knew that Megrahi had put an unaccompanied bag on KM180, but all the necessary paperwork to conceal this was fabricated, and not one single person involved put a foot wrong when sticking to this story, over many years, repeated questioning and several court cases.

I have to wonder if the judges at Camp Zeist somehow thought that's what happened, despite no evidence to that effect being led. There's no other way to explain how Megrahi could possibly have done what he was convicted of doing.

The trouble is, that's a bigger CT than the CTs.

Rolfe.
 
There is already a conspiracy theories forum.

And I'll echo what's been said:

If you've got the proof, then do something with it. Take it to an investigative journalist, or the authorities, or something.
 
What proof? Caustic Logic doesn't know who did it. I don't know who did it.

What's being said is that the evidence on which Megrahi's conviction was based does not, in fact, establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Despite the court verdict. An opinion the SCCRC appeared to share. Not to mention Professor Kochler, Professor Black and others who have studied the case in detail.

Most strikingly, it would appear that nobody has any real clue how the bomb was introduced into the baggage system. The judges described this as "a serious difficulty for the prosecution". Nevertheless, they decided that somehow, against all the actual evidence, Megrahi had somehow smuggled it on to KA180 from Luqa at Frankfurt. This despite the fact that the Luqa security authorities had all the baggage records for the flight and could show there was no unaccompanied bag on board. Extensive enquiries and interviews failed to dent this evidence, and indeed the Maltese authorities prevailed in two separate libel actions against journalists who asserted that the bomb was introduced in that way.

Caustic Logic seems to be asking how those who support the court's verdict rationalise this aspect. Do they subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the entire Air Malta and Luqa Airport security system was subverted by the Libyan government, so that a perfect set of false documents was created and sworn to by everyone concerned, and nobody ever cracked under questioning and revealed an inconsistency, and nobody who was aware of the truth ever spoke out despite the horrendous loss of 270 lives that ensued?

Or is there any other rational way a belief in Megrahi's guilt can be sustained?

Rolfe.
 
I'll say it again:

If you have definitive proof he is innocent, or was framed, then do something with it. Take it to an investigative journalist, or someone who can get it some exposure. Take it to the authorities. Take it somewhere.
 
So, you have nothing to contribute.

You don't even have the first idea about the grounds for the appeal that were declared sufficient to suggest a possible miscarriage of justice. You haven't read the acres of print by multiple investigative journalists exploring many aspects of this singular affair. Not to mention the many documentaries doing the same thing.

This is a discussion forum. Caustic Logic would like to discuss. You may not want to discuss, but your dismissive attitude is entirely out of keeping with the spirit of the forum.

Do you really think it's illegitimate to question a court's verdict unless you, personally, have some killer evidence that proves the verdict was wrong?

How do you explain the impermeable nature of the Luqa baggage records, in the light of the court verdict that the bomb was introduced at that airport?

Your faith in a court's judgement is beginning to border on the religious, you know.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Again, this is the Politics forum.

There already is a Conspiracy Theories forum.

And, again, if you've got some evidence that he is innocent, take it to the proper people. Take it to the authorities. Take it to an investigative journalist. Take it to a news network. Take it somewhere.

Otherwise, so far as I am concerned, this is a thread where someone is JAQ under the guise of a dialogue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom