Dialog on Lockerbie theories

[Skeptic]

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.

Which is why he has $3,000,000 stashed away, courtesy of (presumably) Quaddafi.

You know, because Quaddafi just cannot stand someone being falsely accused of some crime, and felt a deep, emotional need to compensate him for the horrible injustice.

Anyway... again: if you, Mycroft Holmes-style, managed to show this man's innocence without ever leaving your computer's chair, then please take this to the authorities. Demand a retrial. Start a petition. A man had been convicted of a horrible crime without doing it -- and you're silent? Where have you been until now?

 

[andyandy]

There's been some excellent investigative reporting on this subject - at the very least there is enough to suggest that the Megrahi conviction should be re-examined. It's harder to believe that Libya were purposefully framed, though again Paul Foot (i think) made some decent arguments for the possibility.

the facts are that a terrorist group working with/without state assistance blew up an airline. The question is simply which terrorist group and which individuals were actually responsible.........just because it involves an airplane and the terms conspiracy doesn't mean it's in any way comparable to 9-11. There's no credible belief in western complicity in the action itself, merely the suggestion that Megrahi provided a useful scapegoat to jail, and just possibily that Libya provided a useful state upon which to hang the atrocity (after all they had a long history of state sponsored terrorism.....)

I think it's clear from all the "possiblies" in those paragraphs that I don't know enough on this subject to form any clear opinions, but I do know enough that some of the responses on this thread are somewhat rude. I guess people get used to insulting 9-11 truthers and start foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of conspiracy, where ever and whenever, regardless of the facts.

 

[Rolfe]

Megrahi had money in a Swiss bank account. So, everyone with money in a Swiss bank account may be assumed to be in the business of blowing up airliners? No, having money in a Swiss bank account means the account-holder blew up this airliner?

Don't be ridiculous.

The guy was a Libyan inteligence operative. High level. There were sanctions in place against Libya at the time. There were deals to be done. There was stuff to be smuggled, stuff that had to be paid for.

Did anyone ever suggest he was a Sunday School teacher (or even the Moslem equivalent)? The question is, did he plant the bomb that blew up Pan Am 103, not, was he a plaster saint.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Regarding the CT forum. There are several threads in that forum about Pan Am 103, however they are almost totally lacking in anyone providing informed support for the "Megrahi did it" theory. Drive-by assertions that court verdicts are never wrong, and nothing else.

This is in marked contrast to the time and effort put into the 9/11 threads, where no matter how insane a twoofer's assertions, there are always posters prepared to engage with the arguments and refute them on their own merit - or lack of it.

I can see why Caustic Logis started this thread. To try to elicit some actual reasoning from those who cling to the "official version". This is, quite arguably, a political thing. Why is this particular verdict sacrosanct, why do so many people adhere to it with almost religious fervour despite the well-documented holes in the evidence?

Why do so many people come out of the woodwork to do no more than declare that they refuse to weigh up the evidence for themseves, or even to give a moment's thought to the possibility that Megrahi didn't do it?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Rolfe.

 

[GlennB]

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.

Would you limit this approach purely to legal matters?
Or should it also apply to homeopathy, Guantanamo Bay, chiropractic, TV evangelists, politicians, Bhopal, cholesterol and 1001 other subjects that are discussed on JREF?

Should we produce a written summary of our views on the "Is golf a sport or a game?" subject, write to the media and sporting authorities and stfu about it on JREF?

Or are you just uncomfortable with this particular subject?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Im really interested in this one, especially in light of the fact they thought it was fit to release the guy. I wish people could say "I don't know" instead of derailing the threat with CT accusations

 

[theprestige]

Why would the same people who are uninterested in going over to the Conspiracy Theories forum to engage this topic be any more willing to engage this topic on some other forum entirely?

And investigoogling an excuse to disagree with a court ruling is not a particularly interesting counterpoint to a lot of people. I mean, there's always a reason to disagree with a court's finding. Sometimes it's even a good reason. Sometimes, the court's finding is even wrong.

But that doesn't mean that just because CL has decided to privilege this particular courtroom drama in his own personal history research project, that doesn't mean that anybody else has to, or that anybody is committing a crime against humanity, social justice, or political honesty because they don't particularly care about it.

 

[theprestige]

Im really interested in this one, especially in light of the fact they thought it was fit to release the guy. I wish people could say "I don't know" instead of derailing the threat with CT accusations

Well, I woudn't go so far as to say "I don't know", but I will happily admit that "I don't care". And, not caring, the court's finding is more than good enough for me.

 

[andyandy]

But that doesn't mean that just because CL has decided to privilege this particular courtroom drama in his own personal history research project, that doesn't mean that anybody else has to, or that anybody is committing a crime against humanity, social justice, or political honesty because they don't particularly care about it.

The line between politics and CT is hardly a bright one in this case - the discussion of the details is overtly political in nature. It can perfectly well belong in the politics section, and if you don't care about it, don't bother to click on the thread......

And why the need for snide comments about "personal history research project"? We all start threads on all sorts of topics, let's discuss the comment not the commenter.....

 

[pipelineaudio]

Well, I woudn't go so far as to say "I don't know", but I will happily admit that "I don't care". And, not caring, the court's finding is more than good enough for me.

Then why are you all over this thread?

Here's one more suiting for you http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5452568#post5452568

 

[theprestige]

The line between politics and CT is hardly a bright one in this case - the discussion of the details is overtly political in nature. It can perfectly well belong in the politics section, and if you don't care about it, don't bother to click on the thread......

I find the existence of this thread a more interesting topic than the subject of this thread.

And why the need for snide comments about "personal history research project"? We all start threads on all sorts of topics, let's discuss the comment not the commenter.....

You are seeing snideness where none was intended. My intent was to underline that CL's interest is--so far--personal in nature, and not particularly of general political interest, neither on this forum nor in mainstream discourse.

Then why are you all over this thread?

I'd like to think that my contributions to the thread give a pretty accurate glimpse of the aspects of this "dialogue" that I find interesting.

Here's one more suiting for you http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5452568#post5452568

Thanks, but I'm not all that interested in the OJ thing, either.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Wow, this thread took off. Actually this is helpful, folks. I'm getting that some of you don't know, don't care, and you don't want to talk or hear about it, and I should take it to the authorities and/or mainstream media and then they will look at it and tell you about it like always.

I doubt the authorities who matter most really think he's guilty. They are not just waiting for someone to point out their goof-up. The FBI MAY send a polite "whats your problem" response, if I alert them and I'm lucky.

Media, better bet, if not New York Times. We'll see. A great website is a start, not an end point. (that was for Brainster more than anyone).

AndyAndy makes the good point that there is, whatever you believe, too much controversy to warrant simple dismissal.

The politics here to explore is why do people accept a certain viewpoint on such an issue and dismiss with a flick of the wrist other viewpoints?

 

[Caustic Logic]

GlennB, Rolfe, posts #24 and 25 nailed it awesomely. It's personal for me, for them, and for others who can see it (ie those who've friggin LOOKED) that there's too much uncertainty at the very least. The "architect" of the trial, the UN observer there, the smartest of the victims' family members, CIA agents, Israeli Prime Ministers, prominent jurists and journalists, have all stopped to look and stayed stopped, looking deeper. That is why people should stop a second and ask something like, for example:

Okay, if Megrahi didn't do it, then who did?

They had to be Libyan, right, cause of the timer?

Didn't the bomb come from Malta, which is where Megrahi was?

Didn't Tony Gauci identify the guy in a lineup?

What are the questions that will stump us?

Or is the ultimate stumper just "we don't care"?

 

[Arcade22]

Okay, if Megrahi didn't do it, then who did?

I think the UK's government LIHOP

 

[Caustic Logic]

I think the UK's government LIHOP

No, I'm fishing for questions, not answers! Especially made-up silly ones. Aaargh! (in Charlie Brown total fail fashion).

 

[theprestige]

I think the UK's government LIHOP

• What individuals or agencies within the UK government knew about the plan?
• When did these individuals or agencies decide to let the plan go through?
• What specific steps did they take to let the plan go through?
• Alternatively, what specific steps should they have taken, but did not take, to prevent the plan from going through?
• Do you have any evidence for the above, or is it just, say... a theory?

 

[Ambrosia]

Again, this is the Politics forum.

There already is a Conspiracy Theories forum.

You don't seem to be all that familiar with the Lockerbie case then. Aspects of it are very political. While much discussion of it does indeed belong within the CT forum, why can't some of the political dimensions be discussed in a forum earmarked for political discussion? Particularly where the Lockerbie threads in the CT forum don't get a great deal of response.

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.

argument from NIMBY??

Which is why he has $3,000,000 stashed away, courtesy of (presumably) Quaddafi.

and assumption is the brother of all mess ups...

[...] please take this to the authorities. Demand a retrial. Start a petition. A man had been convicted of a horrible crime without doing it -- and you're silent? Where have you been until now?

The mantra of the standard putdown to CTers rings out again.

Personally I have been living in ignorance of the fact that Megrahis conviction for the destruction of Pan Am 103 perches, shakily, atop a veritable watership down of rabbit holes. I've been looking at different aspects of the case and at what evidence does exist, in the CT forum here at JREF since I discovered some of the facts surrounding the case earlier this year, until then I had assumed that the court had pretty much got the right man.

If you look objectively at the evidence it seems to point to the fact that Megrahi was framed for dubious political reasons and the UK/US justice system knew dam well Megrahi was not the culprit and have allowed the real guilty parties to get away with it entirely.

Maybe I am wrong. I don't want to sink a lot of time and effort into this and take a case to an investigative journalist or the authorities for them to say "You missed this piece of crucial evidence that proves his guilt" I want to make sure all my ducks are lined up beforehand.

If a thread posted in the politics forum at JREF catches the eye of an informed poster who can contribute to the other threads already on this topic, then why is such discussion bad?

 

[Caustic Logic]

• What individuals or agencies within the UK government knew about the plan?
• When did these individuals or agencies decide to let the plan go through?
• What specific steps did they take to let the plan go through?
• Alternatively, what specific steps should they have taken, but did not take, to prevent the plan from going through?
• Do you have any evidence for the above, or is it just, say... a theory?

Ah, questions to the made up answer, that's more like... AAAUGH!

Oh, this thread is great so far. Damn, it's just showing it all how it is (the epidemic politico-factual confusion and disconnect that is)

 

[Arcade22]

• What individuals or agencies within the UK government knew about the plan?
• When did these individuals or agencies decide to let the plan go through?
• What specific steps did they take to let the plan go through?
• Alternatively, what specific steps should they have taken, but did not take, to prevent the plan from going through?
• Do you have any evidence for the above, or is it just, say... a theory?

I was really serious when i wrote that...

 

[Caustic Logic]

Which is why he has $3,000,000 stashed away, courtesy of (presumably) Quaddafi.

How did you rule out non-bombing related subsets of his acknowledged "sanctions busting" activities? Last I heard it was 1.8mil, but don't hear everything. The Gauci's were the ones who collectively netted 3 mil for their help in implicating Megrahi. Did you get something mixed up? That was courtesy US DoJ.

You know, because Quaddafi just cannot stand someone being falsely accused of some crime, and felt a deep, emotional need to compensate him for the horrible injustice.

He has professed Megrahi's innocence, but lately has fallen back on a weird "it's all in the past" type of argument. It's hard to say just what he's really thinking. The money was for... I just don't know. Where did you learn the details to suspect whatever you do?

Anyway... again: if you, Mycroft Holmes-style, managed to show this man's innocence without ever leaving your computer's chair, then please take this to the authorities. Demand a retrial. Start a petition. A man had been convicted of a horrible crime without doing it -- and you're silent? Where have you been until now?

That's a good question, of the kind I was hoping for (and the others too, thanks even as I argue back). For my part, I just wasn't aware until spurred by the release controversy to go ahead and read Rolfe's long-running thread on the issue back in late August (first link above). That's the point where I stopped ignorantly accepting the official story and started thinking about how to get others to stop and look too.

So for about 4 months I've been learning and trying to revive my contacts with the FBI, CIA, UN, and World Court. I mean to take it right to the top, got binding resolutions put together in the right format, arrest warrants for those I've proven had faked evidence, and other goodies prepared by my legal team. But I haven't talked to most of my high-level contacts in a few years, so I'll need to update my rolodex.

lol.