Motive Behind the Lockerbie Bombing

[Caustic Logic]

*Note - beware, mixed sarcasm in spots below*

I was just trying to work something up on the motives alleged to Libya, and it occurred to me I don't know as much as I should about the subject. Since my favorite way to learn about something is to start a discussion about it and hope some old timers with learnin' in their whiskers will pop in.

So, I'll start. Uh... well, Wikipedia says this:

Quote:

Alleged motive
The motive that is generally attributed to Libya can be traced back to a series of military confrontations with the US Navy that took place in the 1980s in the Gulf of Sidra—Libya's "territorial waters." First, there was the Gulf of Sidra incident (1981) when two Libyan fighter aircraft were shot down. Then, two Libyan radio ships were sunk in the Gulf of Sidra. Later, on 23 March 1986 a Libyan Navy patrol boat was sunk in the Gulf of Sidra,[71] followed by the sinking of another Libyan vessel on 25 March 1986.[72]

The Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi, was accused of retaliating to these sinkings by ordering the 5 April 1986 bombing of West Berlin nightclub, La Belle, that was frequented by U.S. soldiers and which killed three and injured 230.

The CIA's alleged interception of an incriminatory message from Libya to its embassy in East Berlin provided U.S. president Ronald Reagan with the justification for USAF warplanes to launch Operation El Dorado Canyon on 15 April 1986 from British bases[74][75] —the first U.S. military strikes from Britain since World War II—against Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya.

Among dozens of Libyan military and civilian casualties, the air strikes killed Hanna Gaddafi, a baby girl Gaddafi said he adopted, To avenge his daughter's death, Gaddafi is said to have sponsored the September 1986 hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi, Pakistan.[76]

Deceptive patterns: heavy use of "alleged." Is it true or not? Why doesn't this author know the exact answer? Then, on the naval encounters - I presume it was Naval forces shooting down those jets. There's no mention of the heavy U.S. losses in those engagements. Seriously, Libyans getting killed without attacking first? They always attack, evil little buggers. We probably lost 3 ships for each of theirs.

So, defensive actions by noble US forces minding their own business in "Libyan" waters leads to a nightclub bombing in revenge. Well, the nerve! So we bomb some targets including by accident a girl he "adopted," whatever exactly that means, who must have lived somewhere very near a legitimate military/terrorist site? So he gets all miffed and orders a hijacking. AND this other list of atrocities, taking dozens of lives all over the world, from another Wiki page. AND then, two and a half years later, the bombing of PA 103 which killed 270. No "said to" about it, it's just true, and all the plots go right to the top. Colonel Daffy Gaddafi/Qaddafy/Khadaffee, always, the evil genius hovering with omnipotent insatiable bloodlust and that weird, hate-able face. God I hate that guy!

Sorry... back to the subject at hand. I'm having a hard time seeing it. Of course, I don't believe any of the evidence against Libya either, so maybe I need some help. But in revenge for the deaths of about 40 people I hear, he'll launch the terrorstorm in that link, and also wait nearly three years and then order a bombing that makes 259 completely innocent people and their plane fall on 11 others?

It's possible, I suppose. It's fact, many will flatly say. But the symmetry and timing are off and I'm left wondering again "why are we suspecting Libyans at all?" That question's been addressed well elsewhere - the evidence is all bad or fake. But that has little impact on people who can so clearly see the motive, the means, and the will for the Black Colonel to launch such a cold attack.

But for comparion, I'm also wondering why this isn't a pretty good motive/revenge pairing:

1) The US takes a high-tech, expensive, non-losable/jumpy/aggressive robotic warship specializing in identifying and shooting down a hundred planes or missiles at the same time. Sends it in to help enforce sanction on Iran fight coast guard units trying pathetically to impose their embargo on Iraq. This is mid-1988, at the end of the Iraq-Iran War. The ship misidentifies one civilian airliner ascending to cruising altitude as a fighter on attack profile and destroys it with two missiles. 290 innocent people are sent falling miles to their deaths. US apologizes as sternly as possible, awards he sailors responsible, and Iran agrees to a cease-fire within a few weeks.

2) Iran takes America's investigative whitewashes as whitewashes, decided the attack was intended, probably to help badger them into surrender, and vows it will not pass without revenge. Meetings are held to plan the revenge, $10 million is reportedly paid out. Iranian Qanon e-Qesas mandates equal retaliation. Bombs triggered by altimeters and hidden in consumer electronics are commissioned, with a PFLPGC cell in Germany, and built, by a Jordanian intelligence asset. These are made to destroy a plane, in the air - at cruising altitude, usually 35-45 minutes after takeoff. The group making them is busted in late October but a few live bombs are unaccounted for.

3) Pan Am 103 blows up Dec 21 1988, 38 minutes after leaving London, and reaching cruising altitude. As described, 270 people are killed, most of them only after falling miles.

4) We're to believe that the PFLPGC cell and its bomb and plots stopped with the October bust and was then replaced with, by coincidence (?), Libya's bizarrely belated and overblown revenge for the '86 bombings? Again? In just the right time and way and death toll to fit the bill of Iran's required revenge? Even down to accidentally mimicking, with their surprisingly durable timers, the effect of the PFLPGC altimeter bombs?

5) And the Iranians never did get their revenge?

Discuss.

[Rolfe]

There's quite a bit of detail about the Tripoli/Benghazi raids in The Maltese Double Cross. I think it's probably accurate. I agree, none of it gels terribly well.

Middle Eastern experts can argue about this all day, so I suspect we're not in a position to be really informed. There were the Beirut hostages as well, of course. There are one or two readable explanations of the different theories on the net.

The part that boggles my mind is the suggestion that Lockerbie (which wasn't supposed to be Lockerbie at all of course, what were the chances that plane would land on houses?) was in fact a LIHOP. This is a moderately pervasive theory, and I note Charles is propounding it this very day over on Robert Black's blog. Baz is keen on that one too, and the MP Tam Dalyell has gone public saying he believes that's what happened. (And he was on parliamentary committees that looked into Lockerbie, so he is in a position to have some insight.)

This is actually an "agreed LIHOP" theory, as I understand it. The position is that Iran was honour bound to take revenge for the IR655, and that revenge ought to have taken the form of attacking multiple US planes (five, or eight, or something like that). I detect something chilling about the German operation name here - "Autumn Leaves". These fall from the sky, of course, in great numbers. Khreesat was making about five bombs.

The LIHOP CT alleges that a secret agreement was reached between the CIA and Iran that the USA would allow one civilian aircraft to be brought down, to let the Iranians achieve their required revenge. The quid pro quo of this being allowed and agreed, was that Iran would stop at one. PA103 was that one aircraft.

I am extremely reluctant to entertain this notion. Baz has suggested that it was laudable, to sacrifice 270 people in one airliner rather than risk half a dozen airliners being brought down (or else introduce El Al type security across the airline industry, which was impossible). I think it's appalling. I can't imagine any security forces saying, OK then, we'll let you kill 270 of our people so we can just sit back in confidence that you won't kill any more.

But maybe I'm naive. I don't know.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

1) The US takes a high-tech, expensive, non-losable/jumpy/aggressive robotic warship specializing in identifying and shooting down a hundred planes or missiles at the same time. Sends it in to help enforce sanction on Iran fight coast guard units trying pathetically to impose their embargo on Iraq. This is mid-1988, at the end of the Iraq-Iran War. The ship S Vincennes misidentifies one civilian airliner ascending to cruising altitude as a fighter on attack profile and destroys it with two missiles. While it has strayed into Iranian waters during patrol. 290 innocent people are sent falling miles to their deaths. US apologizes as sternly as possibleThe US never apologises, just expresses regret for the loss of life. Iran agrees to a cease-fire within a few weeks. Years later the US awards medals to some of the crew involved precisely because of this incident. It pays compensation to Libya, but refuses to apologise.

2) Iran takes America's investigative whitewashes as whitewashes, decided the attack was intended, probably to help badger them into surrender, and vows it will not pass without revenge. Meetings are held to plan the revenge, $10 million is reportedly paid out. Iranian Qanon e-Qesas mandates equal retaliation. Bombs triggered by altimeters and hidden in consumer electronics are commissioned, with a PFLPGC cell in Germany, and built, by an alleged Jordanian intelligence asset. These are made to destroy a plane, in the air - at cruising altitude, usually 35-45 minutes after takeoff. Some of the group making them is busted in late October but a fewone live bomb is never accounted for.

3) Pan Am 103 blows up Dec 21 1988, 38 minutes after leaving London, and reaching cruising altitude. As described, 270 people are killed, most of them only after falling miles.

4) We're to believe that the PFLPGC cell and its bomb and plots stopped with the October bust surrender of Iran in the Iran Iraq war and was then replaced with, by coincidence (?), Libya's bizarrely belated and overblown revenge for the '86 bombings? Again? In just the right time and way and death toll to fit the bill of Iran's required revenge? Even down to accidentally mimicking, with their surprisingly durable timers, the effect of the PFLPGC altimeter bombs?

5) And the Iranians never did get their revenge?

Fixed some of that a little

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

Fixed some of that a little

Sources, please.

Seriously, what's the point you're trying to make with that? The characterizations are wrong, or just tactlessly over-the-top? I may have overstated my point in the OP, but the points were all there for a reason - Iran was very mad and disbelieving for those reasons, and so revenge should be expected.

I was hoping someone would try for the middle sollution and suggest Libya was doing it FOR Iran. Any takers? It's an interesting subject where official sources collectively and on average (AFAIK) would say "yes and no, but mostly no. We'd rather not specify." Can someone check the Opinion of the Court (final verdict, 31/1/2001) for what it decided about Libyan vs. Iranian involvement?

On the LIHOP possibilities of allowed revenge mentioned by Rolfe, that i an interesting possibility to consider in this context. I've always felt the Iranians were at least allowed to get away with it once it was done. I'm not partial to that interpretation really, but there were the warnings that kept some people (Revell jr., Pik Botha, etc.) off the plane(s) while others continued on to die. A detailed look at these theories would be useful, but could easily go too far OT for this thread.

[Buncrana]

I have, since looking at the 103 attack in depth, always taken the view that the bombing was a direct retaliation for the downing of IA655. The argument and indeed the evidence that the PanAm103 bombing was an attack conceived and carried out by Libya, and it's agents, I found weak and vague. That Libya may have had a hand in either providing intelligence or some peripheral assistance I do not however completely dismiss.

Margartet Thatcher, not known for her appeasement or laxity, chose not to refer to PanAm 103 in her memoirs, and indeed remarked that Libya had never obtained it's revenge for the airstrikes carried by the US and UK in 1986, contradicting precisely the arguments and reasons that are advanced by the prosecutors of Megrahi.

In contrast, the Iranian government never shied from it's accusations and intentions following the downing of IA655 over the Persian Gulf in July 1988. Iranian Interior Minister at the time Mohtashemi, made no qualms that the attack on IA655 was seen as an act of war against the Iranian people, and that it would be avenged. There was a searing feeling of injustice and indeed as is well documented, intelligence and security agencies, together with the US govt., anticipated an Iranian revenge attack.

[Ambrosia]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Sources, please.

This whole incident is very well documented.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/79/11131.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/200605272...02/20note.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...it-455179.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/...-19920701.html
http://www.history.com/content/milit...-air-shot-down

There's bundles of other sources linked in the wikipedia pages on IA655.

Quote:

Seriously, what's the point you're trying to make with that? The characterizations are wrong, or just tactlessly over-the-top?

Both, why so much hyperbole?

e.g. where do you get "non-losable/jumpy/aggressive robotic warship specializing in identifying and shooting down a hundred planes or missiles at the same time" from?

Quote:

I was hoping someone would try for the middle sollution and suggest Libya was doing it FOR Iran. Any takers?

Why is that so far fetched?

Jibril is based in Libya at the time of the attack, he's been tasked with getting revenge over the IA655 shootdown disaster. October his Frankfurt operation gets shut down by the BKA. Early December Israeli special forces raid one of his bases in Libya and try to kill him. He's in Libya, Libya is a known terrorist state sponsor, a man like Jibril is going to have contacts within Libya that know a thing or two about bombing. It's plausible that both IA655 along with the 1986 raid on Libya were motives for the bombing of 103, they aren't mutually exclusive.

There are all kinds of claims by ex-US intelligence (lookup Robert Baer he was one of the main interviews in Lockerbie Revisited) Iranian defectors and suchlike that it was in fact primarily about IA655.

Quote:

Baer, who quit the CIA in 1997, revealed a US intelligence report said the attack was "conceived, authorised and financed" by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, who was Iran's Interior Minister in the first years of the Islamic Revolution.

The document also says the operation was carried out by Ahmad Jibril - the founder and leader of a Palestinian militant group with links to revolutionary Iran and Hezbollah.

A senior Iranian intelligence officer who fled to Turkey also claims Iran masterminded the bombing.

Ahmad Behbahani says he has documents to prove Tehran was behind the bombing.

Baer believes Iranian intelligence paid £8million into the bank account of a Syrian terror group days after the bombing in December 1988.

[ link ]

Please stick to making good arguments, based on real evidence. Your OP in this thread sounds like a ranting blog-post, that's all.

[Caustic Logic]

Buncrana: Indeed. To note, Maggie's comments are more "cryptic" and "could be read to say," but I agree with your reading and suspect it's what she meant. She doesn't talk about what she doesn't know about. That's terse, yo.

Ambrosia, sorry, I posted in haste earlier without reading the stuff you ADDED! I just saw strikethrus and then red! Lol.

Precise details aside, the ship did specialize in complex high-tech surface-air warfare. Top of its class and all that. Poor fit for what it was sent for, only excelled where it failed. Sources are around.

Agreed, unlike Lockerbie, most or many passengers would die in the missile explosion. Some at least would fall, likely conscious, about 2 1/2 miles.

The Vincennes wasn't "on patrol" either. It was going to assist its helicopter that had pursued gunboats until they shot at them, and was sinking those boats as it could, in Iranian waters, when the plane entered he scene.

"Apologized" was definitely not the right word! They were quite regretful that IRAN's hostility had caused this tragedy. If Tehran weren't so evil, the guys on the Vincennes could have read their computer screens better. Oh, wouldn't have been there, sorry.

I'm hazy on the bombs situation, yes. At least one, I've heard different versions, and other possible sources too. It fits the style.

270 for 40 is bizarrely overblown. It was late and on top of other alleged revenges, although these are sometimes just alleged, years later, so at the time... did it or would it seem that way? I don't think so.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

Both, why so much hyperbole?

Contrast! And I thought maybe I'd provoke someone into discussion.

Quote:

e.g. where do you get "non-losable/jumpy/aggressive robotic warship specializing in identifying and shooting down a hundred planes or missiles at the same time" from?

Cost as a factor in itts aggressive attitude was mentioned omewhere. Newsweek's landmark Sea of Lies article, 1992, says

Quote:

For the navy, it was a professional disgrace. The navy's most expensive surface warship, designed to track and shoot down as many as 200 incoming missiles at once, had blown apart an innocent civilian airliner in its first time in combat.

So maybe that's a bad exagerration. It's not Jane's.

Quote:

Jibril is based in Libya at the time of the attack, he's been tasked with getting revenge over the IA655 shootdown disaster. October his Frankfurt operation gets shut down by the BKA. Early December Israeli special forces raid one of his bases in Libya and try to kill him. He's in Libya, Libya is a known terrorist state sponsor, a man like Jibril is going to have contacts within Libya that know a thing or two about bombing. It's plausible that both IA655 along with the 1986 raid on Libya were motives for the bombing of 103, they aren't mutually exclusive.

The bomb was apparently just like the ones made in Germany if loaded in London. A few guys on PFLPGC orders and Iran's dime could easily move that to there by then without needing any Libyan connection, Even IF the Isrealis are going to Libya, and Jibril is sitting there, and there's a big sandstorm in Libya, and Libya historically...

I really didn't know Jibril was based there at the time. Was he in the JSO? Did he instruct Megrahi? :P

[Caustic Logic]

Let me re-snag this issue before it rolls away too far. I'd like to explore where we left off, with Iran's expected revenge apparently replaced with Libya's. Or was it a replacement? As Ambrosia said, and as other have pointed out:

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

It's plausible that both IA655 along with the 1986 raid on Libya were motives for the bombing of 103, they aren't mutually exclusive.

Indeed, this is a natural synthesis to try for if you're going to consider Libyan guilt for a crime the Iranians had the motive for. They took the contract, presumably after the October bust of the Khreesat operation. Ex:

Originally Posted by Ferguson and Biewen

Nonetheless, Cannistraro says he is persuaded that the Libyans are guilty. He says Qadhafi's government was in touch with the PFLP-GC and had, in fact, subsidized the group. But Cannistraro says he's convinced Qadhafi's men were hired to finish the Pan Am bombing only after the West German police broke up the PFLP-GC's operation. "I do think the Libyans carried it out. But I believe more it was a hand-off from the PFLP-GC after their own operational cell was compromised."

So, who conspired to bomb Pan Am 103? Iran, Syria, the PFLP-GC, or the Libyans? Cannistraro's answer is: maybe all of the above.

source

We also have this, col. Gaddafi's alleged 1993 admission, at about the same time Cannistraro really started saying the above:

Originally Posted by Arnaud de Borchgrave

"[R]etaliation, he said, was clearly called for. Iranian intelligence subcontracted retaliation to one of the Syrian intelligence services (there are 14 of them), which, in turn, subcontracted part of the retaliatory action to Libyan intelligence (at that time run by Abdullah Senoussi, Gaddafi's brother-in-law). "Did we know specifically what we were asked to do?" said Gaddafi. "We knew it would be comparable retaliation for the Iranian Airbus, but we were not told what the specific objective was," Gaddafi added."

Originally Posted by same

"[Gaddafi] admitted Libya's guilt for the downing of Pan Am 103, but made clear that it was originally an Iranian [plot] ... “So the Iranians subcontracted part of the job to a Syrian intelligence service, which, in turn, asked the Libyan Mukhabarat to handle part of the assignment," Col. Gadhafi explained. "That is the way these things were planned in those days. If we had initiated the plot, we would have made sure the accusing finger was pointed in the other direction and we would have picked Cyprus, not Malta, where some of the organization was done. The others picked Malta presumably to frame us.""

source (me)

So from the points where the Iran's revenge and Libya's actions do allegedly connect, the Iran motive seems overbearing, and the Libyans like last-minute messenger boys, themselves replacable if need be.

And whenever it pops up that we only got the "small fish" and "the big ones got away," who always pops to mind as who should be got next? Mr. Motashemi? Or Col. Gaddafi? there's a disconnect even within the limited range of the Iran/Libya joint-action theory.

And from there it gets worse. What was ever done about certain Iranins' roles (as financiers and ultimate masterminds no less) in this? IF there was any Iranian role, it's been obscured and fudged away. If there wasn't ... then who's going to step up and applaud Iran's amazing self-restrain in this tat with no tit?

What am I missing here?

[Caustic Logic]

And to emphasize, not necc. to Ambrosia - Libya's role and the morality of squeezing them alone mattered most when they were being squeezed by sanctions and other pressures from 1992 onwards to the late 1990s. Responding to questions like 'what about Iran?" officials said things like this:

Quote:

Libya Still Only Suspect in Bombing International Herald Tribune, Jan 13, 1994 LONDON (AP)

There is no evidence that any country other than Libya was involved in the bombing of a Pan Am jumbo jet over Scotland in 1988, but the inquiry into the matter remains open, Prime Minister John Major said Wednesday.

Mr. Major was asked in the House of Commons about reports suggesting that Syria and Iran might have been involved in the bombing, which killed all 259 people on board the New York-bound flight and 11 people on the ground in Lockerbie, Scotland.

Britain and the United States have named two Libyans as suspects in the bombing, and the United Nations has imposed sanctions against Libya because it has refused to extradite the suspects.

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/lockerbie.htm

Quote:

Robert Mueller, U.S. Assistant Attorney General] We have no evidence to implicate another country in this disaster.
[Douglas Hurd, British Foreign Secretary] I understand the investigation has revealed no evidence to support suggestions of involvement by any other countries.

http://www.american-buddha.com/franc...altesetran.htm

6 March 1995: Mr. Douglas Hogg:

Quote:

The Lockerbie investigators have given exhaustive consideration to all information relevant to the Lockerbie bombing. The possible involvement by nationals of a number of countries has been very closely investigated. Despite the unprecedented scale of the investigation, the available evidence does not support charges against the nationals of any country besides Libya. But the investigation remains open and any relevant new information will be considered.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...rittens-1.html