Dialog on Lockerbie theories

Caustic Logic · 26th December 2009, 06:32 PM

Hello, all. I'm fishing for genuine thoughts regarding a controversial issue with broad political implications.

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

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

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

So I guess I'm that guy in the fedora, and say thanks for anyone that does share.

shemp · 26th December 2009, 09:38 PM

1. I don't know you.

2. I don't respect you.

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

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

Caustic Logic · 27th December 2009, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by shemp

1. I don't know you.

2. I don't respect you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

theprestige · 27th December 2009, 12:48 AM

Why a fedora?

Caustic Logic · 27th December 2009, 12:59 AM

Literary device?

GlennB · 27th December 2009, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by shemp

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

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

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

Caustic Logic · 27th December 2009, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry it's kind of nerdy. Thanks.

Specifics, especially - with 9/11 you could ask "where did they send the passengers?" "how did they fake the TV feeds in real-time? "How did they get Osama to confess on video to details of the plot?" There are things you've eard about this too, certain witnesses and pieces of evidence - what seems to fail about the "Megrahi is innocent" line?

Skeptic · 27th December 2009, 11:13 AM

Sorry, but the "let us be skeptical and start from scratch while ignoring the official line because we all know officials sometimes lie" is just a typical conspiracy theory literary device.

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

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

But we are under no obligation at all to start from scratch, over and over again, every time some schmuck who fancies himself a "rebel" who is "skeptical of official stories" feels like it.

GlennB · 27th December 2009, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Sorry, but the "let us be skeptical and start from scratch while ignoring the official line because we all know officials sometimes lie" is just a typical conspiracy theory literary device.

No. The official line is specifically not being ignored. In fact it's the very source of all the hoo-ha. If interested, check Caustic Logic's links above.

pipelineaudio · 27th December 2009, 11:43 AM

Wow, instead of just saying "I dont know" or just not answering, you gotta insult the guy.

Right out of the guitar center training manual

Brainster · 27th December 2009, 12:00 PM

As I have said elsewhere when this topic has been brought up, if you have evidence that disproves al Megrahi and Libya's involvement, don't just talk about it on an internet forum. Take it to the authorities, and if they won't do anything about it, take it to a good investigative journalist, or write it up yourself and submit it to one of the major magazines.

Alt+F4 · 27th December 2009, 12:24 PM

It's December 27th and al-Mergrahi is still alive. Now reports that he had

almost €2.2m in a Swiss bank account during his trial.

The Scottish government got spanked bad.

theprestige · 27th December 2009, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Literary device?

Well, if you're trying to write the next Dan Brown novel, may I suggest the History and Literature subforum?

Rolfe · 27th December 2009, 01:44 PM

You're not going to get anywhere, CL. These guys don't want to take the trouble to examine the evidence.

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

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

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

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

Rolfe.

TriskettheKid · 27th December 2009, 01:50 PM

There is already a conspiracy theories forum.

And I'll echo what's been said:

If you've got the proof, then do something with it. Take it to an investigative journalist, or the authorities, or something.

Rolfe · 27th December 2009, 02:14 PM

What proof? Caustic Logic doesn't know who did it. I don't know who did it.

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

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

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

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

Rolfe.

TriskettheKid · 27th December 2009, 02:16 PM

I'll say it again:

If you have definitive proof he is innocent, or was framed, then do something with it. Take it to an investigative journalist, or someone who can get it some exposure. Take it to the authorities. Take it somewhere.

Rolfe · 27th December 2009, 02:24 PM

So, you have nothing to contribute.

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

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

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

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

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

Rolfe.

Arcade22 · 27th December 2009, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

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

I'd rather trust a real life court of law than some guy on the internet, is there something wrong with that?

TriskettheKid · 27th December 2009, 02:29 PM

Again, this is the Politics forum.

There already is a Conspiracy Theories forum.

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

Otherwise, so far as I am concerned, this is a thread where someone is JAQ under the guise of a dialogue.

Skeptic · 27th December 2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

What's being said is that the evidence on which Megrahi's conviction was based does not in fact, establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

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

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

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

andyandy · 27th December 2009, 02:33 PM

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

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

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

Rolfe · 27th December 2009, 02:41 PM

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

Don't be ridiculous.

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

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

Rolfe.

Rolfe · 27th December 2009, 02:48 PM

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

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

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

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

Enquiring minds want to know.

Rolfe.

GlennB · 27th December 2009, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

I'll say it again:

If you have definitive proof he is innocent, or was framed, then do something with it. Take it to an investigative journalist, or someone who can get it some exposure. Take it to the authorities. Take it somewhere.

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

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

Or are you just uncomfortable with this particular subject?

pipelineaudio · 27th December 2009, 03:14 PM

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

theprestige · 27th December 2009, 03:24 PM

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

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

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

theprestige · 27th December 2009, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

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

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

andyandy · 27th December 2009, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

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

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

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

pipelineaudio · 27th December 2009, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

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

Then why are you all over this thread?

Here's one more suiting for you http://www.internationalskeptics.com...68#post5452568

theprestige · 27th December 2009, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by andyandy

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

Then why are you all over this thread?

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

Quote:

Here's one more suiting for you http://www.internationalskeptics.com...68#post5452568

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

Caustic Logic · 27th December 2009, 04:19 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Caustic Logic · 27th December 2009, 04:30 PM

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

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

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

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

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

What are the questions that will stump us?

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

Arcade22 · 27th December 2009, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

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

I think the UK's government LIHOP

Caustic Logic · 27th December 2009, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I think the UK's government LIHOP

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

theprestige · 27th December 2009, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I think the UK's government LIHOP

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

Ambrosia · 27th December 2009, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

Again, this is the Politics forum.

There already is a Conspiracy Theories forum.

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

Quote:

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

argument from NIMBY??

Originally Posted by Skeptic

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caustic Logic · 27th December 2009, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

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

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

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

Arcade22 · 27th December 2009, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

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

I was really serious when i wrote that...

Caustic Logic · 27th December 2009, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

lol.

26th December 2009, 06:32 PM	#1
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,494	Dialog on Lockerbie theories Hello, all. I'm fishing for genuine thoughts regarding a controversial issue with broad political implications. Imagine some person wearing a fedora hat walks up to you and tells you al Megrahi and the Libyans were framed for the Lockerbie bombing. Now pretend this is a person you know and respect, so you have to take their little delusion seriously for a moment. What would you argue back with? How much do you really know? What questions would you have? Just starting from where you are at the moment. Do you even care if someone has reason to believe the killers of 270 people have gone free while the Libyans were harassed as their escape cover? I'm asking because I'm curious about the other side of the Lockerbie line I find myself on the "wrong" side of. There are a lot of people who believe the official story and invest anger and opinions in it. I was wondering why and what's the nature of their belief and understanding of the issue. So I guess I'm that guy in the fedora, and say thanks for anyone that does share.

27th December 2009, 11:13 AM	#8
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 18,312	Sorry, but the "let us be skeptical and start from scratch while ignoring the official line because we all know officials sometimes lie" is just a typical conspiracy theory literary device. The "let's start from scratch" idea is simply a literary device that really means "let's ignore the official story and all the evidence that supported it in the first place, and start from whatever information I just happen to have lying around." This is the same sort of "reasoning" used by creationists, 9/11 truthers, holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, etc. But it's nonsense. The point is, those who give the official story ALREADY DID the work to prove it, usually (as with the holocaust and evolution) many, many times over. If you have any evidence AGAINST the official story -- and it better be very good evidence -- by all means provide it. But we are under no obligation at all to start from scratch, over and over again, every time some schmuck who fancies himself a "rebel" who is "skeptical of official stories" feels like it.
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 18,312

27th December 2009, 11:43 AM	#10
pipelineaudio Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,017	Wow, instead of just saying "I dont know" or just not answering, you gotta insult the guy. Right out of the guitar center training manual
	__________________ Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it

27th December 2009, 12:00 PM	#11
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 20,310	As I have said elsewhere when this topic has been brought up, if you have evidence that disproves al Megrahi and Libya's involvement, don't just talk about it on an internet forum. Take it to the authorities, and if they won't do anything about it, take it to a good investigative journalist, or write it up yourself and submit it to one of the major magazines.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

27th December 2009, 01:44 PM	#14
Rolfe Adult human female Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 50,593	You're not going to get anywhere, CL. These guys don't want to take the trouble to examine the evidence. I've said it before, the Camp Zeist verdict was political, and as far as the actual evidence goes, I wouldn't give anyone a parking ticket on the basis of that lot. And the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission thought there was a reasonable possibility there was a miscarriage of justice. The official UN observer to the trial thought it was a farce. And so on. However, you want devil's advocate. I'd have to go with what Cannistraro isn't saying out loud, which is that the entire Maltese airline security service was completely in the pocket of the Libyan government, from the humblest baggage loader to the chief of security. That in fact quite a lot of people knew that Megrahi had put an unaccompanied bag on KM180, but all the necessary paperwork to conceal this was fabricated, and not one single person involved put a foot wrong when sticking to this story, over many years, repeated questioning and several court cases. I have to wonder if the judges at Camp Zeist somehow thought that's what happened, despite no evidence to that effect being led. There's no other way to explain how Megrahi could possibly have done what he was convicted of doing. The trouble is, that's a bigger CT than the CTs. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

26th December 2009, 09:38 PM	#2
shemp a flimsy character...perfidious and despised Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Where the Old Man of the Mountain used to stand Posts: 57,347	1. I don't know you. 2. I don't respect you. 3. I don't have to take your delusion seriously. 4. Conspiracy Theories forum is down the hall, third door on the right. Go there, provide your "evidence", and then we can discuss it.
	__________________ "An empty void is growing between his ears. Distant screams can be heard echoing in the darkness." -- JihadJane "THIS is why we shouldn't let hippies onto airplanes! If they're all in to natural things and wildlife and stuff, maybe they should fly on a dolphin!" -- gnome

27th December 2009, 12:44 AM	#3
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,494	Originally Posted by shemp 1. I don't know you. 2. I don't respect you. 3. I don't have to take your delusion seriously. 4. Conspiracy Theories forum is down the hall, third door on the right. Go there, provide your "evidence", and then we can discuss it. Ooooh, zing. Thanks for the comment. It's not much different than I expected - people who aren't good at pretending. This may not be the right forum, but I'm not looking to argue a conspiracy theory, but rather get a feel for the socio-political climate on the issue. There seems to be a big gap in understanding between those who look closely at it and those who just watch the news and trust. So far I'm guessing all the "he's guilty shut up" people category are in the latter category. 'cause none has tried to show how much they've studied it. Oh, and it has been brought up in the CT category, plenty as I'm sure you've noticed. No one has a cogent counter-argument to the "delusions" presented/supported by Rolfe, Buncrana, Dan O., Glen B, Ambrosia, Professor Yaffle, myself, and others. I don't recall you popping in with any reality checks yet. Pick your poison if you'd rather discuss it there. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=85523 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=153971 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=155657 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=158909 But for here, since you're the only biter, could you just explain what you already know and why you're satisfied with those conclusions? What's the best evidence for Megrahi's guilt in your opinion? A top five, or certain way of assembling the clues? Details? If you don't know, check out for example Giaka's testimony. Amazing detail of the plot all know to him, the smoking gun touted for years by Cannistraro at the CIA as breaking the Libyan plot on Malta down in "excruciating detail," re-paid fairly well (no details), under witness protection still, presented at the Camp Zeist trial as the star witness, and was dismissed thusly. So no, that's not the best evidence... pick another one.

27th December 2009, 12:48 AM	#4
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 67,275	Why a fedora?

27th December 2009, 12:59 AM	#5
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,494	Literary device?

27th December 2009, 01:21 AM	#6
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 30,984	Originally Posted by shemp 3. I don't have to take your delusion seriously. This is absolutely true once it's established that he is deluded. But this brings us to the point of Caustic's o/p, it seems to me. What is your basis for believing the official line? Of course, saying "Life is full of such complex subjects and I can't study them all. The decision was made by a court and I'll go with that, by default" is perfectly reasonable. But this doesn't justify saying "You are deluded" does it?

27th December 2009, 02:50 AM	#7
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,494	Originally Posted by GlennB This is absolutely true once it's established that he is deluded. But this brings us to the point of Caustic's o/p, it seems to me. What is your basis for believing the official line? Of course, saying "Life is full of such complex subjects and I can't study them all. The decision was made by a court and I'll go with that, by default" is perfectly reasonable. But this doesn't justify saying "You are deluded" does it? Well, I used delusion first, without the " I should've used. Quoted back I'm not so sure, but it did sound pretty dismissive. That's totally true about presumption of guilt being reasonable. I don't mean to dismiss the official story lightly (as you know, we haven't been "light" about it) or begrudge someone for accepting it at face value. But there's this mass of people you can see in less educated fora just spewing vile uneducated certainties into nuclear proportions. Why haven't we wiped Libya from the map? Nuke Scotland! Oil deals! Angry and stupid! But seriously, these are the people I want to talk to, with a website (team effort?). Presuming I can get their attention somehow, get them to realize with a winding gut shot that we do indeed have something here, I'd like to know what "average Joes" would want to know. Okay, this forum is a bit aove average on average, but there are many here, biting their tongues, with opinions of the conventional kind but not familiar yet with the case against the case against Megrahi. I can actually answer questions here as best I can. but mainly I'd just like to hear what they are. Sorry it's kind of nerdy. Thanks. Specifics, especially - with 9/11 you could ask "where did they send the passengers?" "how did they fake the TV feeds in real-time? "How did they get Osama to confess on video to details of the plot?" There are things you've eard about this too, certain witnesses and pieces of evidence - what seems to fail about the "Megrahi is innocent" line?

27th December 2009, 11:26 AM	#9
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 30,984	Originally Posted by Skeptic Sorry, but the "let us be skeptical and start from scratch while ignoring the official line because we all know officials sometimes lie" is just a typical conspiracy theory literary device. No. The official line is specifically not being ignored. In fact it's the very source of all the hoo-ha. If interested, check Caustic Logic's links above.

27th December 2009, 12:24 PM	#12
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10,017	It's December 27th and al-Mergrahi is still alive. Now reports that he had almost €2.2m in a Swiss bank account during his trial. The Scottish government got spanked bad.

27th December 2009, 01:29 PM	#13
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 67,275	Originally Posted by Caustic Logic Literary device? Well, if you're trying to write the next Dan Brown novel, may I suggest the History and Literature subforum?

27th December 2009, 01:50 PM	#15
TriskettheKid Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,431	There is already a conspiracy theories forum. And I'll echo what's been said: If you've got the proof, then do something with it. Take it to an investigative journalist, or the authorities, or something.

27th December 2009, 02:14 PM	#16
Rolfe Adult human female Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 50,593	What proof? Caustic Logic doesn't know who did it. I don't know who did it. What's being said is that the evidence on which Megrahi's conviction was based does not, in fact, establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Despite the court verdict. An opinion the SCCRC appeared to share. Not to mention Professor Kochler, Professor Black and others who have studied the case in detail. Most strikingly, it would appear that nobody has any real clue how the bomb was introduced into the baggage system. The judges described this as "a serious difficulty for the prosecution". Nevertheless, they decided that somehow, against all the actual evidence, Megrahi had somehow smuggled it on to KA180 from Luqa at Frankfurt. This despite the fact that the Luqa security authorities had all the baggage records for the flight and could show there was no unaccompanied bag on board. Extensive enquiries and interviews failed to dent this evidence, and indeed the Maltese authorities prevailed in two separate libel actions against journalists who asserted that the bomb was introduced in that way. Caustic Logic seems to be asking how those who support the court's verdict rationalise this aspect. Do they subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the entire Air Malta and Luqa Airport security system was subverted by the Libyan government, so that a perfect set of false documents was created and sworn to by everyone concerned, and nobody ever cracked under questioning and revealed an inconsistency, and nobody who was aware of the truth ever spoke out despite the horrendous loss of 270 lives that ensued? Or is there any other rational way a belief in Megrahi's guilt can be sustained? Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

27th December 2009, 02:16 PM	#17
TriskettheKid Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,431	I'll say it again: If you have definitive proof he is innocent, or was framed, then do something with it. Take it to an investigative journalist, or someone who can get it some exposure. Take it to the authorities. Take it somewhere.

27th December 2009, 02:24 PM	#18
Rolfe Adult human female Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 50,593	So, you have nothing to contribute. You don't even have the first idea about the grounds for the appeal that were declared sufficient to suggest a possible miscarriage of justice. You haven't read the acres of print by multiple investigative journalists exploring many aspects of this singular affair. Not to mention the many documentaries doing the same thing. This is a discussion forum. Caustic Logic would like to discuss. You may not want to discuss, but your dismissive attitude is entirely out of keeping with the spirit of the forum. Do you really think it's illegitimate to question a court's verdict unless you, personally, have some killer evidence that proves the verdict was wrong? How do you explain the impermeable nature of the Luqa baggage records, in the light of the court verdict that the bomb was introduced at that airport? Your faith in a court's judgement is beginning to border on the religious, you know. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. Last edited by Rolfe; 27th December 2009 at 02:36 PM.

27th December 2009, 02:26 PM	#19
Arcade22 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 7,695	Originally Posted by Rolfe Your faith in a court's judgement is beginning to border on the religious, you know. I'd rather trust a real life court of law than some guy on the internet, is there something wrong with that?
	__________________ We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann

27th December 2009, 02:29 PM	#20
TriskettheKid Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,431	Again, this is the Politics forum. There already is a Conspiracy Theories forum. And, again, if you've got some evidence that he is innocent, take it to the proper people. Take it to the authorities. Take it to an investigative journalist. Take it to a news network. Take it somewhere. Otherwise, so far as I am concerned, this is a thread where someone is JAQ under the guise of a dialogue.

27th December 2009, 02:33 PM	#21
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 18,312	Quote: What's being said is that the evidence on which Megrahi's conviction was based does not in fact, establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Which is why he has $3,000,000 stashed away, courtesy of (presumably) Quaddafi. You know, because Quaddafi just cannot stand someone being falsely accused of some crime, and felt a deep, emotional need to compensate him for the horrible injustice. Anyway... again: if you, Mycroft Holmes-style, managed to show this man's innocence without ever leaving your computer's chair, then please take this to the authorities. Demand a retrial. Start a petition. A man had been convicted of a horrible crime without doing it -- and you're silent? Where have you been until now?
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 18,312

27th December 2009, 02:33 PM	#22
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 8,377	There's been some excellent investigative reporting on this subject - at the very least there is enough to suggest that the Megrahi conviction should be re-examined. It's harder to believe that Libya were purposefully framed, though again Paul Foot (i think) made some decent arguments for the possibility. the facts are that a terrorist group working with/without state assistance blew up an airline. The question is simply which terrorist group and which individuals were actually responsible.........just because it involves an airplane and the terms conspiracy doesn't mean it's in any way comparable to 9-11. There's no credible belief in western complicity in the action itself, merely the suggestion that Megrahi provided a useful scapegoat to jail, and just possibily that Libya provided a useful state upon which to hang the atrocity (after all they had a long history of state sponsored terrorism.....) I think it's clear from all the "possiblies" in those paragraphs that I don't know enough on this subject to form any clear opinions, but I do know enough that some of the responses on this thread are somewhat rude. I guess people get used to insulting 9-11 truthers and start foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of conspiracy, where ever and whenever, regardless of the facts.

27th December 2009, 02:41 PM	#23
Rolfe Adult human female Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 50,593	Megrahi had money in a Swiss bank account. So, everyone with money in a Swiss bank account may be assumed to be in the business of blowing up airliners? No, having money in a Swiss bank account means the account-holder blew up this airliner? Don't be ridiculous. The guy was a Libyan inteligence operative. High level. There were sanctions in place against Libya at the time. There were deals to be done. There was stuff to be smuggled, stuff that had to be paid for. Did anyone ever suggest he was a Sunday School teacher (or even the Moslem equivalent)? The question is, did he plant the bomb that blew up Pan Am 103, not, was he a plaster saint. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

27th December 2009, 02:48 PM	#24
Rolfe Adult human female Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 50,593	Regarding the CT forum. There are several threads in that forum about Pan Am 103, however they are ~~almost~~ totally lacking in anyone providing informed support for the "Megrahi did it" theory. Drive-by assertions that court verdicts are never wrong, and nothing else. This is in marked contrast to the time and effort put into the 9/11 threads, where no matter how insane a twoofer's assertions, there are always posters prepared to engage with the arguments and refute them on their own merit - or lack of it. I can see why Caustic Logis started this thread. To try to elicit some actual reasoning from those who cling to the "official version". This is, quite arguably, a political thing. Why is this particular verdict sacrosanct, why do so many people adhere to it with almost religious fervour despite the well-documented holes in the evidence? Why do so many people come out of the woodwork to do no more than declare that they refuse to weigh up the evidence for themseves, or even to give a moment's thought to the possibility that Megrahi didn't do it? Enquiring minds want to know. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. Last edited by Rolfe; 27th December 2009 at 02:51 PM.

27th December 2009, 03:12 PM	#25
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 30,984	Originally Posted by TriskettheKid I'll say it again: If you have definitive proof he is innocent, or was framed, then do something with it. Take it to an investigative journalist, or someone who can get it some exposure. Take it to the authorities. Take it somewhere. Would you limit this approach purely to legal matters? Or should it also apply to homeopathy, Guantanamo Bay, chiropractic, TV evangelists, politicians, Bhopal, cholesterol and 1001 other subjects that are discussed on JREF? Should we produce a written summary of our views on the "Is golf a sport or a game?" subject, write to the media and sporting authorities and stfu about it on JREF? Or are you just uncomfortable with this particular subject?

27th December 2009, 03:14 PM	#26
pipelineaudio Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,017	Im really interested in this one, especially in light of the fact they thought it was fit to release the guy. I wish people could say "I don't know" instead of derailing the threat with CT accusations
	__________________ Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it

27th December 2009, 03:24 PM	#27
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 67,275	Why would the same people who are uninterested in going over to the Conspiracy Theories forum to engage this topic be any more willing to engage this topic on some other forum entirely? And investigoogling an excuse to disagree with a court ruling is not a particularly interesting counterpoint to a lot of people. I mean, there's always a reason to disagree with a court's finding. Sometimes it's even a good reason. Sometimes, the court's finding is even wrong. But that doesn't mean that just because CL has decided to privilege this particular courtroom drama in his own personal history research project, that doesn't mean that anybody else has to, or that anybody is committing a crime against humanity, social justice, or political honesty because they don't particularly care about it.

27th December 2009, 03:26 PM	#28
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 67,275	Originally Posted by pipelineaudio Im really interested in this one, especially in light of the fact they thought it was fit to release the guy. I wish people could say "I don't know" instead of derailing the threat with CT accusations Well, I woudn't go so far as to say "I don't know", but I will happily admit that "I don't care". And, not caring, the court's finding is more than good enough for me.

27th December 2009, 03:32 PM	#29
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 8,377	Originally Posted by theprestige But that doesn't mean that just because CL has decided to privilege this particular courtroom drama in his own personal history research project, that doesn't mean that anybody else has to, or that anybody is committing a crime against humanity, social justice, or political honesty because they don't particularly care about it. The line between politics and CT is hardly a bright one in this case - the discussion of the details is overtly political in nature. It can perfectly well belong in the politics section, and if you don't care about it, don't bother to click on the thread...... And why the need for snide comments about "personal history research project"? We all start threads on all sorts of topics, let's discuss the comment not the commenter.....

27th December 2009, 03:42 PM	#30
pipelineaudio Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,017	Originally Posted by theprestige Well, I woudn't go so far as to say "I don't know", but I will happily admit that "I don't care". And, not caring, the court's finding is more than good enough for me. Then why are you all over this thread? Here's one more suiting for you http://www.internationalskeptics.com...68#post5452568
	__________________ Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it

27th December 2009, 03:55 PM	#31
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 67,275	Originally Posted by andyandy The line between politics and CT is hardly a bright one in this case - the discussion of the details is overtly political in nature. It can perfectly well belong in the politics section, and if you don't care about it, don't bother to click on the thread...... I find the existence of this thread a more interesting topic than the subject of this thread. Quote: And why the need for snide comments about "personal history research project"? We all start threads on all sorts of topics, let's discuss the comment not the commenter..... You are seeing snideness where none was intended. My intent was to underline that CL's interest is--so far--personal in nature, and not particularly of general political interest, neither on this forum nor in mainstream discourse. Originally Posted by pipelineaudio Then why are you all over this thread? I'd like to think that my contributions to the thread give a pretty accurate glimpse of the aspects of this "dialogue" that I find interesting. Quote: Here's one more suiting for you http://www.internationalskeptics.com...68#post5452568 Thanks, but I'm not all that interested in the OJ thing, either.

27th December 2009, 04:19 PM	#32
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,494	Wow, this thread took off. Actually this is helpful, folks. I'm getting that some of you don't know, don't care, and you don't want to talk or hear about it, and I should take it to the authorities and/or mainstream media and then they will look at it and tell you about it like always. I doubt the authorities who matter most really think he's guilty. They are not just waiting for someone to point out their goof-up. The FBI MAY send a polite "whats your problem" response, if I alert them and I'm lucky. Media, better bet, if not New York Times. We'll see. A great website is a start, not an end point. (that was for Brainster more than anyone). AndyAndy makes the good point that there is, whatever you believe, too much controversy to warrant simple dismissal. The politics here to explore is why do people accept a certain viewpoint on such an issue and dismiss with a flick of the wrist other viewpoints?
	Last edited by Caustic Logic; 27th December 2009 at 05:31 PM. Reason: Not dandy, sorry

27th December 2009, 04:30 PM	#33
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,494	GlennB, Rolfe, posts #24 and 25 nailed it awesomely. It's personal for me, for them, and for others who can see it (ie those who've friggin LOOKED) that there's too much uncertainty at the very least. The "architect" of the trial, the UN observer there, the smartest of the victims' family members, CIA agents, Israeli Prime Ministers, prominent jurists and journalists, have all stopped to look and stayed stopped, looking deeper. That is why people should stop a second and ask something like, for example: Okay, if Megrahi didn't do it, then who did? They had to be Libyan, right, cause of the timer? Didn't the bomb come from Malta, which is where Megrahi was? Didn't Tony Gauci identify the guy in a lineup? What are the questions that will stump us? Or is the ultimate stumper just "we don't care"?

27th December 2009, 04:38 PM	#34
Arcade22 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 7,695	Originally Posted by Caustic Logic Okay, if Megrahi didn't do it, then who did? I think the UK's government LIHOP
	__________________ We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann

27th December 2009, 05:33 PM	#35
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,494	Originally Posted by Arcade22 I think the UK's government LIHOP No, I'm fishing for questions, not answers! Especially made-up silly ones. Aaargh! (in Charlie Brown total fail fashion).