Does anyone (other than those paid to believe impossible things) genuinely believe that Libya ordered the Lockerbie bombing?
8 thoughts on “Libya question”
Oh crumbs John. Talk about a poser. When you say Libya, who do you mean? While you’re answering that one, you might as well let us in on the clear-as-daylight real culprit too.
Umm- I hope it’s clear I meant ‘a tricky, unanswerable question’ by the word ‘poser’, rather than one who preens.
Am I to assume that you’re in the Libya camp then?
There’s no great shortage of evidence implicating Iran, no shortage of reasons why the governments at the time would have preferred to hold Libya responsible, and some shortage of published evidence against Libya (and yes, I have read the Scottish court proceedings – the judges in the trial used the strangest definition of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ I’ve ever seen…).
For all I know, there might be an enormous wodge of secret intelligence material proving that Colonel Q was the man behind it all – or that he wasn’t. But it wasn’t produced at the trial, and hasn’t been produced since.
Agh. The first point isn’t literally true… there’s "evidence that Iran had a motive, understood how to blow stuff up, and had no qualms about killing Americans". There’s no concrete evidence I’ve seen linking Iran to the bombing, however.
In short, it’s just like Libya, but with more of a motive (revenge for American shootdown of Iranian passenger plane), more terror-backing form, and more secret dealings with members of the governments of the time.
I don’t understand what the ‘centrist’ means in your blog description.
Err, not rightwing and not leftwing… Hence, I approve of free trade and outsourcing, and disapprove of blustering conservatives, hypocritical religiousites, and bureaucratic authoritarians. What was the bit you had trouble with?
I would claim to be a libertarian, but I don’t believe the poor should starve or that everyone should have their own tank.
(also it sounds a bit too like "librarian" or "Liberian" for me to be comfortable with it. I suspect a country run by libertarians would be more dangerous but more fun than a counry run by librarians, and less dangerous and more fun than a country run by Liberians. In the latter case I’m judging by the example of Liberia, which may be unfair…)
(I was distressed, during the recent Liberia unpleasantness, to hear that George Bush pronounces the word "Liberian" about how he pronounces "librarian". I wonder if he delayed action for so long because he couldn’t see what was threatening about a civil war in a library….)
Oh crumbs John. Talk about a poser. When you say Libya, who do you mean? While you’re answering that one, you might as well let us in on the clear-as-daylight real culprit too.
Umm- I hope it’s clear I meant ‘a tricky, unanswerable question’ by the word ‘poser’, rather than one who preens.
Am I to assume that you’re in the Libya camp then?
There’s no great shortage of evidence implicating Iran, no shortage of reasons why the governments at the time would have preferred to hold Libya responsible, and some shortage of published evidence against Libya (and yes, I have read the Scottish court proceedings – the judges in the trial used the strangest definition of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ I’ve ever seen…).
For all I know, there might be an enormous wodge of secret intelligence material proving that Colonel Q was the man behind it all – or that he wasn’t. But it wasn’t produced at the trial, and hasn’t been produced since.
Agh. The first point isn’t literally true… there’s "evidence that Iran had a motive, understood how to blow stuff up, and had no qualms about killing Americans". There’s no concrete evidence I’ve seen linking Iran to the bombing, however.
In short, it’s just like Libya, but with more of a motive (revenge for American shootdown of Iranian passenger plane), more terror-backing form, and more secret dealings with members of the governments of the time.
I don’t understand what the ‘centrist’ means in your blog description.
Err, not rightwing and not leftwing… Hence, I approve of free trade and outsourcing, and disapprove of blustering conservatives, hypocritical religiousites, and bureaucratic authoritarians. What was the bit you had trouble with?
I would claim to be a libertarian, but I don’t believe the poor should starve or that everyone should have their own tank.
(also it sounds a bit too like "librarian" or "Liberian" for me to be comfortable with it. I suspect a country run by libertarians would be more dangerous but more fun than a counry run by librarians, and less dangerous and more fun than a country run by Liberians. In the latter case I’m judging by the example of Liberia, which may be unfair…)
(I was distressed, during the recent Liberia unpleasantness, to hear that George Bush pronounces the word "Liberian" about how he pronounces "librarian". I wonder if he delayed action for so long because he couldn’t see what was threatening about a civil war in a library….)
Let’s settle om "libyan" then.