Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:10:33 +0100
"Recliner" wrote: Allegedly Syrian terrorists, under contract from the Iranian government (in revenge for the Iranian Airbus shot down by the US Navy). The bomb All considered around the time of the original investigation. Almost certainly, the US and British governments know exactly what happened, but it would be too embarrassing to admit it. Yeah , its a cover up! Where are Mulder and Scully when you need them? See www.lockerbietruth.com Well , if its on a website it must be true. As for the families, they don't believe the dubious conviction either: news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-Al-Megrahi-release-welcomed.5574557.jp That would be *some* of the families. In fact a rather small minority. B2003 |
#62
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:10:33 +0100 "Recliner" wrote: Allegedly Syrian terrorists, under contract from the Iranian government (in revenge for the Iranian Airbus shot down by the US Navy). The bomb All considered around the time of the original investigation. Almost certainly, the US and British governments know exactly what happened, but it would be too embarrassing to admit it. Yeah , its a cover up! Where are Mulder and Scully when you need them? See www.lockerbietruth.com Well , if its on a website it must be true. As for the families, they don't believe the dubious conviction either: news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-Al-Megrahi-release-welcomed.5574557.jp That would be *some* of the families. In fact a rather small minority. I never realised that you were such a friend of the Establishment, who believed every word that emanated from it. |
#63
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:38:32 +0100
"Recliner" wrote: As for the families, they don't believe the dubious conviction either: news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-Al-Megrahi-release-welcomed.5574557.jp That would be *some* of the families. In fact a rather small minority. I never realised that you were such a friend of the Establishment, who believed every word that emanated from it. I find it easier to believe that a group of judges weighed up the evidence and based a conviction on that than there being an almighty international conspiracy of silence with so called "experts" popping up out of the woodwork after the fact to make a name for themselves. Until proven otherwise I'm going to continue to mentally pigeonhole the megrahi-is-innocent crowd with the same kind of loons who think Kennedy was assasinated by the CIA, David Kelly was done in by MI5 and that the moon landings were a hoax. All these axe grinding groups have apparent "evidence" to back up their claims until you look at it closely and realise what a load of confused circumstantial nonsense it really is. B2003 |
#64
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:38:32 +0100 "Recliner" wrote: As for the families, they don't believe the dubious conviction either: news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-Al-Megrahi-release-welcomed.5574557.jp That would be *some* of the families. In fact a rather small minority. I never realised that you were such a friend of the Establishment, who believed every word that emanated from it. I find it easier to believe that a group of judges weighed up the evidence and based a conviction on that than there being an almighty international conspiracy of silence with so called "experts" popping up out of the woodwork after the fact to make a name for themselves. Until proven otherwise I'm going to continue to mentally pigeonhole the megrahi-is-innocent crowd with the same kind of loons who think Kennedy was assasinated by the CIA, David Kelly was done in by MI5 and that the moon landings were a hoax. All these axe grinding groups have apparent "evidence" to back up their claims until you look at it closely and realise what a load of confused circumstantial nonsense it really is. Yes, fully agreed about all those cases, and many other similar ones (eg, 911 was all a US/Israeli setup), but Lockerbie is different. Just do some research. It was certainly a terrorist attack, just done by a different bunch of terrorists to those set up for it in the juryless kangaroo court in a former US airbase. And don't suggest that British justice always convicts the right people for terrorist attacks -- all too often, the wrong ones ended up in jail. Note that it's not just a bunch of certified fruitcakes who question this dodgy conviction. For example, http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/-L...all.5658865.jp and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...SS&attr=797084 |
#65
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#66
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:23:24 +0100
"Recliner" wrote: wrong ones ended up in jail. Note that it's not just a bunch of certified fruitcakes who question this dodgy conviction. For example, http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/-L...all.5658865.jp and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...#cid=OTC-RSS&a tr=797084 I'll have a look but problem is its easy for people to make assertions that sound plausible. A lot harder to back them up with hard facts. B2003 |
#67
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#68
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:23:40 +0100
"Norman Wells" wrote: I don't think you can quite tar Dr Jim Squires with that brush. He probably knows more about the Lockerbie disaster than anyone else, having lost his daughter in it, and having followed every nuance of the matter from day one. He is convinced 100% that Megrahi was innocent, and I for one think he's hardly likely to be wrong. With all due respect to the man - having a death in the family doesn't turn you an expert into what caused the death. He may well have followed the case in detail but unless he's privvy to confidential intelligence documents that other members of the press and public are not then he has no greater insight than anyone else - just opinion. B2003 |
#69
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 9, 10:08*am, wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote: I don't think you can quite tar Dr Jim Squires with that brush. *He probably knows more about the Lockerbie disaster than anyone else, having lost his daughter in it, and having followed every nuance of the matter from day one. He is convinced 100% that Megrahi was innocent, and I for one think he's hardly likely to be wrong. With all due respect to the man - having a death in the family doesn't turn you an expert into what caused the death. He may well have followed the case in detail but unless he's privvy to confidential intelligence documents that other members of the press and public are not then he has no greater insight than anyone else - just opinion. No, the point is that he's spent years of his life researching the documents, whereas you, most members of the press, and most members of the public have not. In the same way, someone with a PhD in mediaeval history will have a greater insight into mediaeval history than most people, even though the documents they've studied are all available to anyone who wants to see them. -- John Band john at johnband dotorg www.johnband.org |
#70
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 03:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote: On Oct 9, 10:08=A0am, wrote: "Norman Wells" wrote: I don't think you can quite tar Dr Jim Squires with that brush. =A0He pr= obably knows more about the Lockerbie disaster than anyone else, having lost hi= s daughter in it, and having followed every nuance of the matter from day = one. He is convinced 100% that Megrahi was innocent, and I for one think he's hardly likely to be wrong. With all due respect to the man - having a death in the family doesn't turn you an expert into what caused the death. He may well have followed the case in detail but unless he's privvy to confidential intelligence documents that other members of the press and public are not then he has no greater insight than anyone else - just opinion. No, the point is that he's spent years of his life researching the documents, whereas you, most members of the press, and most members of I doubt he has a greater insight than the people who wrote the documents in the first place and I'm pretty sure the judges in the trial did more than just skim them. B2003 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Updating "Digital Dave/Doris" | London Transport | |||
Ping Dave Arquati | London Transport | |||
Is Dave unwell? | London Transport | |||
Nice peice of meet | London Transport |