From your article:
But this is all just a "business deal:"

Looks like you were right:

Declare war on Iran now!

Link - 4th Post

Damn - I didn't know Eric was really working for the CIA!

__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

That's not me!

I do post on lots of forums, but always use Eric5273 as it is my name followed by birthday.



As for Iran being involved, that has been known for many years. There were books on this written not long after it happened which did detailed investigations and determined that Iran was behind the bombing. But as usual, our corrupt leaders twisted it so they could blame someone who had nothing to do with it.

As the article says:

Lawyers for al-Megrahi, the only person convicted of bombing the London to New York flight on December 21, 1988, claim that British and US authorities tampered with evidence, disregarded witness statements and steered investigators away from evidence that the bombing was an Iranian-financed plot carried out by Palestinians to avenge the shooting down of a civilian Iranian airliner by US forces several months earlier.






I bet you didn't know that the American Navy shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988, did you?

BBC: 1988: US warship shoots down Iranian airliner

An American naval warship patrolling in the Persian Gulf has shot down an Iranian passenger jet after apparently mistaking it for an F-14 fighter.

All those on board the airliner - almost 300 people - are believed dead.

The plane, an Airbus A300, was making a routine flight from Bandar Abbas, in Iran, to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

The USS Vincennes had tracked the plane electronically and warned it to keep away. When it did not the ship fired two surface-to-air missiles, at least one of which hit the airliner.

Navy officials said the Vincennes' crew believed they were firing at an Iranian F14 jet fighter, although they had not confirmed this visually.

The plane blew up six miles from the Vincennes, the wreckage falling in Iranian territorial waters. [i.e. plane was over Iranian waters]

Iranian ships and helicopters have been searching for survivors but none have so far been found. Iranian television broadcast scenes of bodies floating amid scattered debris.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

BTW, I wonder how much money the United States government paid to the families of the Iranians killed on that airliner??

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

Um, yeah, I did. You always assume I don't know anything. Quite insulting. I don't assume you don't know anything, just that what you know is misinformed.

__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

Here's an article that better explains the commission's findings:


Convicted Libyan wins right to appeal

Trial potentially flawed because of possible false testimony, Scottish commission says

LONDON -- Six years ago, a Libyan man was identified as the buyer of several articles of clothing from a Maltese shop and convicted in connection with Britain's bloodiest terrorist attack.

But yesterday, Scottish authorities cast doubt on Abdel Basset al-Megrahi's connection to the clothes that were purchased in Malta in early December of 1988, and subsequently wrapped over plastic explosives, placed in a briefcase and transferred into the underbelly of a Pan Am Clipper heading to New York from London.

Shortly after take-off, the package exploded, dropping the Boeing 747 and its 259 passengers from the sky and into the streets of Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all on board as well as 11 Lockerbie residents. Conspiracy theorists have long questioned Mr. Megrahi's connection to the explosion that brought Pan Am Flight 103 down over the sleepy Scottish town four days before Christmas.

Allegations of evidence tampering, withholding of vital documents and distortion of the truth in the case, which landed the Libyan behind bars, were submitted to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 400 pages of documents by Mr. Megrahi's lawyers.

Yesterday, after a nearly four-year investigation, the commission transferred Mr. Megrahi's case, along with a report, to Edinburgh's High Court, with a request for an appeal hearing.

In it, the commission identified six grounds where "a miscarriage of justice may have occurred" in Mr. Megrahi's conviction, including doubts that he was the man who had indeed purchased the clothing that covered the bomb in the briefcase.

In a statement, the commission said it had found "no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies."

But it did say the 2001 trial that occurred in the Netherlands and led to Mr. Megrahi's imprisonment was potentially flawed, not because of a conspiracy or cover-up, but because of a single human witness who may have given false testimony.

In his trial, Mr. Megrahi was identified by Tony Gauci, then owner of a small shop in Sliema, Malta, as having purchased clothes on Dec. 7, 1988, that, according to the Crown, were the clothes that later accompanied the bomb.

Mr. Gauci's testimony has long been in question after he first identified another man who had entered his shop as having purchased the clothes and later contradicted his evidence about what individual items he had sold.

At the time of the trial, the defence did not know the shopkeeper had seen Mr. Megrahi's image in a magazine article linking him to the bombing prior to identifying him as a patron of his shop.

New evidence indicated that while Mr. Megrahi had been in Malta on Dec. 7, 1988, the clothes linked to the bomb had been bought before Dec. 6, 1988, when there was no evidence that he was there.

As a result, the commission found there was no "reasonable basis" for the court's conclusion that Mr. Megrahi was the purchaser of the clothes.

Mr. Megrahi has long asserted that he never met the shopkeeper.

While Mr. Gauci's testimony was crucial to the conviction, Mr. Megrahi was also linked to the bomb through a tiny fragment of circuit board - the circumstances surrounding the discovery of which remain hazy - said to have come from the detonator.

At the trial, that circuit board was traced to a Swiss electronics manufacturer and acquaintance of Mr. Megrahi.

Some conspiracy theorists have suggested the circuit board was fabricated or tampered with by unofficial CIA involvement, but the review commission said it found no evidence to suggest that.

After reviewing the new evidence, the chairman of the commission, Graham Forbes, said the commission's view was that: "Some of what we have discovered may imply innocence; some of what we have discovered may imply guilt. However, such matters are for a court to decide."

Mr. Megrahi has long proclaimed his innocence and his lawyer suggested yesterday he could apply for bail before the end of the year.





It appears that this guy's guilt was decided based on the evidence of a single eye-witness who they now say was not telling the truth. Very convenient that this comes out at a time when Britain is trying to make peace with Libya.

Of course, at the time Libya was public enemy number 1, so it was very convenient to blame them. Perhaps now they will shift the blame to Iran, so that it fits with their current foreign policy agenda. That way they get a 2-for-1 effect from the same incident. Political brilliance!

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

Sorry to post this here

Hi all, please be aware of the so called new scam powers the Police are now using in th UK.

First of all they will stop you and claim your car is not registered on their computer as showing to have current insurance. Although most of us who have insurance will protest that their insurance is at home, they will tell you that you need to provide them with the insurance at the roadside or they have the powers to take your car. If they ask you for the keys to look in your car refuse to hand over the keys. Unlike before they used to give you a producer, otherwise known a ( HORT1) ticket, they now say they don’t have to.

I know this because this happened to me today 30 Aug 2009 at 18:10 in Croydon.

Both officers were obtuse and threatening. I had my father in-law with me so for most part I complied, but because I protested to this they began to tell me that I had an attitude they started to look for other thing to report me for. After all this I had to get me son to ask my next door neighbour to drive up to where I was with my insurance. No soon as he arrived they produced a horti and asked me where I would like to produce my documents. The story is more in depth than just these few lines. I later tried to lodge a complaint at Croydon Police station. Where a acting inspector who is was a sergeant came out to take my complaint, but ended up just defending the other officers, instead of taking my complaint. When I tols here I couls smash the argument she was putting acreoss, she claimed I was being threating.

PLEASE BE AWARE Pas it on