ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi , Ahmed Jibril , Kenny MacAskill , Lockerbie bombing , Marwan Khreesat , Pan Am 103

Reply
Old 15th August 2010, 04:36 PM   #81
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
Welcome Bunntamas!

With us both having an indelible connection to the Ermerld Isle, (I'm assuming given your moniker) I look forward eagerly to some rational, frank but at all times civil discussions on Lockerbie tragedy and Megrahi's conviction. Without wanting to step on anyone's toes here (Rolfe and CL), please feel free to discuss and post as you see fit, although it would seem to address Rolfe remarks in answer to Mr Flynn would be the most appropriate.
Buncrana 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
Old 15th August 2010, 05:04 PM   #82
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
[i]
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Hmmm. He came on Robert Black's blog earlier this morning (maybe that's last night to you guys) and just typed:

He then added, "Ooops ... Therapy," but that doesn't make it any clearer. He didn't add anything to the threads where we'd been discussing the actual evidence as far as I can tell.
There isn’t any evidence that has been divulged, regarding chemo for Megrahi. That was my point. And partially, I believe what the US is calling for RE: information about the release. No offense, but it seems the Scots have focused on the US' "audacity" in calling for answers and details about Megrahi’s release, as opposed to purpose in calling for answers, which is /are, the foundation for which the decision to release was made - outside of MacAskill’s standard “I acted according to Scottish law”. Right. But what are the details that gave him the basis for the law on which he acted (outside of a bunch of doctors w/ redacted names pointing fingers at each other)?
NOTE: I’ve only mentioned the US calling for answers as support for my question. I realize in that bit about US calling for answers, I've opend a pandora's box for a whole other argument. So, for now, please, if you don't mind, let's not go down the “ugly American” vs. UK / Scotland rat hole, and stick to the Chemo point / question; which is, why, when Megrahi was allegedly diagnosed in approx. October of 1988, was he not, for nearly a WHOLE YEAR treated with chemo? And now he is back in Libya, being treated with chemo and surviving far beyond the “recommended 3 years”? MANY men survive prostate cancer now, and live full, healthy lives with remission, following radiation and chemo treatment. Why was this not considered prior to release and the "recommended" 3 month prognosis? And if it was, how in the world did MacAskill come to his decision to release? It's dumfounding to me, and similarly surprising, that the Scots are not asking the same question. In spite of whether or one believes Megrahi is guilty, if one sets emotion aside and they take the same "letter of the law" approach as MacAskill is claiming, Megrahi was convicted as guilty. Release, per letter of the law should have included the above considerations re: chemo and prognosis.


[i]
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I can't imagine how it would be to be one of the Lockerbie relatives, so I don't try. There must be something that makes it different from, for example, losing a student son or daughter in a senseless car smash caused by a drunk driver, but it's hard to know what. Different people cope (or fail to cope) in different ways I suppose, and I notice we hear from only a minority of the families. I suppose it's not that uncommon to hear the parents of the drunk driving victim bitterly complaining that the drunk driver hasn't been punished severely enough and so on. Maybe trying to explain that this wasn't actually the guy who'd been driving the car at the time would be too much for them.
Thank you for your understanding re: the unimaginable around what family members have been through. It is unimaginable. Many, many times, I have wondered “can this really have happened – to my father, my family? me?”
I’ve never lost anyone to a car / drunk driving accident, so I can’t comment on that. What I can tell you is that, I don't think a drunk driving act is purely intentional. I do believe the bombing of Pan Am 103 was, and I would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees, regardless of whom one belives did it.
Regarding PA3 families - we’re not simply bitterly complaining that Megrahi hadn’t been punished severely enough. I don’t think there is enough punishment in the world for the intentional, heinous act that was committed upon the victims, those who perished in the town of Lockerbie and the surviving family and friends. However, there was at least a shred of justice that we (at least my family, and others as well who have said they) believe was served with the guilty verdict and life imprisonment of Megrahi.



[i]
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
So far as I know, Air Malta was in charge of security at Luqa airport at the time. Wilfrid Borg was the head of department, and he was the person who collated all the records and gave the main evidence about it. I didn't leap in with that because it's such a given I don't know where I'd lay my hand on the definitive statement to that effect.

I'm as sure as I possibly can be without the hard evidence in fromt of me that Bunntamas is wrong about this. I'd think better of him if he would admit it. I also think it's pretty shocking that he can claim to have followed the case closely for 20 years, and to have attended the trial at Zeist, and be wrong about something as fundamental as this.
I may in fact be wrong about my statement re: LAA and Air Malta.I thought read it somewhere, but as of now, I have been unable to locate the source. I have however located a very old, declassified, but still very redacted document from the DIA stating that prior to being handed over for trial, Megrahi and Fema attended a party where they were observed conversing with the LAL Chairman.

So, I guess this is a good segway into your other initial points on this thread bump. More to come….
Bunntamas 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
Old 15th August 2010, 05:11 PM   #83
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Sorry, my mistake on the "1988" date above re: diagnosis. Meant to say 2008. I guess 1988 is just an indilble point in my mind.
Bunntamas 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
Old 15th August 2010, 05:12 PM   #84
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
And thanks for the welcome Buncrana!
Bunntamas 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
Old 15th August 2010, 05:14 PM   #85
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Also, meant to say 3 months, not 3 years. See what happens when I post on the fly w/out referencing my notes? Hence my need for time to compile. Thanks in advance for your patience.
Bunntamas 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
Old 15th August 2010, 05:18 PM   #86
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Also, I suck at typing, so please excuse typos.
Bunntamas 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
Old 15th August 2010, 09:19 PM   #87
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
One more thing, Rolfe - would you prefer I address first, the many "points" you noted, when you initially bumped this thread to me? Or would you like me to address the Chemo Therapy point first? The latter may come quicker, as the former is obviously a more lengthy discussion and may head down multiple paths of discussion. Just trying to make sure I'm "in line" so to speak, and not make anyone here mad.
Hey, a hearty welcome from me too! I'm sure we'll do fine, but do recognize you've been at least pat of the problem with comments going downhill there (and I have a part too). But some of the more uptight members of the discussion there are not in this one, although they can read it and get uptight, (or even registering and chewing me out for the nerve) so...

The chemo questions, even if they have a conspiracy theory angle, would probably fit best and do the most good at this thread in a different sub-forum, re:Megrahi's release/health/non-death:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=176962

The point of this thread, I think,was for supporters of the conspiracy theory in the title (Did Abdelbaset al-Megrahi blow up Pan Am 103?) to explain their reasoning for buying into it. So concrete points are best, but Mr.Flynn's list is just recommended material. A good start point if you ask me.

I'll check back in an hour or two and address anything new or anything else I've missed this weekend.

ETA (edit to add): I see chemo info is already posted here and that's fine. If you re-post it in the other thread and we mostly ignore it here that's best but derails happen. All the friggin time. Good way to get your post-count up there, You'll be able to post links in no time.

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 15th August 2010 at 09:23 PM.
Caustic Logic 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
Old 16th August 2010, 12:39 AM   #88
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Okay, now I'm becoming more sure that Mr. Bunntamas won't be appearing.
[...]
I looked up his screen name and found it's an old Gaelic word meaning something like "sense/solidity." I think the silence in this circumstance shows it's an apt screen name.
Just to call myself out for being wrong. Buncrana and Bunntamas together at the JREF. It happened.

I for one don't feel like being too on the offensive here. I'd like to hear what our new member has to say, but mostly on te issues the thread is about - the evidence for Megrahi blowing up PA103, of which so many are so certain with so little to base it on.

But to respond to what's here already:
First, I now see Bunntamas just mentioned the chemo stuff, and posted some solid text that's on the mark here.
Quote:
And partially, I believe what the US is calling for RE: information about the release. No offense, but it seems the Scots have focused on the US' "audacity" in calling for answers and details about Megrahi’s release, ...
Fair enough. I've actually been toying with explaining out some reservations I have about the recent friction. Yes, the Senators and others are ill-informed on the matter, in spite of the available info. And yes, the US public is upset, confused, and ignorant.

But - there are valid questions, as well as ones just widely held. And ones that have already been answered. And is it that hard to agree to one, well-planned, sit-down session to sort it all out, on the record?

Refusing this can easily be seen as avoiding scrutiny of the process.I'm inclined to see that myself, since I distrust the process too, having killed Megrahi's appeal. If it were all a package deal as I suspect, it was largely America's ass he was covering. So for that reason plus the general legal "plausibility"of everything (surface-level) this will all be just noise. They don't really want to get to the bottom of the process that saved us all from the embarrassment of an overturned verdict.

Hope that made enough sense.

Quote:
... as opposed to purpose in calling for answers, which is /are, the foundation for which the decision to release was made - outside of MacAskill’s standard “I acted according to Scottish law”. Right. But what are the details that gave him the basis for the law on which he acted (outside of a bunch of doctors w/ redacted names pointing fingers at each other)?
Mainly, cancer. Advanced cancer. Not "three months at most" cancer as the American position of August 9 - erm - deemed desirable. Scottish law to my knowledge doesn't actually require that.

Now the 3-months line, reached we now hear by a Dr.Kay - did seem quite important, and was specifically cited as if it mattered. For show to the Americans? The main consensus that he was dying soon-ish as things stood,nand would improve at home, was the reason Dr. Fraser recommended release - to home. MacAskill agreed, as soon as the appeal was dead.

I don't know enough about the chemo aspect to comment, and that's far enough off track for now...

Quote:
Thank you for your understanding re: the unimaginable around what family members have been through. It is unimaginable. Many, many times, I have wondered “can this really have happened – to my father, my family? me?”
I’ve never lost anyone to a car / drunk driving accident, so I can’t comment on that. What I can tell you is that, I don't think a drunk driving act is purely intentional. I do believe the bombing of Pan Am 103 was, and I would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees, regardless of whom one belives did it.
Regarding PA3 families - we’re not simply bitterly complaining that Megrahi hadn’t been punished severely enough. I don’t think there is enough punishment in the world for the intentional, heinous act that was committed upon the victims, those who perished in the town of Lockerbie and the surviving family and friends. However, there was at least a shred of justice that we (at least my family, and others as well who have said they) believe was served with the guilty verdict and life imprisonment of Megrahi.
That there's never enough punishment for some things might be what helps people see the limits of the punishment mindset. But I'm in the middle on whetehr someone actuallly guilty of something like that should be killed outright. Europe does just seem insanely soft to me, as a "USAan."

And your shred of justice - a solid scrap I'd think, getting the bomb-builder, planter, planner, clothes-buyer guy who apparently did everything relevant himself in clear violation of all standard rules ofOpSec. That's pretty good, the main physical mover. And as we've been examining here, there are more reasons by far to doubt than to accept this evidence, when it's looked at on its own, sans the magic of the verdict that elevated itto a near-mythic level of credibility.

My, what a situation vis-avis a debate. I almost want to ask your assurance that I won't be destroying your lone solace if I manage to convince you. But that would be an up-front admission that your mind can't be changed, so what would be the point of a debate?


Either way, I susppect we can talk, explore, etc. What do you think about that conundrum?

Quote:
Megrahi and Fema attended a party where they were observed conversing with the LAL Chairman.
Why doyou not use all capsfor that agency's name? EMA stand for Emergency Management Agency. It's rendered Fhimah usually, but these are all (phonetic?) transliterations anyway, so who cares. Anyway, this would support their involvement with LAA, which isn't in doubt anywhere I know of.

And finally, suggested commentary:
1) The LAA thing, when and if you find the info. Or decide you're almost certainly mistakenthere.
2) The points Rolfe posted earlier, I'd say to start with any one or two you feel pretty confident in. Reflect on the original point and the rebuttal and then weigh in with a considered stance.

Sorry for the precise suggestions, like I'm some friggin shoolteacher. Alright, signing off for now.

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 16th August 2010 at 12:46 AM.
Caustic Logic 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
Old 16th August 2010, 09:13 AM   #89
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Hey, a hearty welcome from me too! I'm sure we'll do fine, but do recognize you've been at least pat of the problem with comments going downhill there (and I have a part too). But some of the more uptight members of the discussion there are not in this one, although they can read it and get uptight, (or even registering and chewing me out for the nerve) so...
Thanks for the welcome, Adam.
Yep, I do agree I had a part in the "comments going down hill" there. I guess I just didn't think things would get SO nasty and twisted.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
The chemo questions, even if they have a conspiracy theory angle, would probably fit best and do the most good at this thread in a different sub-forum, re:Megrahi's release/health/non-death
Got it. Thanks for that too. I'm obviously new at the ins and outs of this site, so please forgive my initial bumbling. I'll try to get up to speed ASAP. I appreciate the guidance on what to post where.

On that note, shall I reply to your comments below re: chemo here? or take the conversation over to the Megrahi's release / health / non-death area?
Bunntamas 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
Old 16th August 2010, 09:27 AM   #90
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Why doyou not use all capsfor that agency's name? EMA stand for Emergency Management Agency. It's rendered Fhimah usually, but these are all (phonetic?) transliterations anyway, so who cares. Anyway...
When writing my original post, including commts about Fhimah, I actually spelled his name (phoentically) correctly. Then I hit send, and I had spent so much time writing, I think the system logged me out, so I lost my entire comment and had to re write it. In my haste I spelled Fhima's name Fema. My bad.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
And finally, suggested commentary:
1) The LAA thing, when and if you find the info. Or decide you're almost certainly mistakenthere.
I'm not certain I'm mistaken. But I do admit I may have been. I thought for sure I read it in that old DIA doc. I'll keep looking, but until I do find it, again, I'll admit to having been mistaken.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
2) The points Rolfe posted earlier, I'd say to start with any one or two you feel pretty confident in. Reflect on the original point and the rebuttal and then weigh in with a considered stance.
Sorry for the precise suggestions, like I'm some friggin shoolteacher. Alright, signing off for now.
Okay, I'll start w/ your suggestions. But it will have to be later (hopefully today, but not sure - I have a bunch of things I need to attend to today).
No need to apologize. I appreciate the guidance in my "newbie" bumblings.
Bunntamas 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
Old 16th August 2010, 09:46 AM   #91
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
Bunntamas, hope this is of some help -

Here are all the related threads on Megrahi and Lockerbie:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...php?t=176962 - - Megrahi Release/ Diagnosis / BP etc

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=181471 - US authorities framed al-Megrahi

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=165824 - Bomb bag London origin theory


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=158909 - Tony Gauci evidence

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=155657 - Unaccompanied Bag from Malta evidence


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=85523 - al-Megrahi, Lockerbie bombing, general thread


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=153971 - MST Timer Fragment - was it planted?


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=165404 - Identification of Toshiba Radio used in 103 bombing


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=170711 - Abu Elias / PLFP


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=178176 - Lockerbie Documents/ SCCRC/ PII to remain Secret


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=179319 - Timeline of Libyan blame


And of course, this thread which is the most recent.

So, if you want to use the appropriate thread when commenting, it's up to you. If not, then in this thread, which is a new thread with general comments, articles and opinions are being posted, is just fine.

Last edited by Buncrana; 16th August 2010 at 09:48 AM.
Buncrana 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
Old 16th August 2010, 09:49 AM   #92
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
I spelled his name wrong again above. I'm really NOT a complete dolt. I just suck at typing, particularly when I'm in a hurry. I just noticed there is a spell check here. Woo Hoo! I'll use it going forward, but doubt it will catch phonetics, so again, thanks in advance for your understanding and patience w/ me.
Bunntamas 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
Old 16th August 2010, 09:51 AM   #93
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Wow. Thanks for all thos links Buncrana. That's awsome. Very much appreciated.
Bunntamas 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
Old 16th August 2010, 10:03 AM   #94
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,555
Rolfe is on holiday.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect 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
Old 16th August 2010, 01:59 PM   #95
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
Rolfe is on holiday.
And I'm pretty busy myself today. No rush, says I. It's worth a little thinking.
Caustic Logic 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
Old 17th August 2010, 03:13 AM   #96
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Apologies I didn't remember right away that Rolfe is probably not even reading this, for the first time in a while. That makes it bad timing. I think it's supposed to be most or all of the week, but she may well pop in however possible at some point.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
I spelled his name wrong again above. I'm really NOT a complete dolt. I just suck at typing, particularly when I'm in a hurry. I just noticed there is a spell check here. Woo Hoo! I'll use it going forward, but doubt it will catch phonetics, so again, thanks in advance for your understanding and patience w/ me.
Oh, lighten up. Course you're not a dolt. Second time 'round, typo, and it was just a joking criticism to begin with. Some people might be bigger nerds, but I say as long as I know what you mean.

My problem lately is a spotty space bar. And pefect typing seems alittle bourgoise to me in fact. Like "ooh, look atme little prince smartingpants, who has infinite free time to revise my posts while the butler makes me a sammich." BTW spellcheck won't help you with Fhimah - you are on your own there.

We refer to the little conventions like posting in relevant threads as guidelines that have helped us in the past, but not as hard rules. It's not as uptight as it might seem, in case it seems that way.

And remember this is usually an anti-CT pro-official story type site (to put it crudely), and I think there are a lot of members here who want to think the verdict was sound, but are unable to make it work in a debate sense. They'd like to hear your thoughts too, and will offer some support once you get rolling. I'll do my best too, depending. It's hard to shift gears sometimes.

I'll admit for my part, up-front, I don't anticipate changing my mind on the issue in any major way. Basically it's because of the evidence as I've learned it in the last year. I will try to be as open-minded as possible and give the befit of the doubt up to a point.

The links Buncrana cited will help you find the right spot for different issues you might want to go in depth on, but this one's fair game for anything really, just mainly we should hover near the evidence against Megrahi. If you do go to another thread, they're huge and I don't think anyone will bite your head off for just popping in with a question that was already answered or a point that was debunked. Someone will gladly do it again, or dig up the relevant info again. Do feel free to readup if you like, of course.

Okay, I'll step aside now. Until we hear from Bunntamas again, anyone else have a random comment to liven things up here?

McHrozni? Kopji?
Caustic Logic 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
Old 17th August 2010, 02:28 PM   #97
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
With Rolfe out, Buncrana and/or I will have to field any 'this side' stuff. I really didn't mean to type this much into the discussion that hasn't really started yet, and I'm afraid I'll screw it all up if I keep doing it. So...

Bunntamas, FYI my thought on your spelling out Fema made me think not that you don't know these things, but that maybe you just don't memorize written names well and slip into audio memory mode. More speaking than writing oriented.

I'll take your grasp of the relevant facts on its own merits, as soon as I see something else specific enough to really consider. I presume you're working something up as time allows, or at least thinking about it and have one or a few points you think are strongest. So I'll refrain from confusing things by starting on a point myself.

Quote:
On that note, shall I reply to your comments below re: chemo here? or take the conversation over to the Megrahi's release / health / non-death area?
It's a fine topic for here, but as I said I probably can't help much. I have the documents to reference, but don't understand the process. The best hope would be medically-inclined member who can help sort it out. Such a member could run across the info in this thread, slightly better chance in the release/not dead thread. Either way, slight chance of no luck anywhere short of messaging some expert member and prodding them to come help.

And this is the thread where people are watching more for your comments, so you know, this probably is the spot for whatever you want to say. And we're ready for something, so I say go for it. That or the evidence at trial, whichever is more interesting to you at the moment.

To kick it, your comment from above:
Originally Posted by Bunntamas
why, when Megrahi was allegedly diagnosed in approx. October of 1988, was he not, for nearly a WHOLE YEAR treated with chemo? And now he is back in Libya, being treated with chemo and surviving far beyond the “recommended 3 years”? MANY men survive prostate cancer now, and live full, healthy lives with remission, following radiation and chemo treatment. Why was this not considered prior to release and the "recommended" 3 month prognosis? And if it was, how in the world did MacAskill come to his decision to release? It's dumfounding to me, and similarly surprising, that the Scots are not asking the same question. In spite of whether or one believes Megrahi is guilty, if one sets emotion aside and they take the same "letter of the law" approach as MacAskill is claiming, Megrahi was convicted as guilty. Release, per letter of the law should have included the above considerations re: chemo and prognosis.

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 17th August 2010 at 03:03 PM.
Caustic Logic 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
Old 17th August 2010, 04:03 PM   #98
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
[i]

There isn’t any evidence that has been divulged, regarding chemo for Megrahi. That was my point. And partially, I believe what the US is calling for RE: information about the release. No offense, but it seems the Scots have focused on the US' "audacity" in calling for answers and details about Megrahi’s release, as opposed to purpose in calling for answers, which is /are, the foundation for which the decision to release was made - outside of MacAskill’s standard “I acted according to Scottish law”. Right. But what are the details that gave him the basis for the law on which he acted (outside of a bunch of doctors w/ redacted names pointing fingers at each other)?


NOTE: I’ve only mentioned the US calling for answers as support for my question. I realize in that bit about US calling for answers, I've opend a pandora's box for a whole other argument. So, for now, please, if you don't mind, let's not go down the “ugly American” vs. UK / Scotland rat hole, and stick to the Chemo point / question; which is, why, when Megrahi was allegedly diagnosed in approx. October of 1988, was he not, for nearly a WHOLE YEAR treated with chemo? And now he is back in Libya, being treated with chemo and surviving far beyond the “recommended 3 years”? MANY men survive prostate cancer now, and live full, healthy lives with remission, following radiation and chemo treatment. Why was this not considered prior to release and the "recommended" 3 month prognosis? And if it was, how in the world did MacAskill come to his decision to release? It's dumfounding to me, and similarly surprising, that the Scots are not asking the same question. In spite of whether or one believes Megrahi is guilty, if one sets emotion aside and they take the same "letter of the law" approach as MacAskill is claiming, Megrahi was convicted as guilty. Release, per letter of the law should have included the above considerations re: chemo and prognosis.


Well, let's be fair here Bunntamas, we can hardly be expected to reach an informed decision on what has not been divulged. We may speculate on this, but of the notes regarding Megrahi's treatment released as it stands, indicate he was receiving hormone therapy initially, to which the cancer latterly became resistant to this, which was the realised by Megrahi, and to those treating him, meaning chemotherapy was the next, possibly only, treatment that was now available to him. The notes state that Megrahi was under no illusion that whether he was to remain in Greenock, Scotland, or was transferred or released back to Libya, the chemo treatment would begin.

Whether Megrahi was offered chemo therapy with, or as a substitute to the hormone treatment, or not, and if he did indeed at any time refuse this in the intervening is not known. If we wish to speculate however, perhaps he may refused chemo (of which we have no information) for the rather less invasive and aggressive hormone treatment to begin with in the hope the appeal would see a conclusion imminently and allow chemotherapy to be given at home.

The prognosis eventually made was that with or without chemo therapy, it was considered Megrahi's cancer had become so aggressive, that 3 months was a reasonable estimate. It would seem that not only has the cancer advancement been reduced by the chemo therapy, but the combination of this and his far less strained and anxious surrounding now being at home and around his family, has extended his time considerably more that anyone had or might have anticipated.



Originally Posted by Bunntamas
Thank you for your understanding re: the unimaginable around what family members have been through. It is unimaginable. Many, many times, I have wondered “can this really have happened – to my father, my family? me?”
I’ve never lost anyone to a car / drunk driving accident, so I can’t comment on that. What I can tell you is that, I don't think a drunk driving act is purely intentional. I do believe the bombing of Pan Am 103 was, and I would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees, regardless of whom one belives did it.
Regarding PA3 families - we’re not simply bitterly complaining that Megrahi hadn’t been punished severely enough. I don’t think there is enough punishment in the world for the intentional, heinous act that was committed upon the victims, those who perished in the town of Lockerbie and the surviving family and friends. However, there was at least a shred of justice that we (at least my family, and others as well who have said they) believe was served with the guilty verdict and life imprisonment of Megrahi.
First, I cannot begin to comprehend the losing a loved one in the manner of an intentional act, and you and every other family member who lost someone on 103 has my sincerest sympathy. However, the conviction handed down at Zeist, instead of allowing closure to the families has become the a hugely divisive issue - and this is really the crux of the matter. The verdict of guilty was in many peoples opinion, incomprehensible and simply left more questions unanswered than the trial had promised. We were all led to believe that the US had all the hard and definitive evidence, not too mention this witness would also supply all the answers to the difficult questions that had been raised during and into the investigation. Of course, this turned out to be the most devastating false hope, as the man the US has assured us would provide the conclusive evidence was Abdul Majid Giaka, ex Libyan car mechanic turned CIA informer, fantasist, liar and money grabber. This was an enormous blow for anyone who had hoped for the hard and fast evidence to condemn the two Libyan's on trial, and at the same time merely vidicated all those who had raised questions and suspicions on the indictment in the first instance.

So, that essentially exonerated Fhimah, and as the only direct connection to Megrahi remaining was the reliance of the bag insertion at Luqa and Tony Gauci. Let's be honest, it's already looking tenuous, at best given the complicated route the bag was sent on, although if those two areas (loading the bag and buying the clothes) could be conclusively shown, then it'd be good enough to convice the court and most likely everyone else who had follwed the case, that Megrahi would be 'beyond reasonable doubt' the man either placing the bomb on route to 103, or was involved in at least arranging the bomb and it's journey towards Maid of the Seas.

And, to be quite frank Bunntamas, this is where the case turns from a tragedy into a farce.



Originally Posted by Bunntamas
I may in fact be wrong about my statement re: LAA and Air Malta.I thought read it somewhere, but as of now, I have been unable to locate the source. I have however located a very old, declassified, but still very redacted document from the DIA stating that prior to being handed over for trial, Megrahi and Fema attended a party where they were observed conversing with the LAL Chairman.

So, I guess this is a good segway into your other initial points on this thread bump. More to come….

No evidence, not a shred, over the whole 11 years of investigating, could be shed on how Megrahi came to surreptitiously insert the bomb bag onto KM180 from Luqa. And boy did the investigators try. Phone lines of Air Malta tapped, harressment of employees and all the staff and KM180 passenger thoroughly investigated, all to no avail. Worse, Air Malta supplied every bit of airport and KM180 documentation, which again reinforced the fact that no unaccompanied luggage had been carried to Frankfurt that morning. The suugestion from some that every single Air Malta and Luqa airport employee had been suborned in order to cover for this unaccompanied bag si quite preposterous, and is essentially meaning that any evidence that Air Malta can produce showing conclusively that 55 bags travelled with an assigned passenger on 180, was utterly pointless, and no evidence produce would suffice in this situation. Now how ridiculous and completely departing from the normal and fundamental issues of justice is that??

What kind of court and justice do we operate when evidence is superseded by speculation and prejudice??


Then there was Tony and his buyer....

Last edited by Buncrana; 17th August 2010 at 04:13 PM.
Buncrana 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
Old 17th August 2010, 05:00 PM   #99
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
I'm composing replies, but still bumbling in my newbie state in using this site. I have an old .PDF document (that will most likely send us all down a bunch of different rat holes, but what the heck), that I need to reference / link, and don't necessariyly want my hard drive attached to any web site, regardless of how upstanding JREF is, I'm not sure I trust everyone on the web who may be connecting here (particularly considering litigious allegations on R.Black's blog comments, and the fact that we are deaing with a terrorist issue). Any advice on how to link that doc. w/o security issues would be most appreciated.
Bunntamas 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
Old 17th August 2010, 05:07 PM   #100
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Buncrana View Post

The prognosis eventually made was that with or without chemo therapy, it was considered Megrahi's cancer had become so aggressive, that 3 months was a reasonable estimate.
WHERE is the prognosis "with or without chemo therapy" documented??? Maybe I missed it (highly likely, considering the plethora of media). Would love to see that, particularly if it is from a reliable <I> medical source </i>, as opposed to news media. Please advise / link.
Thanks!
Bunntamas 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
Old 17th August 2010, 06:34 PM   #101
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
WHERE is the prognosis "with or without chemo therapy" documented??? Maybe I missed it (highly likely, considering the plethora of media). Would love to see that, particularly if it is from a reliable <I> medical source </i>, as opposed to news media. Please advise / link.
Thanks!


He had been receiving hormone treatment, from diagnosis in Sep 08, and which after 6 months was then determined the cancer had not been halted or diminished, and Megrahi condition had regressed and was now characterized as 'hormone resistant'. Whether he was offered chemotherapy is not known at this stage, and whether he had refused this is further speculation. Of which one could easily speculate that if indeed it was offered and was refused, it would be because of the limited aggressive nature and invasiveness of hormone treatment against the devastating effects on the body of chemotherapy may have been a part. However, it is not made known, and I'm not sure what the significance of which treatment was provided, and or, accepted. Had he refused all treatments, I could perhaps understand suspicions of allowing the condition to appear worse.

It is apparent to him however, in July/Aug 2009, and to everyone connected with his treatment and applications to the court, that given the limited time remaining for him, chemotherapy is the only possible hope - not of possible full remission, but of simply a partial remission period, at best.


Originally Posted by Scottish Govt Medical Report
On diagnosis in autumn 2008, specialist clinical concensus gave this prognosis: and in the absence of a good response to treatment, survival could be in the order of months to many months rather than years. Pressed to offer a more specific estimate, there was an informal mid-estimate of 18-24 months[...]

In June and July 2009, assessment by a range of specialists reached firm concensus that the disease was , after several different trials of treatment, 'hormone resistant' - that is resistant to any treatment options of known effectiveness. Consensus on prognosis, therefore, has moved to the lower end of expectation from 10 months ago..[...]

[...] his clinical condition has declined significantly over the last week (26Jul - 3Aug). The clinical assessment, therefore, is that a 3 months prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...cal_report.pdf


Originally Posted by Scottish Govt Notes on Representations for PTA, Pg15/21
[..] 9. Mr Megrahi spoke of his circumstances and the likelyhood he will need to commence chemotherapy soon. He stated he needs his family's support as he goes through the treatment, but also as he faces his destiny.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/925/0085963.pdf
Buncrana 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
Old 18th August 2010, 01:21 AM   #102
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
I'm composing replies, but still bumbling in my newbie state in using this site. I have an old .PDF document (that will most likely send us all down a bunch of different rat holes, but what the heck), that I need to reference / link, and don't necessariyly want my hard drive attached to any web site, regardless of how upstanding JREF is, I'm not sure I trust everyone on the web who may be connecting here (particularly considering litigious allegations on R.Black's blog comments, and the fact that we are deaing with a terrorist issue). Any advice on how to link that doc. w/o security issues would be most appreciated.

You could upload the .doc / pdf to a file sharer, and once you have uploaded the file, send a copy of the link to whoever you want to and they then download it without any reference or trackback to your computer.

eg -

http://www.easy-share.com/

http://www.sendspace.com/

http://www.mediafire.com/

http://zshare.net/
Buncrana 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
Old 19th August 2010, 02:08 PM   #103
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Buncrana View Post
.... Whether he was offered chemotherapy is not known at this stage, and whether he had refused this is further speculation. Of which one could easily speculate that if indeed it was offered and was refused, it would be because of the limited aggressive nature and invasiveness of hormone treatment against the devastating effects on the body of chemotherapy may have been a part. However, it is not made known, and I'm not sure what the significance of which treatment was provided, and or, accepted. Had he refused all treatments, I could perhaps understand suspicions of allowing the condition to appear worse.
Actually, it IS documented that he refused treatment, or at least refused to see his doctor. And NOT because of the limited aggresive nature and invasiveness of the disease, but because "He was apparently unhappy that the doctor's report had not made a sufficient case to persuade the court to grant interim liberation." I would say that "understanding of suspicions of allowing the condition to appear worse" might be in order.

See the BBC web site where .PDFs of the the case documents are posted. I haven't posted enough comments here, so JREF won't allow me to post the actual link to the document. Sorry.
At any rate, the document "With the Libyan Government in Relation to the Case" Page 15 of the .PDF, second to last paragraph
Bunntamas 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
Old 19th August 2010, 02:13 PM   #104
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Buncrana, thanks for the links to doc. posting / share sites. Still not sure if that will work, as per above comment, JREF won't yet allow me to post links. I'll continue to muddle along in comments and try to make the best of it until I'm allowed to post links here.
Bunntamas 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
Old 19th August 2010, 02:40 PM   #105
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Actually, it IS documented that he refused treatment, or at least refused to see his doctor. And NOT because of the limited aggresive nature and invasiveness of the disease, but because "He was apparently unhappy that the doctor's report had not made a sufficient case to persuade the court to grant interim liberation." I would say that "understanding of suspicions of allowing the condition to appear worse" might be in order.

See the BBC web site where .PDFs of the the case documents are posted. I haven't posted enough comments here, so JREF won't allow me to post the actual link to the document. Sorry.
At any rate, the document "With the Libyan Government in Relation to the Case" Page 15 of the .PDF, second to last paragraph
Found a link for the first quote:
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/20...d-inquiry.html

The second one I'm not sure.

Quote:
Buncrana, thanks for the links to doc. posting / share sites. Still not sure if that will work, as per above comment, JREF won't yet allow me to post links. I'll continue to muddle along in comments and try to make the best of it until I'm allowed to post links here.
That should be fixed on your next post. You're at the magic 15! Can you give us that BBC link now?

ETA: It was in the comments there, posted by Noybie, whom I've run into before. The link is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/h...libyan_gov.pdf

Unfortunately no time now for me to review it.

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 19th August 2010 at 02:46 PM.
Caustic Logic 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
Old 19th August 2010, 02:55 PM   #106
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Found a link for the first quote:
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/20...d-inquiry.html

That should be fixed on your next post. You're at the magic 15! Can you give us that BBC link now?

Unfortunately no time now for me to review it.
Okay, I'll give it a whirl. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/h...libyan_gov.pdf
Not much to review. just the second to last paragraph on pg. 15 of the .PDF, with quote noted above.
However, interestingly enough, they don't note who was at that particular meeting, outside of stating who said what within the document itself. I wonder if Mousa Kousa was there. That in itself is a whole other topic.
Bunntamas 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
Old 19th August 2010, 02:56 PM   #107
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Woo Hoo! It worked! Thanks for th "magic 15" tip Adam.
Bunntamas 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
Old 19th August 2010, 03:45 PM   #108
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Actually, it IS documented that he refused treatment, or at least refused to see his doctor. And NOT because of the limited aggresive nature and invasiveness of the disease, but because "He was apparently unhappy that the doctor's report had not made a sufficient case to persuade the court to grant interim liberation." I would say that "understanding of suspicions of allowing the condition to appear worse" might be in order.

See the BBC web site where .PDFs of the the case documents are posted. I haven't posted enough comments here, so JREF won't allow me to post the actual link to the document. Sorry.
At any rate, the document "With the Libyan Government in Relation to the Case" Page 15 of the .PDF, second to last paragraph
I have to say I think it's a huge leap to construe that refusing to see the doctor, on one occasion, is therefore refusing treatment! Depressed and frustrated, perhaps even angry on this specific occasion, is it not understandable since Megrahi had been refused interim liberation, or as it is more commonly referred to, 'bail', because, although the prognosis delivered to the court was that Megrahi's cancer was indeed terminal, they could not concur on an estimate of lifespan remaining which fell within the 3 months requirement.

And this prognosis was made all the more complicated because Megrahi was currently receiving Hormone treatment, and the result of this treatment may possibly alter any timespan prognosis to a period which would lapse beyond the 3 months Megrahi required for the court to grant his apllication. Quite what Megrahi's response would be to this hormone treatment was unknown, and therefore a definitive prognosis could not be made.

There is no reference whatsoever, at any stage, by the court, the Scottish govt or the medical experts monitoring Megrahi that he was, or had at any stage, 'refusing treatment'.

Of course we now know that this treatment was conducted over a six month period, and which on it's conclusion was determined had been ineffective and Megrahi diagnosis was 'Hormone Resistant'. It was only then, at this stage, that Megrahi was aware that chemotherapy was the next treatment offered by the NHS in Scotland, which despite not providing a miracle cure to his cancer, may delay the spreading of the cancer. And may not. This was then over a series of examinations that given his poor response to the hormone treatment and a significant failing in Megrahi's condition, that the three month estimate was concluded.

Last edited by Buncrana; 19th August 2010 at 03:57 PM.
Buncrana 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
Old 19th August 2010, 05:15 PM   #109
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
I think my point has gone beyond refusal of treatment to more of the point about Megrahi making a stink about his doctor not making a sufficient case to persuade the court to grant interim liberation. Getting the doctors to persuade the court...as opposed to presenting the actual medical evidence.
Getting doctors to persuade the court... Getting doctors to persuade the court. Need I state it again?
Bunntamas 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
Old 19th August 2010, 05:19 PM   #110
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
I re-read my last post. Didn't mean to sound so flip. Sorry. Just trying to make a point.
Bunntamas 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
Old 20th August 2010, 12:14 AM   #111
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
I got the point, and the repetition helps. (it was the third instance that made it a bit think). Getting doctors to persuade the court. Admittedly, that sounds less about full justice and transparency and more about getting the heck home. I wager if you were locked up for a crime you knew you didn't commit and nearing death with cancer in your bones, you'd be upset too that the doctors hadn't convinced the court, true or not, that you were three months from death. You may have uncovered a human weakness in Megrahi's deparation here. Any evidence that it's anything more?

Now reviewing the quote... This document is one I hadn't read yet, so thanks for drawing me in to look at it now. Page 15 does seem to jump in from nowhere without explanation, but so does page 14. I propose these two pages are in the wrong order, and both follow off page 13, making this the meeting of 18 November, apparently being 2008. The wording fits page-to-page. Present for the Libyan side are a Mr. Obidi, Jelban, and Swessi (he's the one who was listed before on Justice for Megrahi letters, I believe?).

No Mousa Kousa. On a side note, I admit I wasn't totally clear on who that is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ie-bomber.html
"Accused in some quarters" of being a Lockerbie planner who was then brazenly sent to help spring Megrahi. So right off the bat, I'm pretty sure that's a bunch of crap. I haven't seen anything convincing that ANY Libyans were involved.

Back to the quote: In November 2008 Megrahi already wanted a three month prognosis, and the doctors weren't giving it, obviously. He was upset and refused to see his doctor on this particular day. Very short redaction, fitting with the short name revealed as Megrahi's doctor who later said three months - David Kay.

And is that about it then? As soon as you feel we've burned this subject down to cinders, we should get into this supposed evidence of Megrahi's responsibility for the bombing. Or perhaps that of ANY Libyans like Mousa Kousa, as you seem to major in peripheral circumstantial evidence.

I'll be slow to get back tomorrow as well, so please be patient.
Caustic Logic 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
Old 20th August 2010, 12:48 PM   #112
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
I got the point, and the repetition helps. (it was the third instance that made it a bit think). Getting doctors to persuade the court. Admittedly, that sounds less about full justice and transparency and more about getting the heck home. I wager if you were locked up for a crime you knew you didn't commit and nearing death with cancer in your bones, you'd be upset too that the doctors hadn't convinced the court, true or not, that you were three months from death. You may have uncovered a human weakness in Megrahi's deparation here. Any evidence that it's anything more?
Sorry, but you’re not going to get any sympathy from me re: Megrahi “allegedly” being near death, being locked up for a crime he “allegedly” didn’t commit and wanting to go home. Especially today.
Bottom line is, regardless of our differing views, he was convicted as guilty. Desparation, getting the heck home, whatever. The conviction still stands, and stood at the time he with his “manipulative” behavior by trying to get doctors to say whatever he wanted them to say to get him home makes me wonder, what else he and the rest of the Libyan thugs attending those release negotiation meetings did or said (note Mousa Kousa’s veiled threats about grave consequenses to UK business relations w/ Libya if Megrahi dies in Scottish prison) to get him released.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Now reviewing the quote...
....No Mousa Kousa. On a side note, I admit I wasn't totally clear on who that is.
WOW. You don't know whou Mousa Kousa is, and yet you “slap” me at the enf of your comment below re: “ you seem to major in peripheral circumstantial evidence”??? Nice.

Did you also not know that the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence? As Professor Black has stated, “The prosecution in their closing submissions conceded that the case against the accused was entirely circumstantial. That, of course, is no bar to a verdict of guilty. Circumstantial evidence can be just as persuasive and just as damning as the direct evidence of eyewitnesses to the commission of a crime.”

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
....[link to article re" Kousa removed] "Accused in some quarters" of being a Lockerbie planner who was then brazenly sent to help spring Megrahi. So right off the bat, I'm pretty sure that's a bunch of crap.
Actually it’s not a bunch of crap. It is very well known that Kousa has been accused of being involved in numerous killings and terrorist plots, and is nicknamed the “Envoy of Death” . Google his name. There are tons of articles about him.


Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
I haven't seen anything convincing that ANY Libyans were involved.
Uhhhh… how ‘bout Fhimah? Yes, I know he was found “not guilty”. But many from both sides of the argument agree that the verdict w/ him should have been “not proven”. Regarding other Libyans involved, How about Abdallah Senussi? How about Col. Saleh (sp?), former LAA Chairman, replaced by Senussi, spoted at a cocktail party in Tripoli conversing intensly w/ Megrahi and Fhimah, and the others noted by Mtawa’s wife?
For others, see pgs. 139 and 382 of this document:
http://www.easy-share.com/1911936089...ied%20Docs.pdf
It’s an OLD DIA declassified intel doc. Essentially, it’s 400+/- pages of streaming notes distributed as intel came into DIA and was unfolding. A lot of the pages are duplicates, I gather that they were re-released as info became declassified and un-redacted.
It goes back & forth over time between PFLPGC, Syria, Iran & Libya. One particular point of interest, however, is Pg. 111, where it states that Iran, Libya and Syria signed a terrorist training treaty. And pg. 116 where Libya requests Iranian finance of Abu Nidal Organization, and pg. 138 notes Jabril trained Libyans, Megrahi, Fhimah and seven others; all or most assigned to positions in the Libyan "court" system.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Back to the quote: In November 2008 Megrahi already wanted a three month prognosis, and the doctors weren't giving it, obviously. He was upset and refused to see his doctor on this particular day. Very short redaction, fitting with the short name revealed as Megrahi's doctor who later said three months - David Kay.
Your point here would be.....????

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
And is that about it then? As soon as you feel we've burned this subject down to cinders, we should get into this supposed evidence of Megrahi's responsibility for the bombing. Or perhaps that of ANY Libyans like Mousa Kousa, as you seem to major in peripheral circumstantial evidence.

I'll be slow to get back tomorrow as well, so please be patient.
No, I don’t think we’ve burned the petulent / manipulative doctor refusal point down, but if you want to move on, or pick up that conversation in the medical forum, I’m fine with that. How ‘bout we move on with the points noted in my comments above here? Does that give you enough "peripheral" to chew on?
Bunntamas 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
Old 20th August 2010, 01:04 PM   #113
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Oh, and if you want a chuckle, check out pg. 150 of the above noted .pdf.
I seem to recall Maquise blasting Bollier in one of the blog comments se (probably Pr. Black's) about a package that Bollier had left on the steps somewhere. The reference in the document "it is written in bad french", and "it had been shoved under the front gate" seems... well... fitting.
Bunntamas 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
Old 20th August 2010, 01:15 PM   #114
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
 
Professor Yaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,578
Just delurking for a moment to link to an article in The Guardian today:

Quote:
A senior human rights lawyer has called for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing as controversy intensifies over the convicted bomber's early release on medical grounds.

Professor Alan Miller, the head of the Scottish human rights commission, said there were still significant doubts about the guilt of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi after an independent investigation uncovered new evidence that undermined the conviction.

Miller told the Guardian that the UK government should release a secret intelligence report that the Scottish criminal cases review commission said could – on its own – have been enough to have freed Megrahi on appeal. It was withheld at his trial.

The document is believed to cast serious doubts on prosecution claims that Megrahi used a specific Swiss timer for the bomb. The release of the document was banned in 2008 by David Miliband, the then foreign secretary, leading to a lengthy legal battle by Megrahi's lawyers which ended when the Libyan abandoned his appeal because of his terminal cancer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...endent-inquiry

I haven't been able to follow all the threads as closely as I'd like, so I'm not sure if we knew that the document that the government won't release seems to be about the provenance of the timer? And that the SSRC said that it alone could have been enough to free megrahi on appeal?
Professor Yaffle 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
Old 20th August 2010, 02:58 PM   #115
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Here's another good one from STV.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/192911-m...rahis-release/
The Ipsos/Mori poll of 1013 people showed 54% disgreed with the decision to allow Abdelbaset al Megrahi to return home to Libya to die, with 35% agreeing
There is also a video w/ new content, but also some clips from the STV documentary recently aired.

Last edited by Bunntamas; 20th August 2010 at 03:11 PM.
Bunntamas 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
Old 20th August 2010, 04:41 PM   #116
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
Bunntamas, I've read that document many times over the years, and as much as some of it may make for uncomfortable reading, it offers absolutely nothing in terms of evidence which is directly, or even indirectly, connected with the actual case against Megrahi or Fhimah. This series of DIA memo's details information gleaned after the indictment had been issued, and even concedes that at the party you refer attended by the two accused, that there was "no discussions made on the Pan Am incident". There are several other DIA declassified documents that have been made available over the years which, while also offering information on the margins of the 103 bombing, have been utterly denounced as immaterial as the nature of the information contained in these documents did not support the official Lockerbie investigation line.

Intelligence can help paint a broad brush picture, but it's hard and fast facts we're interested in, and the facts about how Megrahi and Fhimah came to conspire to load an unaccompanied bag with a bomb at Malta. And this aspect seems to say the least, thin on content, perhaps non-existent.

No one amongst us is suggesting that some of these people were of dubious character, perhaps involved in previous paramilitary attacks, involved with the Libyan govt in an intelligence capacity or in number of other activities foreign intelligence services, such as the DIA/CIA, would be interested in keeping tabs on. Perhaps Megrahi wasn't a splendid chap. Perhaps he was involved in unsavoury activities as any intelligence agent of any country could be suspected of. However, even if all that were true, that does not equate to evidence that he was the man who loaded a bag at Malta on Dec 21st 1988, packed with clothes he'd just bought, and primed with a bomb tagged for Pan Am 103.

Mr Megrahi may not be a nice guy, but that doesnt mean a terrorist murderer. Mr Khreesat definiately isn't a nice guy, nor Mr Talb by all accounts, nor perhaps Mr Elias - or a cast of many others you may care to mention. However, there is far stronger evidence than that offered against Megrahi (or Fhimah, of which there was nothing other than the CIA informer, liar and money grabber Giaka) the latter had the motive, means, capabiliuty and intent on blowing up an American airliner.

Nevertheless, we are concerned with the evidence, as presented at Zeist, after many painstaking years of investigation, that was said to have proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' that Megrahi was guilty of the attack, or involvement, on 103.

Now, assuming you accept that Megrahi did not any any stage after his diagnosis of cancer "refuse treatment", and any suggestion that he was disappointed or angry with the doctors assessment in Nov '09 is harldy something to be surprised at ; Prisoner wants out of prison shocker!

So, we come to the initial crux of your assertion made: after 11 years of conscientious enquiries by US, UK and Scottish investigators, some of which were considerably underhand such as unwarrented phone tapping, there was no method at all could be established with which Megrahi could have introduced an unaccompanied bag onto KM180. In contrast to the records from Frankfurt, Air Malta provided all relevant records pertaining to the passengers, luggage and destinations for the flight that left Luqa, all showing no unaccomapnied luggage on board. All passengers uplifted all the relevent luggage at Frankfurt. 39 people boarded KM180, with 55 pieces of luggage all attached to it's passenger, and all bags were collected by their owners at Frankfurt.

So, what exactly did the investiagtors fail to uncover that convinces you that this unaccompanied bag was carried on that flight from Malta?
Buncrana 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
Old 21st August 2010, 12:50 AM   #117
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Prof. Yaffle: Thanks for that heartening development. I'm note sure if "an independent investigation [that] uncovered new evidence that undermined the conviction" refers to the SCCRC or something else? I'm presuming the former, since I've seen no explanation of another investigation.

Buncrana, well said.

On to Bunntamas, idea for idea, and I'm not trying so hard to be nice now, obviously:
Sorry, but you’re not going to get any sympathy from me re: Megrahi “allegedly” being near death, being locked up for a crime he “allegedly” didn’t commit and wanting to go home. Especially today.
I was making a point, not soliciting sympathy. You think the cancer is fake, or what? As for the ""allegedly" didn't commit" part, I'm ready to discuss that when you are. We'll see if it works better tomorrow.

Bottom line is, regardless of our differing views, he was convicted as guilty.
Sorry, for me that's an important factor but not the bottom line. Actual physical reality matters more to me than the legal one. Crazy, innit?

Desparation, getting the heck home, whatever.
Exactly. It's heavy, important stuff to a person. It doesn't always bring out the noblest characteristics, but it's natural when isolation, being hated, and impending death define your life.

The conviction still stands, and stood at the time he with his “manipulative” behavior by trying to get doctors to say whatever he wanted them to say to get him home makes me wonder, what else he and the rest of the Libyan thugs attending those release negotiation meetings did or said (note Mousa Kousa’s veiled threats about grave consequenses to UK business relations w/ Libya if Megrahi dies in Scottish prison) to get him released.
Thugs = people who are able to force others to do what they want. You do in fact believe Megrahi was capable of, and was trying to, bully or manipulate the Scottish doctors into giving the prognosis he wanted? The "thugs" in general DID of course have some leverage to use on Megrahi's behalf, and were apparently trying to get their man back. Other governments do this for their people.

Ready to discuss why there's any reason to believe he ACTUALLY did or helped in the bombing?

WOW. You don't know whou Mousa Kousa is, and yet you “slap” me at the enf of your comment below re: “ you seem to major in peripheral circumstantial evidence”??? Nice.
Yes, I consider this guy peripheral, and you find him important. Who was actually tried and convicted in a court based on some class of evidence, for involvement in the bombing? And who has been "accused" by probably Vincent Cannnistraro or some such?

And as you know, I've been looking into this for only a year now, and haven't learned every peripheral aspect just yet. I recognize the name Mousa Kousa as having dark overtones, fuzzy on any details. Giaka is a Libyan I know quite a bit more about. Why do we do things backwards from each other?

Did you also not know that the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence?
No, I am well aware of that fact. That is what I'd call the central circumstantial evidence, which I've been studying for the last year and wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on.

As Professor Black has stated, “The prosecution in their closing submissions conceded that the case against the accused was entirely circumstantial. That, of course, is no bar to a verdict of guilty. Circumstantial evidence can be just as persuasive and just as damning as the direct evidence of eyewitnesses to the commission of a crime.”
Yes, and in fact sometimes circumstantial evidence is all one can get. I've got no problem with that in concept at all. In fact, if I believed the clues presented against Megrahi were genuine, they would make a good circumstantial case - albeit for an extremely ridiculous plot.

But I don't accept the evidence presented. After looking in detail, my best guess for each and every point against Libya is fabrication, manipulation, bribery, and so on. If you want, I can explain any one of these to you, as soon as you pick some points from BrianFlynn's baker's dozen to champion and ask how on Earth could we dismiss that? For relevance to Megrahi and the case, I'll suggest as others have the evidence that Malta was connected to the bombing in any way.

Actually it’s not a bunch of crap. It is very well known that Kousa has been accused of being involved in numerous killings and terrorist plots, and is nicknamed the “Envoy of Death” . Google his name. There are tons of articles about him.
I do NOT doubt that he's been accused of things. But until I see any evidence he helped plant the stray Khreesat-style bomb into container AVE4041 at Heathrow, leading to the destruction of PA103 - or for anything convincing that Megrahi the Libyan ACTUALLY had any hand in it - I for one am left yawning.

Uhhhh… how ‘bout Fhimah? Yes, I know he was found “not guilty”.
Yes, because the judges decided virtually all the evidence against him was fabricated for money.
But many from both sides of the argument agree that the verdict w/ him should have been “not proven”.
Should've been, could've been, the judges got it right, opinions vary.

Regarding other Libyans involved, How about Abdallah Senussi? How about Col. Saleh (sp?), former LAA Chairman, replaced by Senussi, spoted at a cocktail party in Tripoli conversing intensly w/ Megrahi and Fhimah, and the others noted by Mtawa’s wife?
What's so suspicious about being "spotted"with LAA alumni Megrahi and Fhimah? I'm a little fuzzy on what you're getting at here.

For others, see pgs. 139 and 382 of this document:
No thank you. Personally I think we've got more than enough peripheral noodliness for a thread titled "Did Abdelbaset al-Megrahi blow up Pan Am 103?"

It's in your court now.

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 21st August 2010 at 01:06 AM.
Caustic Logic 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
Old 21st August 2010, 01:04 AM   #118
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle
I haven't been able to follow all the threads as closely as I'd like, so I'm not sure if we knew that the document that the government won't release seems to be about the provenance of the timer? And that the SSRC said that it alone could have been enough to free megrahi on appeal?
Sorry, missed the second half. You're always welcome in this discussion, of course, but time constraints and all, it's understandable.

It's been said that's what the document is about. I'm not totally up on that issue, sources, etc. Both Role and Buncrana know more about that PII paperwork issue. I seem to recall it's not 100% sure if it's about the timer, but the notion has been repeated several times and it's sticking.

For what it's worth, I think Rolfe is correct that payments to the Gaucis was the fourth publicized ground of appeal (unspecified as "additional evidence"), and not one of the two unpublicized ones. So the best picture we (or I) have, fuzzy as it is, is this:
- Grounds of appeal 1-4 all deal with the Gauci aspect
- One of the remaining six deals with the timer fragment PT/35(b) in a reportedly devastating way
- the sixth ground remain secret.

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 21st August 2010 at 01:09 AM.
Caustic Logic 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
Old 23rd August 2010, 08:18 PM   #119
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Prof. For others, see pgs. 139 and 382 of this document:
No thank you. Personally I think we've got more than enough peripheral noodliness for a thread titled "Did Abdelbaset al-Megrahi blow up Pan Am 103?"

It's in your court now.
Dude, suggest you read everything you can, and learn who the players are before you continue on w/ your CTs. and comments like "what other Libyans were involved?" Seriously? I can't believe you made that statement. But that's okay. I know you're new at this stuff, and interested in perhaps some day hitting the jackpot on uncovering some big CT clue. Keep at it. But I'm not holding my breath.

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

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....
Bunntamas 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
Old 24th August 2010, 01:17 AM   #120
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Dude, suggest you read everything you can, and learn who the players are before you continue on w/ your CTs. and comments like "what other Libyans were involved?" Seriously? I can't believe you made that statement. But that's okay. I know you're new at this stuff, and interested in perhaps some day hitting the jackpot on uncovering some big CT clue. Keep at it. But I'm not holding my breath.
Hey, you didn't disappear! Cool. That's a decent suggestion, and I may look into these alleged fringe characters in a plot I'm fairly sure didn't exist, as time allows. It's still not a high priority for me. The actual evidence at the heart of it all - direct suggestions of physical involvement in the actions of 21 December 1988 - is more interesting. About all you've said so far on that is:

[quote]
BUT there certainly is enough of other circumstantial... oh, sorry, peripheral info. to substantiate the verdict of GUILTY and REFUSED at the first appeal.[quote]

No, circumstantial was the right word. That - what the judges ruled on - is the central stuff I'd like to hear your detailed thoughts on.

Quote:
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.
It wasn't a demand, but a suggestion for something we know you'll be hard-pressed to support. Little surprise you don't try. Indeed, there was nothing much to show any link to the bomb back to Malta. The overall narrative required it to have happened somehow, so it's presumed to have happened somehow. But for evidence, the strong and clear stuff is all contrary to such a link. The weak and mystery-laden supporting evidence is what suggests it. It worked only because it was required by the other dubious clues you refuse to discuss, all collectively painting an illogical and ridiculous plot.

Quote:
And yes, I know about the case w/ Air Malta / Luqa / Granada TV, and all the "alleged" phone tapping and interviews... blah blah.
Blah blah? Those little trifles suggest Western authorities tried hard to find signs of Malteese complicity or of anything they could exploit to strengthen their ridiculously thin case for a Libyan bomb originating on Malta. The lawsuit (which isn't likely to recur NOW after the trial, of course) showed that Air Malta's records still strongly refute the investigation's findings. The findings they were left with after relentlessly digging for as much as possible, to the point of getting themselves kicked off the island for a while.

Quote:
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.
I believe that is true, and there does seem to be some sympathy between the nations, at times. That sneaky Maltese rat screwed up the illegal American plan to assassinated Gaddafi with a missile and I can see how that irks some people.

Quote:
The same government who allowed Libya to store arms, including TNT at the Luqa bunkers.
Evidence please? You're finally touching on core allegations. I've heard Giaka saying this, that it was Megrahi's TNT kept in Fhimah's desk. Even when you're addressing the dubious core evidence, you manage to make it a general point in your Libya fringiness, touching now on Malta in a disturbing way.

Side-note: You say you're an old-time data hound, was wondering if you could tell me what point (c) of the 1991 indictments is based on?
Quote:
(c) you ABDELBASET ALI MOHMED AL MEGRAHI and AL AMIN KHALIFA FHIMAH did between 1 January 1985 and 21 December 1988, both
dates inclusive, within the offices of Libyan Arab Airlines at Luqa Airport, Malta, at the said Libyan Cultural Centre, Sliema aforesaid, the said premises occupied by the said Libyan People’s Bureau, Malta, aforesaid, in an area of ground near Ghallis Tower, Malta and elsewhere in Malta have in your possession and under your control quantities of high performance plastic explosive and airline luggage tags;
From the middling amount I know, all I can think of is Giaka's stupid little TNT story interpreted with some imagination and the fact that the bomb contained Semtex. TNT is not mentioned alongside plastics, or anywhere in the indictments.

Quote:
The same government who, after they kicked the UK out of Luqa, allowed Libya to move on in.
That sounds interesting. Can you give us any details just what you mean? I presume this is something other than the LAA security allegation you admitted might well be an erred memory. You're clearly driving at a very Duggan-esque notion, and dangerously close to slipping into full CT nutter mode. This innuendo suggestive of that ol' "axis of mailce between Tripoli and Valetta" that I've written about with a sarcastic sneer.

Quote:
The same government that is making gobs of money off of Libya.
---

Quote:
Do you seriously think they wouldn't protect any allegations that might jeopardise that relationship ???? DUH....
Protect allegations? Again, what are you saying here? You're proposing the Maltese government knowingly help cover up the Libyan plot lauched from their island, to destroy PA103, aren't you? That could explain the absence of evidence against any Malta link, couldn't it? The lack you won't directly confront and accept, except by excusing it with lazy conspiracy theorizing?

The purchase happened on Dec. 7 you believe, so the weather records had to be altered to show bone dry conditions in Silema all day, while Gauci recalled a nice drizzle that made the buyer add an umbrella.

The Silema city council or whoever had to make flase records of when the Christmas decorations went up.

The Air Malta records that left no room for the unaccompanied suitcase, as <i>suggested</i> by the mysterious lone survivor of the Frankfurt data, must have been falsified. 39 passengers, 55 bags, all triple-corroborated and collected at the other end. That 56h that went on, the brown case Giaka saw, had to be deleted by Maltese villains, didn't it?

Then there's the alleged running of security at Malta's only international airport by LAA (alleged by you, still unsupported). This emerged nowhere in the trial evidence or anywhere else, meaning Malta must have silenced that fact. Good thing you remember it. That's BIG clue for your CT.

The lack of evidence Fhimah was at Luqa at all that day. He had to be there to do the things alleged, or for Megrahi to have done what he's alleged. We know the bomb was on that Air Malta plane, so he must've been there. the airport people interviewed remembered not seeing him must all be paid to keep quiet. Records of his airside pass being used must have disappeared.

All to cover for their Libyan friends destroying PA103 via their facilities - this is seriously what you're accusing the Maltese government of?

Quote:
Oh, Is that a distant echo of litigious warnings coming from somewhere in High Blantyre? I'm a shakin' in me boots now....
I do note you have yet to reveal your name. These paranoid delusional conspiracy theories based on some PDF you might've seen or read wrong, baseless assumptions, imagined connections, and so on.

I suggest that you simply know you cannot defend the evidence that convicted Megrahi with any logic. You can only assume it must be awesome since the judges ruled guilty, and avoid ever looking at it again. And you've gone to amazing mental lengths to excuse that unfounded position.

By contrast, I'm out in the open, name of Adam Larson. Stupid or not, too late now. And I've put my name on a petition related to my beliefs. (update: the petition was snubbed) Megrahi was framed, primarily by the American CIA and FBI. And I'm speaking in specifics and showing my homework (on request at least). You've got nothing but faith-based opinions to contradict this, do you?



I wish Rolfe would get back soon. What the hell, it's been like a month, it seems.

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 24th August 2010 at 01:22 AM.
Caustic Logic 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.