Lockerbie - 26 years on

[alta-pete]

We were living down south at the time and were coming back north for Christmas a couple of days after it happened. It was the old A74 in those days and you could see the devastation in the town. Truly harrowing scene and never forgotten. 

[Shandon Par]

49 minutes ago, TxRover said:

As with many other “cover-ups/conspiracies” the biggest problem is getting me to believe they’d be capable of covering it up. One you get more than a couple of people involved in anything, someone sings…someone has to tell someone something to prove they are in the know, to show them they are important, etc. when this happens, these coverups are untenable, see the Manning video release, for instance…Iran-Contra…etc.

If the CIA/KGB/FAB/MI5 or 6/Mossad/etc were all so all powerful and capable that they could do this shit, they can’t also be so incompetent that they let this shit be discovered. It’s just a predecessor of the QAnon shite.

It doesn’t really fit in with the qanon crackpot stuff though as there was so much exposure of the grubby mess at the time by serious journalists (such as Private Eye’s Paul Foot). Oliver North, the CIA, boss during the Reagan era, was tried for precisely this behaviour (arms dealing with terrorists to fund other terror organisations the USA couldn’t be seen to be publicly funding). His activities were one of the biggest news stories of the late 80s, not a cover up. 

 

[Mark Connolly]

36 minutes ago, Shandon Par said:

It doesn’t really fit in with the qanon crackpot stuff though as there was so much exposure of the grubby mess at the time by serious journalists (such as Private Eye’s Paul Foot). Oliver North, the CIA, boss during the Reagan era, was tried for precisely this behaviour (arms dealing with terrorists to fund other terror organisations the USA couldn’t be seen to be publicly funding). His activities were one of the biggest news stories of the late 80s, not a cover up. 

 

 

[TxRover]

1 hour ago, Shandon Par said:

It doesn’t really fit in with the qanon crackpot stuff though as there was so much exposure of the grubby mess at the time by serious journalists (such as Private Eye’s Paul Foot). Oliver North, the CIA, boss during the Reagan era, was tried for precisely this behaviour (arms dealing with terrorists to fund other terror organisations the USA couldn’t be seen to be publicly funding). His activities were one of the biggest news stories of the late 80s, not a cover up. 

 

It was a huge cover up that got exposed, because too many people were involved. I was assigned a debate pro-Contras at the time. Fawn Hall…

The overall point is all these conspiracy theories have an inherent weakness, the fact someone “knows” about it, but somehow it’s still all secret. Conspiracies don’t work that way, they are either so closely held that they aren’t exposed for decades or centuries, or someone spills the beans. On the successful conspiracies that have eventually been uncovered, I can’t think of one that had more than 3 to 5 people in the know, and it was generally 2 or 3.

[VincentGuerin]

19 minutes ago, TxRover said:

It was a huge cover up that got exposed, because too many people were involved. I was assigned a debate pro-Contras at the time. Fawn Hall…

The overall point is all these conspiracy theories have an inherent weakness, the fact someone “knows” about it, but somehow it’s still all secret. Conspiracies don’t work that way, they are either so closely held that they aren’t exposed for decades or centuries, or someone spills the beans. On the successful conspiracies that have eventually been uncovered, I can’t think of one that had more than 3 to 5 people in the know, and it was generally 2 or 3.

I agree with your general point about massive conspiracies, but I don't think it applies to Lockerbie.

The political nature of the timing of the blame-shifting is completely obvious, the motivation for doing so is clear, and there are well-established holes in the narrative of what happened.

And the number of people involved in something like this would not actually be very big. Intelligence agencies play games with the truth all the tie, it's their job. All they had to do here was shift the blame to somewhere convenient.

There are very few conspiracy theories I ave any time for, but I think Lockerbie is a different thing.

[velo army]

Aye was it not that the authorities were looking at the PLO (or somesuch) who had been hired by Iran to do it. Then Libya wanted to come out of the international cold and wanted sanctions lifted, at a time where the US and Britain needed to make an ally of Iran (first gulf war perhaps?). This offered the opportunity to create a new villain so Libya offered up a couple of lads in return for the lifting of said sanctions.

The whole thing was a mess with that Maltese chap Tony Costa (?) paid around $2m for testimony on which the conviction depended. 

Sadly I doubt we'll never know the truth and the families won't get the justice they deserve.

[invergowrie arab]

5 hours ago, Trackdaybob said:

I don't think the 21st Dec 1988 was 26 years ago  

Two things happened that night. I'd gone out so set the video to record Dirty Harry and ended up with half a movie and a load of newsflashes. 

Second thing was when I got home, I discovered my mother had found a couple of porn mags I'd had hidden in my room. 

A proper disastrous evening for 16 year old Bobby

 

Were they hers?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

6 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Libya got the blame but it looked like Iran could have been involved, revenge for the US navy shooting down an Iranian civilian airliner 6 months before. No mention of the Saudis I believe.

Syria's paws were all over it as well.

 

Libya were just a patsy.

 

The CIA bribed various witnesses to give "evidence" that pointed the finger at Libya.

Edited December 16, 2022 by DeeTillEhDeh

[DeeTillEhDeh]

4 hours ago, Shandon Par said:

It doesn’t really fit in with the qanon crackpot stuff though as there was so much exposure of the grubby mess at the time by serious journalists (such as Private Eye’s Paul Foot). Oliver North, the CIA, boss during the Reagan era, was tried for precisely this behaviour (arms dealing with terrorists to fund other terror organisations the USA couldn’t be seen to be publicly funding). His activities were one of the biggest news stories of the late 80s, not a cover up. 

 

Not to mention Dr Jim Swire.

[TxRover]

2 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I agree with your general point about massive conspiracies, but I don't think it applies to Lockerbie.

The political nature of the timing of the blame-shifting is completely obvious, the motivation for doing so is clear, and there are well-established holes in the narrative of what happened.

And the number of people involved in something like this would not actually be very big. Intelligence agencies play games with the truth all the tie, it's their job. All they had to do here was shift the blame to somewhere convenient.

There are very few conspiracy theories I ave any time for, but I think Lockerbie is a different thing.

For Lockerbie, I see more blame shifting and game playing then conspiracy, to be honest.

[VincentGuerin]

26 minutes ago, TxRover said:

For Lockerbie, I see more blame shifting and game playing then conspiracy, to be honest.

I think they're one in the same in this case.

My suspicion is that there's been a conspiracy to shift the blame due to political expediency. I think that's supported by quite a lot of evidence.

[Donathan]

To this day I still can’t believe the Scottish Government released the biggest mass murderer in the country’s history from prison.

 

They MUST know more about it than we do. 

[TxRover]

15 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

I think they're one in the same in this case.

My suspicion is that there's been a conspiracy to shift the blame due to political expediency. I think that's supported by quite a lot of evidence.

And my point is that with the number of people necessarily involved in a true conspiracy, the evidence would be much clearer. In this case, it’s more a matter of expediency, and “oh, that’s a bright idea, let’s release something that encourages that” versus CIA calling MI5, DGSE and the Mossad to discuss how we now need Iran more favorably disposed while Libya might be willing to take some blame.

[Monkey Tennis]

9 hours ago, RH33 said:

I was too young, but what's this?

I know Saudi was behind it. But not much else.

It sounds to me like you're confusing this with 9/11.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, TxRover said:

And my point is that with the number of people necessarily involved in a true conspiracy, the evidence would be much clearer. 

Define a 'true conspiracy' please, with real examples of this magical category of event.

I'd say that when most people label something like this as a  'conspiracy' they're not actually dealing in 'the moon landings were faked' fantasy, but rather 'disinformation about the true culprit of a serious incident is to be expected in international affairs'. 

[Hillonearth]

9 hours ago, Trackdaybob said:

I don't think the 21st Dec 1988 was 26 years ago  

Two things happened that night. I'd gone out so set the video to record Dirty Harry and ended up with half a movie and a load of newsflashes. 

Second thing was when I got home, I discovered my mother had found a couple of porn mags I'd had hidden in my room. 

A proper disastrous evening for 16 year old Bobby

 

Similar - I was a having a pre-Xmas works bevvy which turned into something of a downer when we walked into a pub and saw everybody staring at the newsflash on TV. Got home and discovered the Clint film - it was actually Escape From Alcatraz which wasn't on TV much as opposed to Dirty Harry - had only recorded maybe an hour.

[TxRover]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Define a 'true conspiracy' please, with real examples of this magical category of event.

I'd say that when most people label something like this as a  'conspiracy' they're not actually dealing in 'the moon landings were faked' fantasy, but rather 'disinformation about the true culprit of a serious incident is to be expected in international affairs'. 

The Sheriff of a Parish in Louisiana, made a deal with drug smugglers to provide a safe landing strip and protect said strip from police presence during agreed upon times and dates. Only he and two top deputies, were aware of the arrangement, and profited by several million dollar over three years. Unfortunately, one of the lower level types on the reception committee was picked up on other charges and mentioned the means of getting the drugs in, which led to the FBI looking into the landing strip and the occasional strange changes in police patrol patterns…

Eh, voila…

[vikingTON]

So you don't really understand what 'conspiracy' means then. Clears that up nicely.

[velo army]

10 hours ago, TxRover said:

The Sheriff of a Parish in Louisiana, made a deal with drug smugglers to provide a safe landing strip and protect said strip from police presence during agreed upon times and dates. Only he and two top deputies, were aware of the arrangement, and profited by several million dollar over three years. Unfortunately, one of the lower level types on the reception committee was picked up on other charges and mentioned the means of getting the drugs in, which led to the FBI looking into the landing strip and the occasional strange changes in police patrol patterns…

Eh, voila…

The amount of commas in this is absolutely maddening.

[RH33]

13 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It sounds to me like you're confusing this with 9/11.

Thought the had a hand in both.