View Single Post
Old 28th August 2010, 07:31 PM   #131
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
Rolfe's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,486
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
As for your and others' demands that I produce info. on bomb planting at Luqa / Air Malta involvement, obviously the court noted there isn't enough.

So you agree? There's no evidence at all to show the bomb travelled the Luqa-Frankfurt-Heathrow route?

What evidence do you have that Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi was involved in the Lockerbie bombing at all then?

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
BUT there certainly is enough of other circumstantial... oh, sorry, peripheral info. to substantiate the verdict of GUILTY and REFUSED at the first appeal.

Er, no. If you have no evidence that the bomb travelled the route as specified, then you have no evidence at all to implicate Megrahi. None. The court decided there was evidence that the bomb travelled that route, and this was part of the circular logic on which the case was based. No Luqa loading, no conviction.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
And yes, I know about the case w/ Air Malta / Luqa / Granada TV, and all the "alleged" phone tapping and interviews... blah blah.
BUT, think about the fact that Luqa security is/was run by the government. The same government whose prime minister warned Libya that they were going to be bombed by the US in 1986. The same government who allowed Libya to store arms, including TNT at the Luqa bunkers. The same government who, after they kicked the UK out of Luqa, allowed Libya to move on in. The same government that is making gobs of money off of Libya. Do you seriously think they wouldn't protect any allegations that might jeopardise that relationship ???? DUH....
Oh, Is that a distant echo of litigious warnings coming from somewhere in High Blantyre? I'm a shakin' in me boots now....

So, again you imply you have no evidence at all to substantiate this proposition? This isn't even circumstantial evidence you're coming out with. It's innuendo and conspiracy theorising.

I don't want you to tell me you're convinced Megrahi was an evil man who was up to his neck in bloodthirsty Libyan terrorist operations. I don't want you to tell me that the Maltese govermnent had a cosy and profitable relationship with Libya at that time. These things may be true (the second, very probably, the first, I have no idea). The point is that on their own they have no bearing on the topic of the thread, which is, "did Abdelbaset al-Megrahi blow up Pan Am 103?"

I'm quite sure we could come up with lots of international terrorists with ruthless, bloody backgrounds who were up to all sorts of mayhem in the 1980s. The PFLP-GC would just be one of them. The IRA another, by the way, suppied with Libyan armaments.

You don't accept an account of Ahmed Jibril's bloody atrocities, or Abu Talb's for that matter, as "circumstantial evidence" that they carried out the Lockerbie atrocity. But indeed, just as good a case could be, and indeed has been, made for that group introducing the bomb on their own home patch of Frankfurt.

If I were to tell you all about Jibril and his mates, and the bombs they were making, and their casing the joint at Frankfurt airport, and the connections one of their number had with Jordanian intelligance and thus the CIA, and how most of them were released almost immediately by the BKA, would you accept that as evidence that they were able to get the bomb on board at Frankfurt? What about if I told you about the BKA, and how they immediately sprang into cover-up mode at Frankfurt airport to conceal the introduction of the bomb?

You would dismiss it all as speculation, because there is no hard evidence for the bomb being introduced at Frankfurt. And quite right too. But here you are, doing exactly the same thing. Smears and innuemdo, that just because a particular group is involved in terrorist activities (let's accept this for the sake of argument), then they must have carried out this particular terrorist attack.

That's not evidence, Bunntamas. That's conspiracy theorising.

"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top