Discussion:
The real Lockerbie culprit...
(too old to reply)
HardySpicer
2012-05-20 23:47:28 UTC
Permalink
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later, was declared
innocent by Ronald Reagan, who then gave Rogers a medal! A sad, sad
tale of duplicity because America was too scared to deal with the real
culprit!
Peter Jason
2012-05-21 00:28:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:47:28 -0700 (PDT),
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later, was declared
innocent by Ronald Reagan, who then gave Rogers a medal! A sad, sad
tale of duplicity because America was too scared to deal with the real
culprit!
With Gaffafi gone there may be someone talking one
day. As in Archaeology the truth is speculation
until something is dug up. Of course by then the
real culprits may be dead.
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-21 02:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later, was declared
innocent by Ronald Reagan, who then gave Rogers a medal! A sad, sad
tale of duplicity because America was too scared to deal with the real
culprit!
Well, they're dealt with now. Khomeini and Ghadafi are both dead.
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Cassandra
2012-05-21 06:49:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:22:45 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later, was declared
innocent by Ronald Reagan, who then gave Rogers a medal! A sad, sad
tale of duplicity because America was too scared to deal with the real
culprit!
Well, they're dealt with now. Khomeini and Ghadafi are both dead.
So's Reagan
sutartsorric
2012-05-21 08:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cassandra
On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:22:45 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later, was declared
innocent by Ronald Reagan, who then gave Rogers a medal! A sad, sad
tale of duplicity because America was too scared to deal with the real
culprit!
Well, they're dealt with now.  Khomeini and Ghadafi are both dead.
So's Reagan
There are plenty alive in the CIA, but they will never tell the truth.
Mel Rowing
2012-05-21 08:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
There are plenty alive in the CIA, but they will never tell the truth.
Do you mean the actual truth or your preferred version of it? What if
there is nothing to tell?
sutartsorric
2012-05-21 09:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by sutartsorric
There are plenty alive in the CIA, but they will never tell the truth.
Do you mean the actual truth or your preferred version of it? What if
there is nothing to tell?
I dont have any "preferred" vision, but the CIA were given a warning
by Finnish intelligence some weeks before the aircraft exploded. This
warning contained details of the origin and destination of the flight.
So much so, that many potential Panam customers booked onto other
airlines, just in case.

It would be unthinkable if one of the worlds' leading intelligence
agencies did not have even the slightest inkling that an atrocity such
as that was not being planned.
soupdragon
2012-05-21 14:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by sutartsorric
There are plenty alive in the CIA, but they will never tell the truth.
Do you mean the actual truth or your preferred version of it? What if
there is nothing to tell?
I dont have any "preferred" vision, but the CIA were given a warning
by Finnish intelligence some weeks before the aircraft exploded. This
warning contained details of the origin and destination of the flight.
This is just another, rather old, conspiracy theory that seems to
have been 'fattened up' for posting.

According to the theory, suggested by UK's Patrick Haseldine, apartheid
South Africa was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103.

The theory is rooted in an allegation made in the film the The Maltese
Double Cross and by Die Zeit that the United States government knew of
the bomb and warned staff from its embassies in Helsinki and Moscow, as
well as a high-level South African delegation, to avoid the flight.

Someone allegedly contacted the US embassy in Helsinki, Finland 16 days
before the bombing, warning of a bomb on a Pan Am aircraft departing
Frankfurt for the US; none of the staff at the Moscow embassy took the
flight, despite it being a popular route for them over Christmas.

The allegation prompted a strong statement in November 1994 from the
private secretary of Pik Botha, then South African Foreign Minister,
stating that "Had he known of the bomb, no force on earth would have
stopped him from seeing to it that flight 103, with its deadly cargo,
would not have left the airport."

It does seem a bit bizarre that all these people allegedly had knowledge
well before the flight took off, yet no one mentioned it or tried to
stop the flight? Maybe they were all masons sworn to secrecy?
Post by sutartsorric
It would be unthinkable if one of the worlds' leading intelligence
agencies did not have even the slightest inkling that an atrocity such
as that was not being planned.
And yet they missed it, just like they missed 911 and the London Tube
bombings, and all the other atrocities that have happened including an
attack on the Pentagon. Maybe the 'worlds' leading intelligence
agencies' aren't quite as good as you would have us believe?
sutartsorric
2012-05-21 14:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by sutartsorric
There are plenty alive in the CIA, but they will never tell the
truth.
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Mel Rowing
Do you mean the actual truth or your preferred version of it? What if
there is nothing to tell?
I dont have any "preferred" vision, but the CIA were given a warning
by Finnish intelligence some weeks before the aircraft exploded. This
warning contained details of the origin and destination of the flight.
This is just another, rather old, conspiracy theory that seems to
have been 'fattened up' for posting.
According to the theory, suggested by UK's Patrick Haseldine, apartheid
South Africa was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103.
The theory is rooted in an allegation made in the film the The Maltese
Double Cross and by Die Zeit that the United States government knew of
the bomb and warned staff from its embassies in Helsinki and Moscow, as
well as a high-level South African delegation, to avoid the flight.
Someone allegedly contacted the US embassy in Helsinki, Finland 16 days
before the bombing, warning of a bomb on a Pan Am aircraft departing
Frankfurt for the US; none of the staff at the Moscow embassy took the
flight, despite it being a popular route for them over Christmas.
 The allegation prompted a strong statement in November 1994 from the
private secretary of Pik Botha, then South African Foreign Minister,
stating that "Had he known of the bomb, no force on earth would have
stopped him from seeing to it that flight 103, with its deadly cargo,
would not have left the airport."
It does seem a bit bizarre that all these people allegedly had knowledge
well before the flight took off, yet no one mentioned it or tried to
stop the flight? Maybe they were all masons sworn to secrecy?
Post by sutartsorric
It would be unthinkable if one of the worlds' leading intelligence
agencies did not have even the slightest inkling that an atrocity such
as that was not being planned.
And yet they missed it, just like they missed 911 and the London Tube
bombings, and all the other atrocities that have happened including an
attack on the Pentagon. Maybe the 'worlds' leading intelligence
agencies' aren't quite as good as you would have us believe?
On the night of the disaster teams of rescue volunteers scouring the
area discovered a large object under a red tarpaulin. As they
approached it, they were warned off by gunmen in the doorway of a
hovering helicopter. A local farmer, Innes Graham, was also warned by
US investigators to stay away from a small wooded area a few miles
east of Lockerbie.
soupdragon
2012-05-21 15:34:57 UTC
Permalink
dd48-
Post by sutartsorric
Post by sutartsorric
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by sutartsorric
There are plenty alive in the CIA, but they will never tell the
truth.
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Mel Rowing
Do you mean the actual truth or your preferred version of it? What if
there is nothing to tell?
I dont have any "preferred" vision, but the CIA were given a warning
by Finnish intelligence some weeks before the aircraft exploded. This
warning contained details of the origin and destination of the flight.
This is just another, rather old, conspiracy theory that seems to
have been 'fattened up' for posting.
According to the theory, suggested by UK's Patrick Haseldine,
apartheid
Post by sutartsorric
Post by sutartsorric
South Africa was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103.
The theory is rooted in an allegation made in the film the The Maltese
Double Cross and by Die Zeit that the United States government knew of
the bomb and warned staff from its embassies in Helsinki and Moscow, as
well as a high-level South African delegation, to avoid the flight.
Someone allegedly contacted the US embassy in Helsinki, Finland 16 days
before the bombing, warning of a bomb on a Pan Am aircraft departing
Frankfurt for the US; none of the staff at the Moscow embassy took the
flight, despite it being a popular route for them over Christmas.
 The allegation prompted a strong statement in November 1994 from the
private secretary of Pik Botha, then South African Foreign Minister,
stating that "Had he known of the bomb, no force on earth would have
stopped him from seeing to it that flight 103, with its deadly cargo,
would not have left the airport."
It does seem a bit bizarre that all these people allegedly had knowledge
well before the flight took off, yet no one mentioned it or tried to
stop the flight? Maybe they were all masons sworn to secrecy?
Post by sutartsorric
It would be unthinkable if one of the worlds' leading intelligence
agencies did not have even the slightest inkling that an atrocity such
as that was not being planned.
And yet they missed it, just like they missed 911 and the London Tube
bombings, and all the other atrocities that have happened including an
attack on the Pentagon. Maybe the 'worlds' leading intelligence
agencies' aren't quite as good as you would have us believe?
On the night of the disaster teams of rescue volunteers scouring the
area discovered a large object under a red tarpaulin. As they
approached it, they were warned off by gunmen in the doorway of a
hovering helicopter. A local farmer, Innes Graham, was also warned by
US investigators to stay away from a small wooded area a few miles
east of Lockerbie.
Or so it is claimed. Lifted straight from the Guardian A to Z of
Lockerbie Conspiracies.
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-21 16:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by sutartsorric
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by sutartsorric
There are plenty alive in the CIA, but they will never tell the
truth.
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Mel Rowing
Do you mean the actual truth or your preferred version of it? What if
there is nothing to tell?
I dont have any "preferred" vision, but the CIA were given a warning
by Finnish intelligence some weeks before the aircraft exploded. This
warning contained details of the origin and destination of the flight.
This is just another, rather old, conspiracy theory that seems to
have been 'fattened up' for posting.
According to the theory, suggested by UK's Patrick Haseldine, apartheid
South Africa was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103.
The theory is rooted in an allegation made in the film the The Maltese
Double Cross and by Die Zeit that the United States government knew of
the bomb and warned staff from its embassies in Helsinki and Moscow, as
well as a high-level South African delegation, to avoid the flight.
Someone allegedly contacted the US embassy in Helsinki, Finland 16 days
before the bombing, warning of a bomb on a Pan Am aircraft departing
Frankfurt for the US; none of the staff at the Moscow embassy took the
flight, despite it being a popular route for them over Christmas.
 The allegation prompted a strong statement in November 1994 from the
private secretary of Pik Botha, then South African Foreign Minister,
stating that "Had he known of the bomb, no force on earth would have
stopped him from seeing to it that flight 103, with its deadly cargo,
would not have left the airport."
It does seem a bit bizarre that all these people allegedly had knowledge
well before the flight took off, yet no one mentioned it or tried to
stop the flight? Maybe they were all masons sworn to secrecy?
Post by sutartsorric
It would be unthinkable if one of the worlds' leading intelligence
agencies did not have even the slightest inkling that an atrocity such
as that was not being planned.
And yet they missed it, just like they missed 911 and the London Tube
bombings, and all the other atrocities that have happened including an
attack on the Pentagon. Maybe the 'worlds' leading intelligence
agencies' aren't quite as good as you would have us believe?
On the night of the disaster teams of rescue volunteers scouring the
area discovered a large object under a red tarpaulin. As they
approached it, they were warned off by gunmen in the doorway of a
hovering helicopter. A local farmer, Innes Graham, was also warned by
US investigators to stay away from a small wooded area a few miles
east of Lockerbie.
Cite?
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
soupdragon
2012-05-21 16:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
And yet they missed it, just like they missed 911 and the London Tube
bombings, and all the other atrocities that have happened including an
attack on the Pentagon. Maybe the 'worlds' leading intelligence
agencies' aren't quite as good as you would have us believe?
On the night of the disaster teams of rescue volunteers scouring the
area discovered a large object under a red tarpaulin. As they
approached it, they were warned off by gunmen in the doorway of a
hovering helicopter. A local farmer, Innes Graham, was also warned by
US investigators to stay away from a small wooded area a few miles
east of Lockerbie.
Cite?
C'mon Fred. This one of those stories that if you repeat often
enough, some people will believe it. Who needs a cite? Trouble is,
'local' farmer Innes Graham lives and works 10 miles south of Lockerbie
not 'a few miles east' and has refused to talk about it, dismissing it as
rubbish. Also, the original claim was the person warning him off was a
stranger who had an 'American-sounding' voice. That seems to have morphed
to a 'US investigator'. Graham is currently chairman of some livestock
society and a councillor in the area.
sutartsorric
2012-05-21 14:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Loading Image...
soupdragon
2012-05-21 15:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/CIAPA103D.jpg
So they day following the crash, they were inundated with every nutter
on the planet, including The Ulster Defence League(!), claiming
responsibility and they considered an Islamic lot the best of the
bunch. And?
sutartsorric
2012-05-21 14:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
And yet they missed it, just like they missed 911 and the London Tube
bombings, and all the other atrocities that have happened including an
attack on the Pentagon. Maybe the 'worlds' leading intelligence
agencies' aren't quite as good as you would have us believe?
Maybe, but they still seem to be getting ever bigger handouts from the
taxpayer as a result of the extreme incompetence you seem to be so
relaxed about.

Perhaps if the money was going to an equally incompetent social
services department you might take a somewhat different approach?
soupdragon
2012-05-21 15:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
And yet they missed it, just like they missed 911 and the London Tube
bombings, and all the other atrocities that have happened including an
attack on the Pentagon. Maybe the 'worlds' leading intelligence
agencies' aren't quite as good as you would have us believe?
Maybe, but they still seem to be getting ever bigger handouts from the
taxpayer as a result of the extreme incompetence you seem to be so
relaxed about.
There's no 'maybe' about it. It's the only plausible explanation.
Post by sutartsorric
Perhaps if the money was going to an equally incompetent social
services department you might take a somewhat different approach?
What's money got to do with it? It's all down to competance and there's
been many an incompetant nincompoop in the intelligence services. Just ask
Peter Wright.
sutartsorric
2012-05-21 15:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
And yet they missed it, just like they missed 911 and the London Tube
bombings, and all the other atrocities that have happened including an
attack on the Pentagon. Maybe the 'worlds' leading intelligence
agencies' aren't quite as good as you would have us believe?
Maybe, but they still seem to be getting ever bigger handouts from the
taxpayer as a result of the extreme incompetence you seem to be so
relaxed about.
There's no 'maybe' about it. It's the only plausible explanation.
Post by sutartsorric
Perhaps if the money was going to an equally incompetent social
services department you might take a somewhat different approach?
What's money got to do with it? It's all down to competance and there's
been many an incompetant nincompoop in the intelligence services. Just ask
Peter Wright.
A bit difficult wouldn't you think? He has been dead for 17 years.

So, you are not bothered about incompetent government departments
becoming a sink for vast quantities of taxpayers money as long as they
are in the national security business and not the national welfare
business?

Ok, as long as I know.
soupdragon
2012-05-21 16:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
news:5f3b9e81-2bb8-
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
And yet they missed it, just like they missed 911 and the London
Tube bombings, and all the other atrocities that have happened
including an attack on the Pentagon. Maybe the 'worlds' leading
intelligence agencies' aren't quite as good as you would have us
believe?
Maybe, but they still seem to be getting ever bigger handouts from
the taxpayer as a result of the extreme incompetence you seem to be
so relaxed about.
There's no 'maybe' about it. It's the only plausible explanation.
Post by sutartsorric
Perhaps if the money was going to an equally incompetent social
services department you might take a somewhat different approach?
What's money got to do with it? It's all down to competance and
there's been many an incompetant nincompoop in the intelligence
services. Just as
k
Peter Wright.
A bit difficult wouldn't you think? He has been dead for 17 years.
Not the point I was making - but then you knew that. His books on
the matter live on.
Post by sutartsorric
So, you are not bothered about incompetent government departments
becoming a sink for vast quantities of taxpayers money as long as they
are in the national security business and not the national welfare
business?
Strawman.. as usual. I made no claim regarding whether or not was
'bothered', that's your unsupported assertion and assumes the logical
fallacy of a false dichotomy. Oops! Must do better than trying to
put words in other people's mouths when it's not going your way.
Post by sutartsorric
Ok, as long as I know.
Know what? What you would like me to say, rather than what I did
say? It explains a lot about the workings of a kook mind.
sutartsorric
2012-05-21 16:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by sutartsorric
news:5f3b9e81-2bb8-
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
And yet they missed it, just like they missed 911 and the London
Tube bombings, and all the other atrocities that have happened
including an attack on the Pentagon. Maybe the 'worlds' leading
intelligence agencies' aren't quite as good as you would have us
believe?
Maybe, but they still seem to be getting ever bigger handouts from
the taxpayer as a result of the extreme incompetence you seem to be
so relaxed about.
There's no 'maybe' about it. It's the only plausible explanation.
Post by sutartsorric
Perhaps if the money was going to an equally incompetent social
services department you might take a somewhat different approach?
What's money got to do with it? It's all down to competance and
there's been many an incompetant nincompoop in the intelligence
services. Just as
k
Peter Wright.
A bit difficult wouldn't you think? He has been dead for 17 years.
Not the point I was making - but then you knew that. His books on
the matter live on.
Post by sutartsorric
So, you are not bothered about incompetent government departments
becoming a sink for vast quantities of taxpayers money as long as they
are in the national security business and not the national welfare
business?
Strawman.. as usual. I made no claim regarding whether or not was
'bothered', that's your unsupported assertion and assumes the logical
fallacy of a false dichotomy. Oops! Must do better than trying to
put words in other people's mouths when it's not going your way.
Post by sutartsorric
Ok, as long as I know.
Know what? What you would like me to say, rather than what I did
say? It explains a lot about the workings of a kook mind.
More bullshit as usual.

When backed into a corner, all you can do is muddy the waters by
trying to appear intelligent.

It was you who started the incompetence stuff, by mentioning all the
terrorist activities the security services missed.

I am not putting words in your mouth, just trying to get you to say
that you would object if incompetent social services departments were
being paid the same amount of money that the security services are.

But of course you will not. Maybe you dare not, or cannot?

I wonder what the consequences might be for you if you did?

Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicions.
soupdragon
2012-05-21 17:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
innews:13c6296d-92e9-48e
Post by sutartsorric
news:5f3b9e81-2bb8-
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
And yet they missed it, just like they missed 911 and the
London Tube bombings, and all the other atrocities that have
happened including an attack on the Pentagon. Maybe the
'worlds' leading intelligence agencies' aren't quite as good as
you would have us believe?
Maybe, but they still seem to be getting ever bigger handouts
from the taxpayer as a result of the extreme incompetence you
seem to be so relaxed about.
There's no 'maybe' about it. It's the only plausible explanation.
Post by sutartsorric
Perhaps if the money was going to an equally incompetent social
services department you might take a somewhat different
approach?
What's money got to do with it? It's all down to competance and
there's been many an incompetant nincompoop in the intelligence
services. Just as
k
Peter Wright.
A bit difficult wouldn't you think? He has been dead for 17 years.
Not the point I was making - but then you knew that. His books on
the matter live on.
Post by sutartsorric
So, you are not bothered about incompetent government departments
becoming a sink for vast quantities of taxpayers money as long as
they are in the national security business and not the national
welfare business?
Strawman.. as usual. I made no claim regarding whether or not was
'bothered', that's your unsupported assertion and assumes the logical
fallacy of a false dichotomy. Oops! Must do better than trying to
put words in other people's mouths when it's not going your way.
Post by sutartsorric
Ok, as long as I know.
Know what? What you would like me to say, rather than what I did
say? It explains a lot about the workings of a kook mind.
More bullshit as usual.
On the contrary, it is straight to the point - you are unable to sustain
an argument without resorting to stupid tactics to put words in other
people's mouths. The fact that you have to resort to such idiocy shows
how weak your position is and what an intellectual midget you are.
Post by sutartsorric
When backed into a corner, all you can do is muddy the waters by
trying to appear intelligent.
You're the one muddying the water and, trust me, it doesn't take much to
appear more intelligent than you.
Post by sutartsorric
It was you who started the incompetence stuff, by mentioning all the
terrorist activities the security services missed.
Indeed it was. And?
Post by sutartsorric
I am not putting words in your mouth, just trying to get you to say
that you would object if incompetent social services departments were
being paid the same amount of money that the security services are.
Of course you are. Nowhere did I express an opinion on whether I approved
of incompetant departments or not. You simply jumped to the conclusion in
an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that I gave a far more
plausible explanation for intelligence failings than your stupid conspiracy
nonsense which you're now trying to run away from.
Post by sutartsorric
But of course you will not. Maybe you dare not, or cannot?
Will not what? Will not let you change the subject away from what's being
discussed - whether security failings is a more plausible explanation
for Lockerbie than the grab bag of conspiracy theories you throw around?
Too right! There are questions over Megrahi's guilt, but stupid conspiracy
theories don't help the situation, they hinder it.
Post by sutartsorric
I wonder what the consequences might be for you if you did?
What on earth are you blabbing about?
Post by sutartsorric
Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicions.
What suspicions? That you're a clueless idiot? You're welcome.
sutartsorric
2012-05-21 18:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by sutartsorric
innews:13c6296d-92e9-48e
Post by sutartsorric
news:5f3b9e81-2bb8-
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
And yet they missed it, just like they missed 911 and the
London Tube bombings, and all the other atrocities that have
happened including an attack on the Pentagon. Maybe the
'worlds' leading intelligence agencies' aren't quite as good as
you would have us believe?
Maybe, but they still seem to be getting ever bigger handouts
from the taxpayer as a result of the extreme incompetence you
seem to be so relaxed about.
There's no 'maybe' about it. It's the only plausible explanation.
Post by sutartsorric
Perhaps if the money was going to an equally incompetent social
services department you might take a somewhat different approach?
What's money got to do with it? It's all down to competance and
there's been many an incompetant nincompoop in the intelligence
services. Just as
k
Peter Wright.
A bit difficult wouldn't you think? He has been dead for 17 years.
Not the point I was making - but then you knew that. His books on
the matter live on.
Post by sutartsorric
So, you are not bothered about incompetent government departments
becoming a sink for vast quantities of taxpayers money as long as
they are in the national security business and not the national
welfare business?
Strawman.. as usual. I made no claim regarding whether or not was
'bothered', that's your unsupported assertion and assumes the logical
fallacy of a false dichotomy. Oops! Must do better than trying to
put words in other people's mouths when it's not going your way.
Post by sutartsorric
Ok, as long as I know.
Know what? What you would like me to say, rather than what I did
say? It explains a lot about the workings of a kook mind.
More bullshit as usual.
On the contrary, it is straight to the point - you are unable to sustain
an argument without resorting to stupid tactics to put words in other
people's mouths. The fact that you have to resort to such idiocy shows
how weak your position is and what an intellectual midget you are.
Post by sutartsorric
When backed into a corner, all you can do is muddy the waters by
trying to appear intelligent.
You're the one muddying the water and, trust me, it doesn't take much to
appear more intelligent than you.
Post by sutartsorric
It was you who started the incompetence stuff, by mentioning all the
terrorist activities the security services missed.
Indeed it was. And?
Post by sutartsorric
I am not putting words in your mouth, just trying to get you to say
that you would object if incompetent social services departments were
being paid the same amount of money that the security services are.
Of course you are. Nowhere did I express an opinion on whether I approved
of incompetant departments or not. You simply jumped to the conclusion in
an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that I gave a far more
plausible explanation for intelligence failings than your stupid conspiracy
nonsense which you're now trying to run away from.
Post by sutartsorric
But of course you will not. Maybe you dare not, or cannot?
Will not what? Will not let you change the subject away from what's being
discussed - whether security failings is a more plausible explanation
for Lockerbie than the grab bag of conspiracy theories you throw around?
Too right! There are questions over Megrahi's guilt, but stupid conspiracy
theories don't help the situation, they hinder it.
Post by sutartsorric
I wonder what the consequences might be for you if you did?
What on earth are you blabbing about?
Post by sutartsorric
Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicions.
What suspicions? That you're a clueless idiot? You're welcome.
Exactly. You express an opinion on nothing, but assume that gives you
the divine right to attempt to pull apart other people who are brave
enough to express one on subjects you dare not talk about.

It is all very well not having my opinion, but as you shy away from
revealing yours then I reserve the right to confirm my opinion of you.

I read many newspapers in the 3 to 6 months after the aircraft fell
out of the sky, and most of the stuff you arrogantly dismiss as kook
conspiracy theory was debated quite seriously my the mainstream media
then.

Suffice it to say that the CIA never withdrew the memo which stated
that they had been warned by Finnish intelligence 3 weeks prior to the
disaster, and had passed the info onto the FAA. They never sued anyone
for publishing it, so presumably it was not false.

There were numerous contemporary reports of US people interfering with
bodies and evidence at the site and not allowing the Scottish
investigators access.

No one jumped on them as being part of an almighty conspiracy then
because they were reported in good faith as they, so why jump on those
who have not forgotten the details now?

For many months all the newspapers and TV channels were full of the
idea that the bomb was the work of the Popular Front For The
Liberation Of Palestine - General Command (the PFLP-GC). In virtually
every report this organisation was mentioned along with their Syrian
backing, and no one published any denials in newspapers. Libya was not
mentioned at all.

In fact it was over a year before Libya suddenly came under suspicion
and the PFLP-GC/Syria axis vanished overnight. I remember also that
some years ago, all this was given many paragraphs on Wikipedia, but
now has been removed to be replaced by a dismissive comment.

Now the accusation of Libya is everywhere.

And you still wont say whether you think incompetent security services
are a waste of money.
DVH
2012-05-21 18:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
There were numerous contemporary reports of US people interfering with
bodies and evidence at the site and not allowing the Scottish
investigators access.
I wish we could see some of these alleged reports.
sutartsorric
2012-05-21 18:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
Post by sutartsorric
There were numerous contemporary reports of US people interfering with
bodies and evidence at the site and not allowing the Scottish
investigators access.
I wish we could see some of these alleged reports.
You can, by all means.

Just look at the Sunday Times and Observer archive pages for late 1988/
early 1989.

You will have to pay, though.
DVH
2012-05-21 18:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
Post by sutartsorric
There were numerous contemporary reports of US people interfering with
bodies and evidence at the site and not allowing the Scottish
investigators access.
I wish we could see some of these alleged reports.
You can, by all means.
Just look at the Sunday Times and Observer archive pages for late 1988/
early 1989.
You will have to pay, though.
It would be persuasive if you provided them.
DVH
2012-05-21 18:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
Post by DVH
Post by sutartsorric
There were numerous contemporary reports of US people interfering with
bodies and evidence at the site and not allowing the Scottish
investigators access.
I wish we could see some of these alleged reports.
You can, by all means.
Just look at the Sunday Times and Observer archive pages for late 1988/
early 1989.
You will have to pay, though.
It would be persuasive if you provided them.
I just checked the Sunday Times up to end of March 1989.

Nothing about the CIA interfering with bodies or anything similar, but I
enjoyed your story.
soupdragon
2012-05-21 19:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
Post by DVH
...
Post by sutartsorric
There were numerous contemporary reports of US people interfering
with bodies and evidence at the site and not allowing the Scottish
investigators access.
I wish we could see some of these alleged reports.
You can, by all means.
Just look at the Sunday Times and Observer archive pages for late
1988/ early 1989.
You will have to pay, though.
It would be persuasive if you provided them.
Don't be silly. The masons will have burned all the back copies, and erased
all references in Wiki.
soupdragon
2012-05-21 19:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
Post by sutartsorric
It was you who started the incompetence stuff, by mentioning all
the terrorist activities the security services missed.
Indeed it was. And?
Post by sutartsorric
I am not putting words in your mouth, just trying to get you to say
that you would object if incompetent social services departments
were being paid the same amount of money that the security services
are.
Of course you are. Nowhere did I express an opinion on whether I
approved of incompetant departments or not. You simply jumped to the
conclusion in an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that
I gave a far more plausible explanation for intelligence failings
than your stupid conspira
cy
Post by soupdragon
nonsense which you're now trying to run away from.
Post by sutartsorric
But of course you will not. Maybe you dare not, or cannot?
Will not what? Will not let you change the subject away from what's
being discussed - whether security failings is a more plausible
explanation for Lockerbie than the grab bag of conspiracy theories
you throw around? Too right! There are questions over Megrahi's
guilt, but stupid conspirac
y
Post by soupdragon
theories don't help the situation, they hinder it.
Post by sutartsorric
I wonder what the consequences might be for you if you did?
What on earth are you blabbing about?
Post by sutartsorric
Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicions.
What suspicions? That you're a clueless idiot? You're welcome.
Exactly.
Well, nice of you to admit that.
Post by sutartsorric
You express an opinion on nothing, but assume that gives you
the divine right to attempt to pull apart other people who are brave
enough to express one on subjects you dare not talk about.
Once again, you are flat wrong and desperately try to divert attention
away from your own failings. I quite clearly expressed the opinion that
less-than-perfect security agencies were a far more plausible reason that
Lockerbie, 911 and the London Tube bombings were successful, than the
grab bag of conspiracy theories of complicity that you throw around.
However, you seem unable to rebutt this point and instead, you want to
switch the debate away from this to discuss something entirely different
to hide your failings.
Post by sutartsorric
It is all very well not having my opinion, but as you shy away from
revealing yours then I reserve the right to confirm my opinion of you.
Then you are a self-serving idiot, incapable of putting together a
coherent and logical case, and I reserve the right for everyone here to
see you for what you are. Are you finished posturing?
Post by sutartsorric
I read many newspapers in the 3 to 6 months after the aircraft fell
out of the sky, and most of the stuff you arrogantly dismiss as kook
conspiracy theory was debated quite seriously my the mainstream media
then.
Suffice it to say that the CIA never withdrew the memo which stated
that they had been warned by Finnish intelligence 3 weeks prior to the
disaster, and had passed the info onto the FAA. They never sued anyone
for publishing it, so presumably it was not false.
Maybe that's because 1) the alleged memo didn't say the Finnish
intelligence was involved and 2) The memo is a hoax and they ignored it,
The CIA don't sue people. Don't be stupid.
Post by sutartsorric
There were numerous contemporary reports of US people interfering with
bodies and evidence at the site and not allowing the Scottish
investigators access.
No one jumped on them as being part of an almighty conspiracy then
because they were reported in good faith as they, so why jump on those
who have not forgotten the details now?
Well I'd like to see some of those 'contemporary reports'. I certainly
don't recall them at the time and only seem to have appeared once all the
conspiracy theories kicked off.
Post by sutartsorric
For many months all the newspapers and TV channels were full of the
idea that the bomb was the work of the Popular Front For The
Liberation Of Palestine - General Command (the PFLP-GC). In virtually
every report this organisation was mentioned along with their Syrian
backing, and no one published any denials in newspapers. Libya was not
mentioned at all.
In fact, the prime candidate was Iran whom the US suspected may have
been involved.
Post by sutartsorric
In fact it was over a year before Libya suddenly came under suspicion
and the PFLP-GC/Syria axis vanished overnight.
Could it be that the reason was Vaclev Havel's announcement that the
previous regime in Czechoslovakia had supplied Libya with a rather
large consignment of the same Semtex used in the bomb on PanAm 103?
Not really surprising given that they had problems with the Iran
hiring some Damascus based radicals who didn't have access to the
explosive used and who's bombmaker was a Jordanian agent passing
intelligence to the west.
Post by sutartsorric
I remember also that
some years ago, all this was given many paragraphs on Wikipedia, but
now has been removed to be replaced by a dismissive comment.
I don't, and I think you're making it up
Post by sutartsorric
Now the accusation of Libya is everywhere.
Well, they had the motive. They had a tit-for-tat campaign going with
the US for many years culminating in the bombing fo a Berlin disco by
a Libyan agent. The US then bombed Bengazi and Tripoli in retaliation in
an attempt to kill Gaddafi, but ended up killing an infant alleged to
be his daughter, all in 1986. two years later, PA103.
Post by sutartsorric
And you still wont say whether you think incompetent security services
are a waste of money.
That's right. Because it is not germane to the debate and a diversion
attempt by you.
sutartsorric
2012-05-21 21:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by sutartsorric
And you still wont say whether you think incompetent security services
are a waste of money.
That's right. Because it is not germane to the debate and a diversion
attempt by you.
What a cowardly way to behave.

Presumably, they have total control over you.

May the incompetence continue at great expense.
soupdragon
2012-05-21 21:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
innews:88489844-3462-4d0
Post by sutartsorric
And you still wont say whether you think incompetent security
services are a waste of money.
That's right. Because it is not germane to the debate and a diversion
attempt by you.
What a cowardly way to behave.
No. It's the proper way to behave when conducting a debate - stick to
the subject, something you appear to struggle with when faced with a
challege. Presumably that's why you engaged in such a huge exercise of
intellectual dishonesty and deleted the bulk of this post unanswered.
Just to tough for you, eh?
Post by sutartsorric
Presumably, they have total control over you.
No one has control over, but I can understand why a conspiracy kook would
need some excuse for their failing.
Post by sutartsorric
May the incompetence continue at great expense.
Who knows? Not that it has anything to do with the point under discussion
here as to whether it was a more plausible explanation for the success
than the bunch of conspiracy theories you sign up for. Strange that
you've spent so much effort trying to evade that point. Then again,
maybe not.
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-21 22:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
They never sued anyone
for publishing it, so presumably it was not false.
The CIA never sues anyone for such things. Confirming something is
false is just like confirming something is true, so they merely always
remain silent.

You see, they're not as incompetent as, say, YOU.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-21 16:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by sutartsorric
There are plenty alive in the CIA, but they will never tell the truth.
Do you mean the actual truth or your preferred version of it? What if
there is nothing to tell?
I dont have any "preferred" vision, but the CIA were given a warning
by Finnish intelligence some weeks before the aircraft exploded. This
warning contained details of the origin and destination of the flight.
So much so, that many potential Panam customers booked onto other
airlines, just in case.
So *WHO* did Finnish intelligence warn, again? How did all these
"potential customers" hear about it? How do you know what they did?
Post by sutartsorric
It would be unthinkable if one of the worlds' leading intelligence
agencies did not have even the slightest inkling that an atrocity such
as that was not being planned.
In other words, you have a 'preferred version of truth'.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
sutartsorric
2012-05-21 16:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by sutartsorric
There are plenty alive in the CIA, but they will never tell the truth.
Do you mean the actual truth or your preferred version of it? What if
there is nothing to tell?
I dont have any "preferred" vision, but the CIA were given a warning
by Finnish intelligence some weeks before the aircraft exploded. This
warning contained details of the origin and destination of the flight.
So much so, that many potential Panam customers booked onto other
airlines, just in case.
So *WHO* did Finnish intelligence warn, again?  How did all these
"potential customers" hear about it?  How do you know what they did?
Post by sutartsorric
It would be unthinkable if one of the worlds' leading intelligence
agencies did not have even the slightest inkling that an atrocity such
as that was not being planned.
In other words, you have a 'preferred version of truth'.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn
Did you not read the link?

No, of course not - you not-so-rapid rebuttal dont read anything that
might conflict with your programming.

It was the very last paragraph.
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-21 22:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by sutartsorric
There are plenty alive in the CIA, but they will never tell the truth.
Do you mean the actual truth or your preferred version of it? What if
there is nothing to tell?
I dont have any "preferred" vision, but the CIA were given a warning
by Finnish intelligence some weeks before the aircraft exploded. This
warning contained details of the origin and destination of the flight.
So much so, that many potential Panam customers booked onto other
airlines, just in case.
So *WHO* did Finnish intelligence warn, again?  How did all these
"potential customers" hear about it?  How do you know what they did?
Post by sutartsorric
It would be unthinkable if one of the worlds' leading intelligence
agencies did not have even the slightest inkling that an atrocity such
as that was not being planned.
In other words, you have a 'preferred version of truth'.
Did you not read the link?
What link?
Post by sutartsorric
No, of course not - you not-so-rapid rebuttal dont read anything that
might conflict with your programming.
Ok, my 'dipshit detector' just went off.
Post by sutartsorric
It was the very last paragraph.
Of what?
--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush
Scotty
2012-05-21 22:45:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 May 2012 01:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by sutartsorric
There are plenty alive in the CIA, but they will never tell the truth.
Do you mean the actual truth or your preferred version of it? What if
there is nothing to tell?
Wait for the book. I believe that Megrahi has promised a "tell all" to be
published posthumously.
Bryn Fraser
2012-05-22 08:36:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scotty
On Mon, 21 May 2012 01:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by sutartsorric
There are plenty alive in the CIA, but they will never tell the truth.
Do you mean the actual truth or your preferred version of it? What if
there is nothing to tell?
Wait for the book. I believe that Megrahi has promised a "tell all" to be
published posthumously.
He turned all his appeal evidence over to Jim Swires before he died.

Source: Jim Swires
Mel Rowing
2012-05-21 08:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was convicted
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant was
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.

The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error of
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters in a war situation. The US made no attempt to
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under the
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya paid
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused to
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.

On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
HardySpicer
2012-05-21 17:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was convicted
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant was
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error of
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters  in a war situation. The US made no attempt to
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under the
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya paid
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused to
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.
On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
He was found guilty, but the key witnes was bribed by the US for a
large sum of money.
Kind of jogged his mind a bit.


Hardy
Mel Rowing
2012-05-21 19:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was convicted
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant was
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error of
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters  in a war situation. The US made no attempt to
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under the
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya paid
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused to
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.
On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
He was found guilty, but the key witnes was bribed by the US for a
large sum of money.
Kind of jogged his mind a bit.
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA influenced
the trial in any way. Neither is there any evidence that the payment
of $2m to Tony Gauci and $1m to his brother in fact not by the CIA but
the US Department of Justice was agreed with him before he gave
evidence. In fact it was paid some 5 years later.

In any case, there was more, a lot more to the trial than Tony Gauci's
evidence it did after all last 36 weeks! If you care to read the
vedict which itself runs to 82 pages you will find what intepretation
the 5 eminent justices placed on the Gauci testimony.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/index.asp
soupdragon
2012-05-21 19:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was convicted
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant was
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error of
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters  in a war situation. The US made no attempt to
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under the
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya paid
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused to
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.
On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
He was found guilty, but the key witnes was bribed by the US for a
large sum of money.
Kind of jogged his mind a bit.
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA influenced
the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion in the
manner in which the trial was conducted, which was not in line with
Scots law. There was no jury for starters, as would be the norm in
a case like this in Scotland. Why did t deviate from the normal
Scottish justice system? After all it was being touted as being
conducted under Scots law but in a Scottish court in the Netherlands.

Neither is there any evidence that the payment
Post by Mel Rowing
of $2m to Tony Gauci and $1m to his brother in fact not by the CIA but
the US Department of Justice was agreed with him before he gave
evidence. In fact it was paid some 5 years later.
So he was paid to give evidence? Not exactly reliable.
Post by Mel Rowing
In any case, there was more, a lot more to the trial than Tony Gauci's
evidence it did after all last 36 weeks! If you care to read the
vedict which itself runs to 82 pages you will find what intepretation
the 5 eminent justices placed on the Gauci testimony.
.. but no jury, as would be the norm in a case of this seriousness.
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-21 23:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain
Will
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was
convicted
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant
was
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error of
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters  in a war situation. The US made no attempt to
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under the
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya paid
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused to
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.
On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
He was found guilty, but the key witnes was bribed by the US for a
large sum of money.
Kind of jogged his mind a bit.
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA influenced
the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Neither is there any evidence that the payment
of $2m to Tony Gauci and $1m to his brother in fact not by the CIA but
the US Department of Justice was agreed with him before he gave
evidence. In fact it was paid some 5 years later.
So he was paid to give evidence? Not exactly reliable.
Rewards for information are routine in big cases.

So, by your lights, all expert witnesses (who are paid for testimony
directly) are "not exactly reliable"?
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
soupdragon
2012-05-21 23:09:23 UTC
Permalink
43e9-
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain
Will
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was
convicted
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant
was
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error of
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters  in a war situation. The US made no attempt to
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under the
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya paid
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused to
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.
On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
He was found guilty, but the key witnes was bribed by the US for a
large sum of money.
Kind of jogged his mind a bit.
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA influenced
the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to some
weird variant without a jury?
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Neither is there any evidence that the payment
of $2m to Tony Gauci and $1m to his brother in fact not by the CIA but
the US Department of Justice was agreed with him before he gave
evidence. In fact it was paid some 5 years later.
So he was paid to give evidence? Not exactly reliable.
Rewards for information are routine in big cases.
So, by your lights, all expert witnesses (who are paid for testimony
directly) are "not exactly reliable"?
We're not talking 'expert witnesses'. Under Scots Law ordinary witnesses
are paid fixed expenses, not $2M .
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-22 01:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by HardySpicer
43e9-
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain
Will
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed
passenger
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was
convicted
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant
was
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error
of
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters  in a war situation. The US made no attempt
to
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under
the
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya
paid
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused
to
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.
On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
He was found guilty, but the key witnes was bribed by the US for a
large sum of money.
Kind of jogged his mind a bit.
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA influenced
the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to some
weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me? Scotland presumably agreed to it. Ask them.
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Neither is there any evidence that the payment
of $2m to Tony Gauci and $1m to his brother in fact not by the CIA
but
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
the US Department of Justice was agreed with him before he gave
evidence. In fact it was paid some 5 years later.
So he was paid to give evidence? Not exactly reliable.
Rewards for information are routine in big cases.
So, by your lights, all expert witnesses (who are paid for testimony
directly) are "not exactly reliable"?
We're not talking 'expert witnesses'. Under Scots Law ordinary witnesses
are paid fixed expenses, not $2M .
You said "paid to give evidence". Now you want to haggle....
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
soupdragon
2012-05-22 08:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA influenced
the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to some
weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me? Scotland presumably agreed to it. Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to agree
anything with anyone.
sutartsorric
2012-05-22 08:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA influenced
the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to some
weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me?  Scotland presumably agreed to it.  Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to agree
anything with anyone.
I hope you agreed this post with jamps, David, et al before typing

Who, me?

And that opens up another string of login names, but at least I am
getting the picture now.
soupdragon
2012-05-22 09:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
innews:ngplr75foupmc4sjqg12kird
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenc
ed
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me?  Scotland presumably agreed to it.  Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
agree anything with anyone.
I hope you agreed this post with jamps, David, et al before typing
Who, me?
And that opens up another string of login names, but at least I am
getting the picture now.
What on earth are you babbling about? You're beginning to look more
idiotic by the day..
soupdragon
2012-05-22 09:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
innews:ngplr75foupmc4sjqg12kird
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenc
ed
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me?  Scotland presumably agreed to it.  Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
agree anything with anyone.
I hope you agreed this post with jamps, David, et al before typing
Who, me?
And that opens up another string of login names, but at least I am
getting the picture now.
Oh, don't worry. We're all getting the picture now - you're a nutter
who's lost the plot.
sutartsorric
2012-05-22 10:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by sutartsorric
innews:ngplr75foupmc4sjqg12kird
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenc
ed
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me?  Scotland presumably agreed to it.  Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
agree anything with anyone.
I hope you agreed this post with jamps, David, et al before typing
Who, me?
And that opens up another string of login names, but at least I am
getting the picture now.
Oh, don't worry. We're all getting the picture now - you're a nutter
who's lost the plot.
Maybe, but as you have no doubt checked - I dont try and hide behind a
myriad of user names.
soupdragon
2012-05-22 17:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
innews:c6b976f9-88d6-4a0
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
Why ask me?  Scotland presumably agreed to it.  Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
agree anything with anyone.
I hope you agreed this post with jamps, David, et al before typing
Who, me?
And that opens up another string of login names, but at least I am
getting the picture now.
Oh, don't worry. We're all getting the picture now - you're a nutter
who's lost the plot.
Maybe, but as you have no doubt checked - I dont try and hide behind a
myriad of user names.
Why would I waste my time checking up on a dullard idiot like you? I've
better things to do with my time. Now perhaps you'd like to explain to
the readers what on earth you are prattling on about.
sutartsorric
2012-05-22 17:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by sutartsorric
innews:c6b976f9-88d6-4a0
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
Why ask me?  Scotland presumably agreed to it.  Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
agree anything with anyone.
I hope you agreed this post with jamps, David, et al before typing
Who, me?
And that opens up another string of login names, but at least I am
getting the picture now.
Oh, don't worry. We're all getting the picture now - you're a nutter
who's lost the plot.
Maybe, but as you have no doubt checked - I dont try and hide behind a
myriad of user names.
Why would I waste my time checking up on a dullard idiot like you? I've
better things to do with my time. Now perhaps you'd like to explain to
the readers what on earth you are prattling on about.
I have really hit a nerve here.

You will have me in floods of tears next.

Readers? You honestly believe other people bother with this rubbish?
soupdragon
2012-05-22 18:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
innews:76b78c5b-61b2-4ab
Post by sutartsorric
innews:c6b976f9-88d6-4a0
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
Why ask me?  Scotland presumably agreed to it.  Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason
to agree anything with anyone.
I hope you agreed this post with jamps, David, et al before typing
Who, me?
And that opens up another string of login names, but at least I
am getting the picture now.
Oh, don't worry. We're all getting the picture now - you're a
nutter who's lost the plot.
Maybe, but as you have no doubt checked - I dont try and hide
behind a myriad of user names.
Why would I waste my time checking up on a dullard idiot like you?
I've better things to do with my time. Now perhaps you'd like to
explain to the readers what on earth you are prattling on about.
I have really hit a nerve here.
Nope. I'm amused at your high regard for yourself and think I'd waste
my time checking up on you. Sorry, you're just not that important.
You, on the other hand seem to spent an inordinate amount of time
and effort checking up on me. Are you a stalker? It looks that way..
Post by sutartsorric
You will have me in floods of tears next.
Readers? You honestly believe other people bother with this rubbish?
So you concede its rubbish? Or maybe you'd rather not say for fear of
being wrong? But yes, there are a number of people following this
exchange.
unknown
2012-05-22 21:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by sutartsorric
innews:76b78c5b-61b2-4ab
Post by sutartsorric
innews:c6b976f9-88d6-4a0
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
Why ask me?  Scotland presumably agreed to it.  Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason
to agree anything with anyone.
I hope you agreed this post with jamps, David, et al before typing
Who, me?
And that opens up another string of login names, but at least I
am getting the picture now.
Oh, don't worry. We're all getting the picture now - you're a
nutter who's lost the plot.
Maybe, but as you have no doubt checked - I dont try and hide
behind a myriad of user names.
Why would I waste my time checking up on a dullard idiot like you?
I've better things to do with my time. Now perhaps you'd like to
explain to the readers what on earth you are prattling on about.
I have really hit a nerve here.
Nope. I'm amused at your high regard for yourself and think I'd waste
my time checking up on you. Sorry, you're just not that important.
You, on the other hand seem to spent an inordinate amount of time
and effort checking up on me. Are you a stalker? It looks that way..
Post by sutartsorric
You will have me in floods of tears next.
Readers? You honestly believe other people bother with this rubbish?
So you concede its rubbish? Or maybe you'd rather not say for fear of
being wrong? But yes, there are a number of people following this
exchange.
TV is broke, run out of beer, fux all else to do. Keep it up by all
means, there has to be a punchline soon.

max.it (the orange cage)
soupdragon
2012-05-22 22:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by soupdragon
Post by sutartsorric
innews:76b78c5b-61b2-4ab
Post by sutartsorric
innews:c6b976f9-88d6-4a0
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
Why ask me?  Scotland presumably agreed to it.  Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason
to agree anything with anyone.
I hope you agreed this post with jamps, David, et al before typing
Who, me?
And that opens up another string of login names, but at least I
am getting the picture now.
Oh, don't worry. We're all getting the picture now - you're a
nutter who's lost the plot.
Maybe, but as you have no doubt checked - I dont try and hide
behind a myriad of user names.
Why would I waste my time checking up on a dullard idiot like you?
I've better things to do with my time. Now perhaps you'd like to
explain to the readers what on earth you are prattling on about.
I have really hit a nerve here.
Nope. I'm amused at your high regard for yourself and think I'd waste
my time checking up on you. Sorry, you're just not that important.
You, on the other hand seem to spent an inordinate amount of time
and effort checking up on me. Are you a stalker? It looks that way..
Post by sutartsorric
You will have me in floods of tears next.
Readers? You honestly believe other people bother with this rubbish?
So you concede its rubbish? Or maybe you'd rather not say for fear of
being wrong? But yes, there are a number of people following this
exchange.
TV is broke, run out of beer, fux all else to do. Keep it up by all
means, there has to be a punchline soon.
That's what I'm waiting on too!
Jeffrey Hamilton
2012-05-24 01:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by unknown
Post by soupdragon
Post by sutartsorric
innews:76b78c5b-61b2-4ab
Post by sutartsorric
innews:c6b976f9-88d6-4a0
Post by sutartsorric
Post by soupdragon
Why ask me? Scotland presumably agreed to it. Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason
to agree anything with anyone.
I hope you agreed this post with jamps, David, et al before typing
Who, me?
And that opens up another string of login names, but at least I
am getting the picture now.
Oh, don't worry. We're all getting the picture now - you're a
nutter who's lost the plot.
Maybe, but as you have no doubt checked - I dont try and hide
behind a myriad of user names.
Why would I waste my time checking up on a dullard idiot like you?
I've better things to do with my time. Now perhaps you'd like to
explain to the readers what on earth you are prattling on about.
I have really hit a nerve here.
Nope. I'm amused at your high regard for yourself and think I'd
waste my time checking up on you. Sorry, you're just not that
important. You, on the other hand seem to spent an inordinate
amount of time and effort checking up on me. Are you a stalker? It
looks that way..
Post by sutartsorric
You will have me in floods of tears next.
Readers? You honestly believe other people bother with this
rubbish?
So you concede its rubbish? Or maybe you'd rather not say for fear
of being wrong? But yes, there are a number of people following this
exchange.
TV is broke, run out of beer, fux all else to do. Keep it up by all
means, there has to be a punchline soon.
That's what I'm waiting on too!
I'm only hanging around to find out who's got the nine or ten login IDs he's
talking about.

cheers....Jeff
sutartsorric
2012-05-24 08:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by soupdragon
Post by unknown
TV is broke, run out of beer, fux all else to do. Keep it up by all
means, there has to be a punchline soon.
That's what I'm waiting on too!
I'm only hanging around to find out who's got the nine or ten login IDs he's
talking about.
  cheers....Jeff
Well, you will be hanging about a long time then - but more fool you.

If you can't cope with the subtle approach, then you may have to
confine yourself to US only newsgroups.

We Europeans are obviously far too intelligent for bolt heads.
soupdragon
2012-05-24 17:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by soupdragon
Post by unknown
TV is broke, run out of beer, fux all else to do. Keep it up by
all means, there has to be a punchline soon.
That's what I'm waiting on too!
I'm only hanging around to find out who's got the nine or ten login
IDs h
e's
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
talking about.
  cheers....Jeff
Well, you will be hanging about a long time then - but more fool you.
Run, rabbit run. Your bluff's been called and now you're off.
ROTFL!!
sutartsorric
2012-05-24 18:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by soupdragon
Post by unknown
TV is broke, run out of beer, fux all else to do. Keep it up by
all means, there has to be a punchline soon.
That's what I'm waiting on too!
I'm only hanging around to find out who's got the nine or ten login
IDs h
e's
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
talking about.
  cheers....Jeff
Well, you will be hanging about a long time then - but more fool you.
Run, rabbit run. Your bluff's been called and now you're off.
ROTFL!!
Oh dear. The multi user name thing has really got to you, hasn't it.

I was alluding to the fact that the differing names are used on
different newsgroups.

But carry on, throw yer toys out of the pram.

You might be able to impress the silver surfers but not here, I'm
afraid.
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-22 13:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA influenced
the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to some
weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me? Scotland presumably agreed to it. Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to agree
anything with anyone.
Ok, so ask Scotland why they chose to do it that way, then, if you
dislike "agreed" so much.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
soupdragon
2012-05-22 17:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenced the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me? Scotland presumably agreed to it. Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to agree
anything with anyone.
Ok, so ask Scotland why they chose to do it that way, then, if you
dislike "agreed" so much.
Because the CIA asked them to, fearing a Not Proven verdict in a normal
court?
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-23 02:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenced the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me? Scotland presumably agreed to it. Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to agree
anything with anyone.
Ok, so ask Scotland why they chose to do it that way, then, if you
dislike "agreed" so much.
Because the CIA asked them to, fearing a Not Proven verdict in a normal
court?
And who in the Scottish government or judicial system returned that
answer?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
soupdragon
2012-05-23 15:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenced the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me? Scotland presumably agreed to it. Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to agree
anything with anyone.
Ok, so ask Scotland why they chose to do it that way, then, if you
dislike "agreed" so much.
Because the CIA asked them to, fearing a Not Proven verdict in a normal
court?
And who in the Scottish government or judicial system returned that
answer?
It was widely speculated at the time by many in the legal profession
that a Not Proven verdict could prove to be unwelcome, but very likely
outcome given the circumstantial evidence.
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-24 03:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenced the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me? Scotland presumably agreed to it. Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
agree
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
anything with anyone.
Ok, so ask Scotland why they chose to do it that way, then, if you
dislike "agreed" so much.
Because the CIA asked them to, fearing a Not Proven verdict in a normal
court?
And who in the Scottish government or judicial system returned that
answer?
It was widely speculated at the time by many in the legal profession
that a Not Proven verdict could prove to be unwelcome, but very likely
outcome given the circumstantial evidence.
In other words, nobody who knew anything gave you that answer.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
soupdragon
2012-05-24 08:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenced the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of
suspicion".
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me? Scotland presumably agreed to it. Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
agree
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
anything with anyone.
Ok, so ask Scotland why they chose to do it that way, then, if you
dislike "agreed" so much.
Because the CIA asked them to, fearing a Not Proven verdict in a normal
court?
And who in the Scottish government or judicial system returned that
answer?
It was widely speculated at the time by many in the legal profession
that a Not Proven verdict could prove to be unwelcome, but very likely
outcome given the circumstantial evidence.
In other words, nobody who knew anything gave you that answer.
I'm talking people in the judicial system you referenced above.
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-24 13:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenced the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of
suspicion".
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me? Scotland presumably agreed to it. Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
agree
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
anything with anyone.
Ok, so ask Scotland why they chose to do it that way, then, if you
dislike "agreed" so much.
Because the CIA asked them to, fearing a Not Proven verdict in a
normal
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
court?
And who in the Scottish government or judicial system returned that
answer?
It was widely speculated at the time by many in the legal profession
that a Not Proven verdict could prove to be unwelcome, but very likely
outcome given the circumstantial evidence.
In other words, nobody who knew anything gave you that answer.
I'm talking people in the judicial system you referenced above.
Yes, "widely *speculated*" by an anonymous "many". In other words,
folks talking out their asses with zero knowledge.

Sounds like some folks on Usenet....
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
sutartsorric
2012-05-24 14:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenced the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of
suspicion".
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by soupdragon
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me?  Scotland presumably agreed to it.  Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
agree
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
anything with anyone.
Ok, so ask Scotland why they chose to do it that way, then, if you
dislike "agreed" so much.
Because the CIA asked them to, fearing a Not Proven verdict in a
normal
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
court?
And who in the Scottish government or judicial system returned that
answer?
It was widely speculated at the time by many in the legal profession
that a Not Proven verdict could prove to be unwelcome, but very likely
outcome given the circumstantial evidence.
In other words, nobody who knew anything gave you that answer.
I'm talking people in the judicial system you referenced above.
Yes, "widely *speculated*" by an anonymous "many".  In other words,
folks talking out their asses with zero knowledge.
Sounds like some folks on Usenet....
But not you of course, who actually says very little of any substance
- just concentrates on rubbishing what other people say.

Sadly, this is a creeping cancer on usenet.

I'm afraid that it might give you a thrill, but I doubt it impresses
many these days because it is basically a tired old cliche.
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-24 15:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenced the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of
suspicion".
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by soupdragon
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me?  Scotland presumably agreed to it.  Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
agree
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
anything with anyone.
Ok, so ask Scotland why they chose to do it that way, then, if you
dislike "agreed" so much.
Because the CIA asked them to, fearing a Not Proven verdict in a
normal
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
court?
And who in the Scottish government or judicial system returned that
answer?
It was widely speculated at the time by many in the legal profession
that a Not Proven verdict could prove to be unwelcome, but very likely
outcome given the circumstantial evidence.
In other words, nobody who knew anything gave you that answer.
I'm talking people in the judicial system you referenced above.
Yes, "widely *speculated*" by an anonymous "many".  In other words,
folks talking out their asses with zero knowledge.
Sounds like some folks on Usenet....
But not you of course, who actually says very little of any substance
- just concentrates on rubbishing what other people say.
All too many people these days seem to be 'self-rubbishing'. If they
stop posting rubbish, I'll stop pointing it out as being rubbish.
Post by sutartsorric
Sadly, this is a creeping cancer on usenet.
Indeed. I've been around pretty much since the beginning of things
and noticed more and more like you about.
--
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."
-- Confucius
sutartsorric
2012-05-24 16:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenced the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of
suspicion".
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by soupdragon
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me?  Scotland presumably agreed to it.  Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
agree
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
anything with anyone.
Ok, so ask Scotland why they chose to do it that way, then, if you
dislike "agreed" so much.
Because the CIA asked them to, fearing a Not Proven verdict in a
normal
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
court?
And who in the Scottish government or judicial system returned that
answer?
It was widely speculated at the time by many in the legal profession
that a Not Proven verdict could prove to be unwelcome, but very likely
outcome given the circumstantial evidence.
In other words, nobody who knew anything gave you that answer.
I'm talking people in the judicial system you referenced above.
Yes, "widely *speculated*" by an anonymous "many".  In other words,
folks talking out their asses with zero knowledge.
Sounds like some folks on Usenet....
But not you of course, who actually says very little of any substance
- just concentrates on rubbishing what other people say.
All too many people these days seem to be 'self-rubbishing'.  If they
stop posting rubbish, I'll stop pointing it out as being rubbish.
Post by sutartsorric
Sadly, this is a creeping cancer on usenet.
Indeed.  I've been around pretty much since the beginning of things
and noticed more and more like you about.
--
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."
                           -- Confucius
See what I mean?

You contribute nothing, but continue posting derogatory comments that
people who do not agree with your views.

But never mind. You are always right, so the following will no doubt
be all lies as well.

- - -

Most significantly, German federal police have provided financial
records showing that on 23 December 1988, two days after the bombing,
the Iranian government deposited £5.9 million into a Swiss bank
account that belonged to the arrested members of the PFLP-GC.

The decision to steer the investigation away from the PFLP-GC and in
the direction of Libya came in the run-up to the first Gulf War, as
America was looking to rally a coalition to liberate Kuwait and was
calling for support from Iran and Syria. Syria subsequently joined the
UN forces. Quietly, the evidence incriminating Jibril, so
painstakingly sifted from the debris, was binned.

Those who continued to press the case against the PFLP-GC seemed to
fall foul of American law. When a New York corporate investigative
company asked to look into the bombing on behalf of Pan Am found the
PFLP-GC responsible, the federal government promptly indicted the
company’s president, Juval Aviv, for mail fraud. Lester Coleman, a
former Defense Intelligence Agency operative who was researching a
book about the PFLP-GC and Lockerbie, was charged by the FBI with
‘falsely procuring a passport’. William Casey, a lobbyist who made
similar allegations in 1995, found his bank accounts frozen and
federal agents searching through his trash. Even so, documents leaked
from the US Defense Intelligence Agency in 1995, two years after the
Libyans were first identified as the prime suspects, still blamed the
PFLP-GC.

Suspicions and conspiracy theories have swirled around Lockerbie from
the beginning. Some of them are fairly outlandish. In Diplomatic
Baggage: The Adventures of a Trailing Spouse (2005), Brigid Keenan,
the wife of the British diplomat Alan Waddams, reported that over
dinner in Gambia, a former Interpol agent told her and her husband
that the bombing had been a revenge attack by Iran, in retaliation for
the downed airliner (though she didn’t say how he knew this). The
Interpol agent claimed the cargo had not been checked because the
plane was carrying drugs as part of a deal over American hostages held
by Hizbullah in Beirut. Militant groups were being allowed to smuggle
heroin into the US in exchange for information; the bomb had gone on
board when the PFLP-GC found a loophole in this drug-running
operation.

At least four US intelligence officers, including the CIA’s deputy
station chief in Beirut, were on the Flight 103 passenger list. In the
days following the bombing, CIA agents scoured the Scottish
countryside, some reportedly dressed in Pan Am overalls. Mary Boylan,
then a constable with Lothian and Borders police, has said that senior
police officers told her not to make an official record of the CIA
badge she recovered from the wreckage, asking her instead to hand it
over to a senior colleague. Her testimony, too, is now in the hands of
the SCCRC. Jim Wilson, a farmer from the village of Tundergarth,
reported shortly after the bombing that he had found in his field a
suitcase packed with a powdery substance that looked ‘like drugs’. He
last saw the suitcase when he handed it over to the police, he said;
he was never asked about it again.

In December 1998, Susan Lindauer, a US congressional aide, submitted a
sworn deposition to the court in which she claimed that Richard Fuisz,
a CIA agent, had given her a guarantee that he knew who was behind the
Lockerbie bombing. Lindauer’s affidavit describes a conversation in
Fuisz’s ‘business office’ in Chantilly, Virginia, in which he said he
knew for sure the perpetrators were based in Syria. ‘Dr Fuisz has told
me that he can identify who orchestrated and executed the bombing. Dr
Fuisz has said that he can confirm absolutely that no Libyan national
was involved in planning or executing the bombing of Pan Am 103,
either in any technical or advisory capacity whatsoever.’ ‘If the
government would let me, I could identify the men behind this attack,’
Lindauer says Fuisz told her. Lindauer has since been accused by the
US government of being an Iraqi agent; her case is pending. But her
earlier deposition has been submitted to the SCCRC. It can’t count for
much, however, since Fuisz himself is not able to comment. In October
1994, a month after Lindauer spoke to him, Fuisz was gagged by a
Washington court. The US government ruled that under state secrecy
laws he faced ten years in prison if he spoke about the Lockerbie
bombing. UN observers have since criticised this apparent restraint of
a key witness.
JNugent
2012-05-24 16:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenced the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of
suspicion".
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me? Scotland presumably agreed to it. Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
agree
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
anything with anyone.
Ok, so ask Scotland why they chose to do it that way, then, if you
dislike "agreed" so much.
Because the CIA asked them to, fearing a Not Proven verdict in a
normal
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
court?
And who in the Scottish government or judicial system returned that
answer?
It was widely speculated at the time by many in the legal profession
that a Not Proven verdict could prove to be unwelcome, but very likely
outcome given the circumstantial evidence.
In other words, nobody who knew anything gave you that answer.
I'm talking people in the judicial system you referenced above.
Yes, "widely *speculated*" by an anonymous "many". In other words,
folks talking out their asses with zero knowledge.
Sounds like some folks on Usenet....
But not you of course, who actually says very little of any substance
- just concentrates on rubbishing what other people say.
All too many people these days seem to be 'self-rubbishing'. If they
stop posting rubbish, I'll stop pointing it out as being rubbish.
Post by sutartsorric
Sadly, this is a creeping cancer on usenet.
Indeed. I've been around pretty much since the beginning of things
and noticed more and more like you about.
--
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."
-- Confucius
See what I mean?
You contribute nothing, but continue posting derogatory comments that
people who do not agree with your views.
But never mind. You are always right, so the following will no doubt
be all lies as well.
- - -
Most significantly, German federal police have provided financial
records showing that on 23 December 1988, two days after the bombing,
the Iranian government deposited £5.9 million into a Swiss bank
account that belonged to the arrested members of the PFLP-GC.
The decision to steer the investigation away from the PFLP-GC and in
the direction of Libya came in the run-up to the first Gulf War, as
America was looking to rally a coalition to liberate Kuwait and was
calling for support from Iran and Syria. Syria subsequently joined the
UN forces. Quietly, the evidence incriminating Jibril, so
painstakingly sifted from the debris, was binned.
Those who continued to press the case against the PFLP-GC seemed to
fall foul of American law. When a New York corporate investigative
company asked to look into the bombing on behalf of Pan Am found the
PFLP-GC responsible, the federal government promptly indicted the
company’s president, Juval Aviv, for mail fraud. Lester Coleman, a
former Defense Intelligence Agency operative who was researching a
book about the PFLP-GC and Lockerbie, was charged by the FBI with
‘falsely procuring a passport’. William Casey, a lobbyist who made
similar allegations in 1995, found his bank accounts frozen and
federal agents searching through his trash. Even so, documents leaked
from the US Defense Intelligence Agency in 1995, two years after the
Libyans were first identified as the prime suspects, still blamed the
PFLP-GC.
Suspicions and conspiracy theories have swirled around Lockerbie from
the beginning. Some of them are fairly outlandish. In Diplomatic
Baggage: The Adventures of a Trailing Spouse (2005), Brigid Keenan,
the wife of the British diplomat Alan Waddams, reported that over
dinner in Gambia, a former Interpol agent told her and her husband
that the bombing had been a revenge attack by Iran, in retaliation for
the downed airliner (though she didn’t say how he knew this). The
Interpol agent claimed the cargo had not been checked because the
plane was carrying drugs as part of a deal over American hostages held
by Hizbullah in Beirut. Militant groups were being allowed to smuggle
heroin into the US in exchange for information; the bomb had gone on
board when the PFLP-GC found a loophole in this drug-running
operation.
At least four US intelligence officers, including the CIA’s deputy
station chief in Beirut, were on the Flight 103 passenger list. In the
days following the bombing, CIA agents scoured the Scottish
countryside, some reportedly dressed in Pan Am overalls. Mary Boylan,
then a constable with Lothian and Borders police, has said that senior
police officers told her not to make an official record of the CIA
badge she recovered from the wreckage, asking her instead to hand it
over to a senior colleague. Her testimony, too, is now in the hands of
the SCCRC. Jim Wilson, a farmer from the village of Tundergarth,
reported shortly after the bombing that he had found in his field a
suitcase packed with a powdery substance that looked ‘like drugs’. He
last saw the suitcase when he handed it over to the police, he said;
he was never asked about it again.
In December 1998, Susan Lindauer, a US congressional aide, submitted a
sworn deposition to the court in which she claimed that Richard Fuisz,
a CIA agent, had given her a guarantee that he knew who was behind the
Lockerbie bombing. Lindauer’s affidavit describes a conversation in
Fuisz’s ‘business office’ in Chantilly, Virginia, in which he said he
knew for sure the perpetrators were based in Syria. ‘Dr Fuisz has told
me that he can identify who orchestrated and executed the bombing. Dr
Fuisz has said that he can confirm absolutely that no Libyan national
was involved in planning or executing the bombing of Pan Am 103,
either in any technical or advisory capacity whatsoever.’ ‘If the
government would let me, I could identify the men behind this attack,’
Lindauer says Fuisz told her. Lindauer has since been accused by the
US government of being an Iraqi agent; her case is pending. But her
earlier deposition has been submitted to the SCCRC. It can’t count for
much, however, since Fuisz himself is not able to comment. In October
1994, a month after Lindauer spoke to him, Fuisz was gagged by a
Washington court. The US government ruled that under state secrecy
laws he faced ten years in prison if he spoke about the Lockerbie
bombing. UN observers have since criticised this apparent restraint of
a key witness.
And there's a guy works down the chipshop - I swear he's Elvis.
sutartsorric
2012-05-24 17:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
And there's a guy works down the chipshop - I swear he's Elvis.
Former Woman Police Constable Mary Boylan states: “Towards the latter
part of 1999, I was asked to attend at Dumfries Police Station, to
give a statement to the Procurator Fiscal regarding my duties at
Lockerbie… I was informed that my notebook could not be found. Shortly
after this I read in a Scottish broadsheet that Lothian and Borders
Police notebooks had been destroyed."
sutartsorric
2012-05-24 16:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
And there's a guy works down the chipshop - I swear he's Elvis.
And yet again, the clones just rubbish everything in sight but never
actually say how they benefit from doing so.

They certainly dont improve their standing in the newsgroup
fraternity, so it must be something else.

It cant be intelligence because trawling around usenet looking for
alternative views to waste their time on with childish comments, is
about the saddest waste of a life imaginable.

No, so it must be money. I wonder how much you people are paid as
hired rubbishers of anything but the squeaky clean Mummy's boy
answers.

Oh well, yet another name to add to the list of robots

<sigh>
sutartsorric
2012-05-24 17:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by JNugent
And there's a guy works down the chipshop - I swear he's Elvis.
And yet again, the clones just rubbish everything in sight but never
actually say how they benefit from doing so.
They certainly dont improve their standing in the newsgroup
fraternity, so it must be something else.
It cant be intelligence because trawling around usenet looking for
alternative views to waste their time on with childish comments, is
about the saddest waste of a life imaginable.
No, so it must be money. I wonder how much you people are paid as
hired rubbishers of anything but the squeaky clean Mummy's boy
answers.
Oh well, yet another name to add to the list of robots
<sigh>
Jim Swire received a remarkable insight while at a meeting with UK
families 103 at the US embassy in London. “One of our number was told
by an official on the US Commission of Inquiry, in an aside that “your
government and mine know exactly what happened, but they’re never
going to tell”.”
sutartsorric
2012-05-24 17:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by sutartsorric
Post by JNugent
And there's a guy works down the chipshop - I swear he's Elvis.
And yet again, the clones just rubbish everything in sight but never
actually say how they benefit from doing so.
They certainly dont improve their standing in the newsgroup
fraternity, so it must be something else.
It cant be intelligence because trawling around usenet looking for
alternative views to waste their time on with childish comments, is
about the saddest waste of a life imaginable.
No, so it must be money. I wonder how much you people are paid as
hired rubbishers of anything but the squeaky clean Mummy's boy
answers.
Oh well, yet another name to add to the list of robots
<sigh>
Jim Swire received a remarkable insight while at a meeting with UK
families 103 at the US embassy in London. “One of our number was told
by an official on the US Commission of Inquiry, in an aside that “your
government and mine know exactly what happened, but they’re never
going to tell”.”
Claims of a cover-up at Lockerbie, well supported from the
Parliamentary and public record, have fuelled various alternative
explanations for the cause of the event. They are based on documented
reports that evidence was planted at Lockerbie, that Police notebooks
were destroyed, and evidence removed from the scene without
examination.

The Observer’s Paul Foot reported that Dr David Fieldhouse certified
and labelled 59 dead bodies under police supervision. His labels were
replaced with 58 ‘official’ labels, and the 59th body disappeared.
Allan Faraday who led evidence about a recovered bomb fragment, is no
longer considered accredited. And other material gathered from test
explosions was erroneously presented to the trial as actual recovered
evidence from the site.

These reports raise questions rather than support conclusions.
However, the key question that is not being asked is why was Megrahi
scapegoated, and who in Scotland permitted it? Kochler overtly claimed
US and Libyan officials in the courtroom influenced the trial to yield
a politically motivated outcome. Robert Black disagrees but does
conclude that more subtle pressures may have been felt by the
presiding judges. “It has been suggested to me, very often by Libyans,
that political pressure was placed on the judges”, he said.
soupdragon
2012-05-24 17:58:42 UTC
Permalink
sutartsorric <***@googlemail.com> wrote in news:865a77cf-75dd-
402e-8f52-***@eh4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

[3 follow-ups to his own post later]
Claims of a cover-up at Lockerbie, well supported.. snip..
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzz!!!
sutartsorric
2012-05-24 18:33:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
[3 follow-ups to his own post later]
Claims of a cover-up at Lockerbie, well supported.. snip..
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzz!!!
I dont care whether you like it or not, it will not go away.

These people include police officers present at the scene, members of
parliament and a parent of one of the victims.

They cant all be making it up just to annoy you, and if you think they
are you are even more arrogant than the others that jump to ridicule
anything that they have not been instructed to believe.

See if I care.
sutartsorric
2012-05-24 18:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
[3 follow-ups to his own post later]
Claims of a cover-up at Lockerbie, well supported.. snip..
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzz!!!
The American investigative columnist Jack Anderson has had some scoops
in his time but none more significant than his revelation - in January
1990 that in mid-March 1989, three months after Lockerbie, George Bush
rang Margaret Thatcher to warn her to 'cool it' on the subject.
conway caine
2012-05-24 20:44:08 UTC
Permalink
I must say, you lot do seem to be on about something.

soupdragon
2012-05-24 17:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by JNugent
And there's a guy works down the chipshop - I swear he's Elvis.
And yet again, the clones just rubbish everything in sight
No clones and just your stuff.
Post by sutartsorric
but never
actually say how they benefit from doing so.
I'd say it's done a service to non-contributing readers to enable them to
update their killfiles and skip the dreary dross from the dullards by
ridiculing it, with the added bonus of a little humour.
Haven't you got the message yet?
sutartsorric
2012-05-24 18:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by sutartsorric
Post by JNugent
And there's a guy works down the chipshop - I swear he's Elvis.
And yet again, the clones just rubbish everything in sight
No clones and just your stuff.
Post by sutartsorric
but never
actually say how they benefit from doing so.
I'd say it's done a service to non-contributing readers to enable them to
update their killfiles and skip the dreary dross from the dullards by
ridiculing it, with the added bonus of a little humour.
Haven't you got the message yet?
No, because if I was in your killfile you would not see the stuff that
I post, so there would be no need to try out your childish ripostes.
soupdragon
2012-05-24 17:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenced the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of
suspicion".
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me? Scotland presumably agreed to it. Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
agree
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
anything with anyone.
Ok, so ask Scotland why they chose to do it that way, then, if you
dislike "agreed" so much.
Because the CIA asked them to, fearing a Not Proven verdict in a
normal
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
court?
And who in the Scottish government or judicial system returned that
answer?
It was widely speculated at the time by many in the legal profession
that a Not Proven verdict could prove to be unwelcome, but very likely
outcome given the circumstantial evidence.
In other words, nobody who knew anything gave you that answer.
I'm talking people in the judicial system you referenced above.
Yes, "widely *speculated*" by an anonymous "many".
Who said they were 'anonymous'? This was on the likes of Scottish
Newsnight which featured Advocates who, I suggest, know far more about
the Scottish legal system than you and I. You asked who in the judicial
system made the statement above and I gave you the answer. If you don't
like the answer, take it up with them.
HardySpicer
2012-05-22 05:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain
Will
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was
convicted
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant
was
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error of
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters  in a war situation. The US made no attempt to
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under the
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya paid
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused to
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.
On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
He was found guilty, but the key witnes was bribed by the US for a
large sum of money.
Kind of jogged his mind a bit.
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA influenced
the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Neither is there any evidence that the payment
of $2m to Tony Gauci and $1m to his brother in fact not by the CIA but
the US Department of Justice was agreed with him before he gave
evidence. In fact it was paid some 5 years later.
So he was paid to give evidence? Not exactly reliable.
Rewards for information are routine in big cases.
So, by your lights, all expert witnesses (who are paid for testimony
directly) are "not exactly reliable"?
--
Well, an expert witness gives you the result you ask for. If you are
in the prosecution and an expert witness
you paid for shows a man is innocent then you won't use his evidence.
I have been an expert witness
on one occasion . More than often if an expert witness says one thing
the other side get another expert witness to say the opposite!!
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-22 07:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Fred J. McCall
So, by your lights, all expert witnesses (who are paid for testimony
directly) are "not exactly reliable"?
Well, an expert witness gives you the result you ask for.
I think there's a bit more integrity to it than THAT.
Post by HardySpicer
If you are
in the prosecution and an expert witness
you paid for shows a man is innocent then you won't use his evidence.
Well, that's a bit different than your first sentence.
Post by HardySpicer
I have been an expert witness on one occasion.
I hesitate to ask just what you would be qualified to be an 'expert
witness' on.
Post by HardySpicer
More than often if an expert witness says one thing
the other side get another expert witness to say the opposite!!
They will certainly try to find such an expert in order to raise
different theories, but that's a far cry from your initial claim that
the 'expert' tells you whatever you want to hear.
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Mel Rowing
2012-05-22 08:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by HardySpicer
Well, an expert witness gives you the result you ask for. If you are
in the prosecution and an expert witness
you paid for shows a man is innocent then you won't use his evidence.
I have been an expert witness
Christ! My faith in justice has just been shattered!
unknown
2012-05-22 21:28:36 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 May 2012 22:49:02 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain
Will
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenge=
r
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was
convicted
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant
was
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error o=
f
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters =A0in a war situation. The US made no attempt =
to
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under th=
e
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya pai=
d
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Mel Rowing
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused to
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.
On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
He was found guilty, but the key witnes was bribed by the US for a
large sum of money.
Kind of jogged his mind a bit.
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA influenced
the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of suspicion".
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Neither is there any evidence that the payment
of $2m to Tony Gauci and $1m to his brother in fact not by the CIA but
the US Department of Justice was agreed with him before he gave
evidence. In fact it was paid some 5 years later.
So he was paid to give evidence? Not exactly reliable.
Rewards for information are routine in big cases.
So, by your lights, all expert witnesses (who are paid for testimony
directly) are "not exactly reliable"?
--
Well, an expert witness gives you the result you ask for. If you are
in the prosecution and an expert witness
you paid for shows a man is innocent then you won't use his evidence.
I have been an expert witness
on one occasion . More than often if an expert witness says one thing
the other side get another expert witness to say the opposite!!
Not that easy. The expert will give you his opinion and you will pay
for it. If you don't like or cannot use this information, you will
have to scrap it.
The expert has payday even if he never sees a court and his evidence
is never used. It's never disclosed anyway.

max.it (the orange cage)
Mel Rowing
2012-05-22 22:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Not that easy. The expert will give you his opinion and you will pay
for it. If you don't like or cannot use this information, you will
have to scrap it.
The expert has payday even if he never sees a court and his evidence
is never used. It's never disclosed anyway.
It is disclosed. Either counsel may seek expert testimony. The expert
witness has a unique position relative to others. He is the only
witness that is openly paid a consultation fee. He is still paid this
fee regardless of whether he appears or not. Whoever employs the
witness will pay him and seek reimbusement from the court. Thius his
fee becomes part of court costs.

However, just like any other witness or potential witness he first of
all must make a witness statement. In his case that statment will take
the form of a witten report. All reports, statements documents
photographs etc. used by either counsel become court documents and as
such, whether they are to feature in the or not, must be disclosed. It
may well be that if a particular piece of evidence does not assist one
sides case, it might well assist the other.

You speak as though a court trail is a contest in deception between
counsel. It is not! It is an attempt to serve justice through getting
at the truth. Remeber the oath that every witness, including expert
witnesses, must make. They swear to tell the truth, *the whole truth,*
and nothing but the truth.
unknown
2012-05-22 23:02:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:01:19 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by unknown
Not that easy. The expert will give you his opinion and you will pay
for it. If you don't like or cannot use this information, you will
have to scrap it.
The expert has payday even if he never sees a court and his evidence
is never used. It's never disclosed anyway.
It is disclosed. Either counsel may seek expert testimony. The expert
witness has a unique position relative to others. He is the only
witness that is openly paid a consultation fee. He is still paid this
fee regardless of whether he appears or not. Whoever employs the
witness will pay him and seek reimbusement from the court. Thius his
fee becomes part of court costs.
However, just like any other witness or potential witness he first of
all must make a witness statement. In his case that statment will take
the form of a witten report. All reports, statements documents
photographs etc. used by either counsel become court documents and as
such, whether they are to feature in the or not, must be disclosed. It
may well be that if a particular piece of evidence does not assist one
sides case, it might well assist the other.
You speak as though a court trail is a contest in deception between
counsel. It is not! It is an attempt to serve justice through getting
at the truth. Remeber the oath that every witness, including expert
witnesses, must make. They swear to tell the truth, *the whole truth,*
and nothing but the truth.
Cool yer jets. Head first, feet second. Why you waste loads of lines
to repeat what I have already said?
I can seek any expert I like to give opinion on anything that may
serve my purpose in a court trial.
First the expert will give his opinion to me for scrutiny. If I decide
that his opinion is of no worth to my cause, I will disregard his
opinion. I will still have to pay his expert opinion on the evidence.
Disclosure is for evidence to be used in the trial, expert opinions on
evidence are always paid for, used in court or not. At the end of the
day It's all evidence whether it gets to the oath or not.

max.it (the orange cage)
Jeffrey Hamilton
2012-05-24 02:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by unknown
Not that easy. The expert will give you his opinion and you will pay
for it. If you don't like or cannot use this information, you will
have to scrap it.
The expert has payday even if he never sees a court and his evidence
is never used. It's never disclosed anyway.
It is disclosed. Either counsel may seek expert testimony. The expert
witness has a unique position relative to others. He is the only
witness that is openly paid a consultation fee. He is still paid this
fee regardless of whether he appears or not. Whoever employs the
witness will pay him and seek reimbusement from the court. Thius his
fee becomes part of court costs.
However, just like any other witness or potential witness he first of
all must make a witness statement. In his case that statment will take
the form of a witten report. All reports, statements documents
photographs etc. used by either counsel become court documents and as
such, whether they are to feature in the or not, must be disclosed. It
may well be that if a particular piece of evidence does not assist one
sides case, it might well assist the other.
You speak as though a court trail is a contest in deception between
counsel. It is not! It is an attempt to serve justice through getting
at the truth. Remeber the oath that every witness, including expert
witnesses, must make. They swear to tell the truth, *the whole truth,*
and nothing but the truth.
Did you bychance watch the OJ Simpson murder trial, Mel ? Deception was the
'name of the game' in that one.

Lot's of deception when the US tobacco industry, it's head honchos and it's
*expert witnesses* presented it's case before a Senate Committee hearing and
_everyone_ and their dog was sworn in for that affair.

cheers....Jeff
Cassandra
2012-05-21 20:25:35 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 May 2012 01:00:13 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was convicted
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant was
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.
His co-defendant was acquitted because the the judges thought the main
CIA paid-for witness was a lying bastard, despite Megrahi being
convicted on the same evidence.
Post by Mel Rowing
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error of
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters in a war situation.
The Captain was in action because he was disobeying orders at the
time.
Post by Mel Rowing
The US made no attempt to
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under the
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives.
And awarded the crew a medal
Jeffrey Hamilton
2012-05-21 20:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was convicted
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant was
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error of
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters in a war situation. The US made no attempt to
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under the
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya paid
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused to
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.
On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
A minor nit Mel, USS Vincennes had in fact entered Iranian waters and was
NOT in international waters and the USS Vincennes was NOT under attack, it
did the attacking and the Iranian jetliner it blew out of the sky, was in
Iranian airspace and in it's correct flight path...Hmm, I gues it was a
little more than a minor nit, afterall.

cheers....Jeff
sutartsorric
2012-05-21 21:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was convicted
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant was
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error of
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters  in a war situation. The US made no attempt to
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under the
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya paid
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused to
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.
On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
A minor nit Mel, USS Vincennes had in fact entered Iranian waters and was
NOT in international waters and the USS Vincennes was NOT under attack, it
did the attacking and the Iranian jetliner it blew out of the sky, was in
Iranian airspace and in it's correct flight path...Hmm, I gues it was a
little more than a minor nit, afterall.
 cheers....Jeff
Dont bother trying to correct their lies, they dont know any other
way.

So many decades telling nothing but lies and it becomes the norm.
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-21 23:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was convicted
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant was
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error of
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters  in a war situation. The US made no attempt to
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under the
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya paid
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused to
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.
On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
A minor nit Mel, USS Vincennes had in fact entered Iranian waters and was
NOT in international waters and the USS Vincennes was NOT under attack, it
did the attacking and the Iranian jetliner it blew out of the sky, was in
Iranian airspace and in it's correct flight path...Hmm, I gues it was a
little more than a minor nit, afterall.
 cheers....Jeff
Dont bother trying to correct their lies, they dont know any other
way.
So many decades telling nothing but lies and it becomes the norm.
Yes, we've noticed that about you lot who keep bringing up the
Vincennes.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
unknown
2012-05-22 22:06:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:08:39 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by sutartsorric
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was convicted
as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co defendant was
acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to pronounce on his
guilt.
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error of
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters  in a war situation. The US made no attempt to
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under the
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya paid
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused to
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.
On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
A minor nit Mel, USS Vincennes had in fact entered Iranian waters and was
NOT in international waters and the USS Vincennes was NOT under attack, it
did the attacking and the Iranian jetliner it blew out of the sky, was in
Iranian airspace and in it's correct flight path...Hmm, I gues it was a
little more than a minor nit, afterall.
 cheers....Jeff
Dont bother trying to correct their lies, they dont know any other
way.
So many decades telling nothing but lies and it becomes the norm.
Yes, we've noticed that about you lot who keep bringing up the
Vincennes.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Fat Freddy weighs in a with a double pointer, cheesburger and extra
fries!
He still hasn't managed to swallow the high point award Vincennes dish
yet, but his ability to chew and swallow on both sides of his immense
cake hole cavity should see him through, with overs to spare.

Unconvincing of course, but getting over the line by sheer jaw wagging
power and combined with excellent ability in bullshitery makes good
oul Freddy - - - - A greedy fat fucker.

max.it (the orange cage)
soupdragon
2012-05-21 21:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
"Yet another innocent victim of Lockerbie dies. However Captain Will
Rogers III of the USS Vincennes who shot down an unarmed passenger
aircraft - thus causing Lockerbie five months later,
How can you possibly know that? As I remember it Megrahi was
convicted as the result of a very exhaustive trial in which his co
defendant was acquitted yet you find yourself in a position to
pronounce on his guilt.
The USS Vincennes incident on the other hand represented an error of
judgement made whilst Vincennes was under attack whilst in
international waters in a war situation. The US made no attempt to
evade reasponsibilty but did all that could have been done under the
circumstances no matter how inadequate, apologised and paid
compensation to the relatives. It was 14 years later that Libya paid
compensation to relatives of the victims of PA 103. Some refused to
accept it. Responsibility as such has never been admitted.
On the other hand Pan Am flight 103 was deliberately targetted and
attacked.
A minor nit Mel, USS Vincennes had in fact entered Iranian waters and
was NOT in international waters and the USS Vincennes was NOT under
attack, it did the attacking and the Iranian jetliner it blew out of
the sky, was in Iranian airspace and in it's correct flight
path...Hmm, I gues it was a little more than a minor nit, afterall.
As someone else said, the Captain was disobeying orders, and got a medal
for it. Anyone else would have been court-marshalled if it had resulted
in so many innocent people dead.
Mel Rowing
2012-05-21 22:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
A minor nit Mel, USS Vincennes had in fact entered Iranian waters and was
NOT in international waters and the USS Vincennes was NOT under attack, it
did the attacking and the Iranian jetliner it blew out of the sky, was in
Iranian airspace and in it's correct flight path...Hmm, I gues it was a
little more than a minor nit, afterall.
Is it not a fact that the incident occurred in the Strait of Hormuz a
mere 21 miles wide. That would make Iran's territorial waters at that
point half of this distance just over 10 miles beyond the Iranian
coast. In fact apparenlty there is an internationally recognised and
used by all ships including warships, channel that cuts through both
Iranian and Omani waters.

USS Vicentes either deliberately indentified this aircraft as civilian
before shooting it down or not. You have to make your own mind up
about that one.

Whatever the case, the aircraft was under Iranian ATC. Under
international procedures the first consideration of ATC is aircraft
safety. If Iranian ATC were unaware of the incident taking place in
the Strait then they certainly should have done since the Iranian
military certainly would have known. If this incident had happened
under British ATC then there would have been no aircraft shot down
since ATC would have created an exclusion zone around the incident and
either grounded civilian aircraft or diverted them round it. ATC
systems do not send civilian aircraft into an ongoing conflict area.
To do so is almost asking for an incident. It is in battle situations
that mistakes are most likely to be made
soupdragon
2012-05-21 23:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
A minor nit Mel, USS Vincennes had in fact entered Iranian waters and
was NOT in international waters and the USS Vincennes was NOT under
attack, i
t
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
did the attacking and the Iranian jetliner it blew out of the sky,
was in Iranian airspace and in it's correct flight path...Hmm, I gues
it was a little more than a minor nit, afterall.
Is it not a fact that the incident occurred in the Strait of Hormuz a
mere 21 miles wide. That would make Iran's territorial waters at that
point half of this distance just over 10 miles beyond the Iranian
coast. In fact apparenlty there is an internationally recognised and
used by all ships including warships, channel that cuts through both
Iranian and Omani waters.
There is a sea lane between the two all shipping is required to stay in.
The Vincennes was out of the sea lane and in Iranian territorial waters.
Even the US doesn't dispute this.
Post by Mel Rowing
USS Vicentes either deliberately indentified this aircraft as civilian
before shooting it down or not. You have to make your own mind up
about that one.
Likely someone made an error on the ship.
Post by Mel Rowing
Whatever the case, the aircraft was under Iranian ATC. Under
international procedures the first consideration of ATC is aircraft
safety. If Iranian ATC were unaware of the incident taking place in
the Strait then they certainly should have done since the Iranian
military certainly would have known. If this incident had happened
under British ATC then there would have been no aircraft shot down
since ATC would have created an exclusion zone around the incident and
either grounded civilian aircraft or diverted them round it.
This was a routine flight on a routine flight path well clear of events
further up the Gulf where the war was going on. data tapes from the
Vincennes confirmed that the plane was on a commercial flight path,
ascending and squawking correctly. The Vincennes received all that data.
There was no reason for ATC, even if they had known, to assume a minor
skirmish would have any bearing on a commercial flight that was
conducting itself correctly and in line with international standards. To
try and shift the blame to the Iranians is ridiculous. The onus was on
the Vicennes to ensure it correctly identify the plane and its flight
path before engaging its missiles. It failed to do that and that's where
the blame lies.

ATC
Post by Mel Rowing
systems do not send civilian aircraft into an ongoing conflict area.
To do so is almost asking for an incident. It is in battle situations
that mistakes are most likely to be made
Mel Rowing
2012-05-22 07:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
Whatever the case, the aircraft was under Iranian ATC. Under
international procedures the first consideration of ATC is aircraft
safety. If Iranian ATC were unaware of the incident taking place in
the Strait then they certainly should have done since the Iranian
military certainly would have known. If this incident had happened
under British ATC  then there would have been no aircraft shot down
since ATC would have created an exclusion zone around the incident and
either grounded civilian aircraft or diverted them round it.
This was a routine flight on a routine flight path well clear of events
further up the Gulf where the war was going on. data tapes from the
Vincennes confirmed that the plane was on a commercial flight path,
ascending and squawking correctly. The Vincennes received all that data.
Of couse in the absence of agreed codes squark does not identify an
aircraft at all. In any case a pilot can squark any code he chooses
just by adjusting switches.
Post by soupdragon
There was no reason for ATC, even if they had known, to assume a minor
skirmish would have any bearing on a commercial flight that was
conducting itself correctly and in line with international standards. To
try and shift the blame to the Iranians is ridiculous. The onus was on
the Vicennes to ensure it correctly identify the plane and its flight
path before engaging its missiles. It failed to do that and that's where
the blame lies.
If you are going to ask questions with regard to any incident then you
must ask about both sides. What I say is that British ATC would not
have directed a civil aircraft over any marine conflagation involving
a warship. There was no reason why the aircraft could not have been
diverted around the incident or take off delayed until the danger had
passed. The primary concern of ATC is the safety of aircraft.

Then we have the Vicennes. She was under attack. There is no doubt as
to where the Commanding officer's priority would and should lie and
that is with the safety of his ship and not the safety of aricraft
flying over it. Further he had every reason to suspect under the
circumstances that the attack might be a sideshow to distract the
Commander of the warship away from a more serious attack from the
air.

It would appear therefore that Captain Gee did unfortunately
interpret the situation in this way.
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
systems do not send civilian aircraft into an ongoing conflict area.
To do so is almost asking for an incident. It is in battle situations
that mistakes are most likely to be made
soupdragon
2012-05-22 08:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
innews:e2964504-74b0-486d-be
Post by Mel Rowing
Whatever the case, the aircraft was under Iranian ATC. Under
international procedures the first consideration of ATC is aircraft
safety. If Iranian ATC were unaware of the incident taking place in
the Strait then they certainly should have done since the Iranian
military certainly would have known. If this incident had happened
under British ATC  then there would have been no aircraft shot down
since ATC would have created an exclusion zone around the incident
and either grounded civilian aircraft or diverted them round it.
This was a routine flight on a routine flight path well clear of
events further up the Gulf where the war was going on. data tapes
from the Vincennes confirmed that the plane was on a commercial
flight path, ascending and squawking correctly. The Vincennes
received all that data.
Of couse in the absence of agreed codes squark does not identify an
aircraft at all. In any case a pilot can squark any code he chooses
just by adjusting switches.
But there was agreed codes. The aircraft was squawking Mode 3, the
standard civilian aircraft code. This was picked up and recorded by
the Vincennes Aegis system, so there can be no doubt that the Vincennes
was receiving the correct codes. What happened is that it was incorrectly
identified by the crew on the bridge. None of this is disputed by the US.
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no reason for ATC, even if they had known, to assume a
minor skirmish would have any bearing on a commercial flight that was
conducting itself correctly and in line with international standards.
To try and shift the blame to the Iranians is ridiculous. The onus
was on the Vicennes to ensure it correctly identify the plane and its
flight path before engaging its missiles. It failed to do that and
that's where the blame lies.
If you are going to ask questions with regard to any incident then you
must ask about both sides. What I say is that British ATC would not
have directed a civil aircraft over any marine conflagation involving
a warship. There was no reason why the aircraft could not have been
diverted around the incident or take off delayed until the danger had
passed. The primary concern of ATC is the safety of aircraft.
What 'marine conflagration'? Incidents like this happened every day. The
Iranians were, quite legally, stopping and boarding ships to search if
they were taking arms to Iraq, whom they were at war with. The US were
there, supposedly, keeping an eye on things. Aircraft flew this route
regularly between Iran and the Gulf States. There was no reason to
assume this was any different from the numerous incidents between
US warships patrolling the area and the Iranian gunboats which were
little more than small modified 4 man speedboats. We don't even know
if the gunboats had radios.
Post by Mel Rowing
Then we have the Vicennes. She was under attack.
She was not under 'attack'. She sent a helicopter illegally into Iranian
airspace to spy on some small boats that were moored by an island. The
helicopter received some small arms fire from one of the boats and the
Vincennes, against orders gave chase and the whole group then became a
Benny Hill style chase between the Vicennes and the two small boats.
First they illegally entered Omani waters and were warned away by the
Omani navy, then they entered Iranian territorial waters at which point
the tragedy unfolded.
Post by Mel Rowing
There is no doubt as
to where the Commanding officer's priority would and should lie and
that is with the safety of his ship and not the safety of aricraft
flying over it.
In which case he should have obeyed orders and not given chase illegally
into territorial waters.
Post by Mel Rowing
Further he had every reason to suspect under the
circumstances that the attack might be a sideshow to distract the
Commander of the warship away from a more serious attack from the
air.
Really? On what do you base this given that there were two other US ships
in the area watching in disbelief as the Vicennes disobeyed orders and
went chasing two small gunboats?
Post by Mel Rowing
It would appear therefore that Captain Gee did unfortunately
interpret the situation in this way.
And had he consulted his Aegis system, he would have found it was a
commercial aircraft climbing, not descending to attack as he and his
crew believed. All the information was there for him but, for reasons
that have been speculated about widely, he chose to ignore it with tragic
consequencies.
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-22 13:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
innews:e2964504-74b0-486d-be
Post by Mel Rowing
Whatever the case, the aircraft was under Iranian ATC. Under
international procedures the first consideration of ATC is aircraft
safety. If Iranian ATC were unaware of the incident taking place in
the Strait then they certainly should have done since the Iranian
military certainly would have known. If this incident had happened
under British ATC  then there would have been no aircraft shot down
since ATC would have created an exclusion zone around the incident
and either grounded civilian aircraft or diverted them round it.
This was a routine flight on a routine flight path well clear of
events further up the Gulf where the war was going on. data tapes
from the Vincennes confirmed that the plane was on a commercial
flight path, ascending and squawking correctly. The Vincennes
received all that data.
Of couse in the absence of agreed codes squark does not identify an
aircraft at all. In any case a pilot can squark any code he chooses
just by adjusting switches.
But there was agreed codes. The aircraft was squawking Mode 3, the
standard civilian aircraft code. This was picked up and recorded by
the Vincennes Aegis system, so there can be no doubt that the Vincennes
was receiving the correct codes. What happened is that it was incorrectly
identified by the crew on the bridge. None of this is disputed by the US.
Military aircraft will also routinely squawk 3C, particularly when
they want to look like COMAIR.

"Incorrectly identified by the crew on the bridge"? I don't think so.
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no reason for ATC, even if they had known, to assume a
minor skirmish would have any bearing on a commercial flight that was
conducting itself correctly and in line with international standards.
To try and shift the blame to the Iranians is ridiculous. The onus
was on the Vicennes to ensure it correctly identify the plane and its
flight path before engaging its missiles. It failed to do that and
that's where the blame lies.
If you are going to ask questions with regard to any incident then you
must ask about both sides. What I say is that British ATC would not
have directed a civil aircraft over any marine conflagation involving
a warship. There was no reason why the aircraft could not have been
diverted around the incident or take off delayed until the danger had
passed. The primary concern of ATC is the safety of aircraft.
What 'marine conflagration'? Incidents like this happened every day. The
Iranians were, quite legally, stopping and boarding ships to search if
they were taking arms to Iraq, whom they were at war with.
They were also doing a lot of other, somewhat less legal, things.
Post by soupdragon
The US were
there, supposedly, keeping an eye on things. Aircraft flew this route
regularly between Iran and the Gulf States. There was no reason to
assume this was any different from the numerous incidents between
US warships patrolling the area and the Iranian gunboats which were
little more than small modified 4 man speedboats. We don't even know
if the gunboats had radios.
But we know that the aircraft did and that it remained silent in the
face of multiple challenges.
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
Then we have the Vicennes. She was under attack.
She was not under 'attack'. She sent a helicopter illegally into Iranian
airspace to spy on some small boats that were moored by an island. The
helicopter received some small arms fire from one of the boats and the
Vincennes, against orders gave chase and the whole group then became a
Benny Hill style chase between the Vicennes and the two small boats.
First they illegally entered Omani waters and were warned away by the
Omani navy, then they entered Iranian territorial waters at which point
the tragedy unfolded.
So the Iranian boats opened fire on US forces and then illegally
entered Omani waters.
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
There is no doubt as
to where the Commanding officer's priority would and should lie and
that is with the safety of his ship and not the safety of aricraft
flying over it.
In which case he should have obeyed orders and not given chase illegally
into territorial waters.
Since Vincennes would have been SOPA, just who do you think these
'orders' came from?
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
Further he had every reason to suspect under the
circumstances that the attack might be a sideshow to distract the
Commander of the warship away from a more serious attack from the
air.
Really? On what do you base this given that there were two other US ships
in the area watching in disbelief as the Vicennes disobeyed orders and
went chasing two small gunboats?
You really, REALLY want to ignore that F-14 they were tracking, don't
you?
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
It would appear therefore that Captain Gee did unfortunately
interpret the situation in this way.
And had he consulted his Aegis system, he would have found it was a
commercial aircraft climbing, not descending to attack as he and his
crew believed. All the information was there for him but, for reasons
that have been speculated about widely, he chose to ignore it with tragic
consequencies.
The preceding is an outright lie.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
soupdragon
2012-05-22 17:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
innews:e2964504-74b0-486d-be
Post by Mel Rowing
Whatever the case, the aircraft was under Iranian ATC. Under
international procedures the first consideration of ATC is aircraft
safety. If Iranian ATC were unaware of the incident taking place in
the Strait then they certainly should have done since the Iranian
military certainly would have known. If this incident had happened
under British ATC  then there would have been no aircraft shot down
since ATC would have created an exclusion zone around the incident
and either grounded civilian aircraft or diverted them round it.
This was a routine flight on a routine flight path well clear of
events further up the Gulf where the war was going on. data tapes
from the Vincennes confirmed that the plane was on a commercial
flight path, ascending and squawking correctly. The Vincennes
received all that data.
Of couse in the absence of agreed codes squark does not identify an
aircraft at all. In any case a pilot can squark any code he chooses
just by adjusting switches.
But there was agreed codes. The aircraft was squawking Mode 3, the
standard civilian aircraft code. This was picked up and recorded by
the Vincennes Aegis system, so there can be no doubt that the Vincennes
was receiving the correct codes. What happened is that it was
incorrectly
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
identified by the crew on the bridge. None of this is disputed by the US.
Military aircraft will also routinely squawk 3C, particularly when
they want to look like COMAIR.
Riiight.
Post by Fred J. McCall
"Incorrectly identified by the crew on the bridge"? I don't think so.
Why then, did they think it was a F14, then?
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no reason for ATC, even if they had known, to assume a
minor skirmish would have any bearing on a commercial flight that was
conducting itself correctly and in line with international
standards.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
To try and shift the blame to the Iranians is ridiculous. The onus
was on the Vicennes to ensure it correctly identify the plane and its
flight path before engaging its missiles. It failed to do that and
that's where the blame lies.
If you are going to ask questions with regard to any incident then you
must ask about both sides. What I say is that British ATC would not
have directed a civil aircraft over any marine conflagation involving
a warship. There was no reason why the aircraft could not have been
diverted around the incident or take off delayed until the danger had
passed. The primary concern of ATC is the safety of aircraft.
What 'marine conflagration'? Incidents like this happened every day. The
Iranians were, quite legally, stopping and boarding ships to search if
they were taking arms to Iraq, whom they were at war with.
They were also doing a lot of other, somewhat less legal, things.
Post by soupdragon
The US were
there, supposedly, keeping an eye on things. Aircraft flew this route
regularly between Iran and the Gulf States. There was no reason to
assume this was any different from the numerous incidents between
US warships patrolling the area and the Iranian gunboats which were
little more than small modified 4 man speedboats. We don't even know
if the gunboats had radios.
But we know that the aircraft did and that it remained silent in the
face of multiple challenges.
7 of which were on military emergency frequencies which the Airbus was
not equipped to pick up, 3 on civilian emergency frequencies and none
on regular ATC frequencies. Of the 3 on civilian frequencies, they were
vague merely referring to 'unknown Iranian aircraft' and gave the wrong
speed. The Iranians also had a P3 Orion in the area on coastal duty.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
Then we have the Vicennes. She was under attack.
She was not under 'attack'. She sent a helicopter illegally into Iranian
airspace to spy on some small boats that were moored by an island. The
helicopter received some small arms fire from one of the boats and the
Vincennes, against orders gave chase and the whole group then became a
Benny Hill style chase between the Vicennes and the two small boats.
First they illegally entered Omani waters and were warned away by the
Omani navy, then they entered Iranian territorial waters at which point
the tragedy unfolded.
So the Iranian boats opened fire on US forces and then illegally
entered Omani waters.
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
There is no doubt as
to where the Commanding officer's priority would and should lie and
that is with the safety of his ship and not the safety of aricraft
flying over it.
In which case he should have obeyed orders and not given chase
illegally
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
into territorial waters.
Since Vincennes would have been SOPA, just who do you think these
'orders' came from?
Captain Richard McKenna, Chief of Surface Warfare for the Commander of
the Joint Task Force, who'd ordered Rogers back to Abu Musa.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
Further he had every reason to suspect under the
circumstances that the attack might be a sideshow to distract the
Commander of the warship away from a more serious attack from the
air.
Really? On what do you base this given that there were two other US ships
in the area watching in disbelief as the Vicennes disobeyed orders and
went chasing two small gunboats?
You really, REALLY want to ignore that F-14 they were tracking, don't
you?
I'm more interested in the P3 Orion that was in the area. We now know
the F14 was, in fact, an Airbus.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
It would appear therefore that Captain Gee did unfortunately
interpret the situation in this way.
And had he consulted his Aegis system, he would have found it was a
commercial aircraft climbing, not descending to attack as he and his
crew believed. All the information was there for him but, for reasons
that have been speculated about widely, he chose to ignore it with tragic
consequencies.
The preceding is an outright lie.
"The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and
reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air
Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the
assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in
altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down."

Fogarty Report: Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding
the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-23 03:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
innews:e2964504-74b0-486d-be
Post by Mel Rowing
Whatever the case, the aircraft was under Iranian ATC. Under
international procedures the first consideration of ATC is
aircraft
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
safety. If Iranian ATC were unaware of the incident taking place
in
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
the Strait then they certainly should have done since the Iranian
military certainly would have known. If this incident had happened
under British ATC  then there would have been no aircraft shot
down
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
since ATC would have created an exclusion zone around the incident
and either grounded civilian aircraft or diverted them round it.
This was a routine flight on a routine flight path well clear of
events further up the Gulf where the war was going on. data tapes
from the Vincennes confirmed that the plane was on a commercial
flight path, ascending and squawking correctly. The Vincennes
received all that data.
Of couse in the absence of agreed codes squark does not identify an
aircraft at all. In any case a pilot can squark any code he chooses
just by adjusting switches.
But there was agreed codes. The aircraft was squawking Mode 3, the
standard civilian aircraft code. This was picked up and recorded by
the Vincennes Aegis system, so there can be no doubt that the Vincennes
was receiving the correct codes. What happened is that it was
incorrectly
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
identified by the crew on the bridge. None of this is disputed by the
US.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Military aircraft will also routinely squawk 3C, particularly when
they want to look like COMAIR.
Riiight.
Sorry you're so ignorant on the subject that facts apparently leave
you confused.
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Fred J. McCall
"Incorrectly identified by the crew on the bridge"? I don't think so.
Why then, did they think it was a F14, then?
It's a rather long story and has nothing to do with the Bridge.
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
There was no reason for ATC, even if they had known, to assume a
minor skirmish would have any bearing on a commercial flight that was
conducting itself correctly and in line with international standards.
To try and shift the blame to the Iranians is ridiculous. The onus
was on the Vicennes to ensure it correctly identify the plane and its
flight path before engaging its missiles. It failed to do that and
that's where the blame lies.
If you are going to ask questions with regard to any incident then you
must ask about both sides. What I say is that British ATC would not
have directed a civil aircraft over any marine conflagation involving
a warship. There was no reason why the aircraft could not have been
diverted around the incident or take off delayed until the danger had
passed. The primary concern of ATC is the safety of aircraft.
What 'marine conflagration'? Incidents like this happened every day. The
Iranians were, quite legally, stopping and boarding ships to search if
they were taking arms to Iraq, whom they were at war with.
They were also doing a lot of other, somewhat less legal, things.
Post by soupdragon
The US were
there, supposedly, keeping an eye on things. Aircraft flew this route
regularly between Iran and the Gulf States. There was no reason to
assume this was any different from the numerous incidents between
US warships patrolling the area and the Iranian gunboats which were
little more than small modified 4 man speedboats. We don't even know
if the gunboats had radios.
But we know that the aircraft did and that it remained silent in the
face of multiple challenges.
7 of which were on military emergency frequencies which the Airbus was
not equipped to pick up, 3 on civilian emergency frequencies and none
on regular ATC frequencies. Of the 3 on civilian frequencies, they were
vague merely referring to 'unknown Iranian aircraft' and gave the wrong
speed. The Iranians also had a P3 Orion in the area on coastal duty.
Bottom line, they had a radio, received calls, and did not respond.
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
Then we have the Vicennes. She was under attack.
She was not under 'attack'. She sent a helicopter illegally into
Iranian
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
airspace to spy on some small boats that were moored by an island. The
helicopter received some small arms fire from one of the boats and the
Vincennes, against orders gave chase and the whole group then became a
Benny Hill style chase between the Vicennes and the two small boats.
First they illegally entered Omani waters and were warned away by the
Omani navy, then they entered Iranian territorial waters at which point
the tragedy unfolded.
So the Iranian boats opened fire on US forces and then illegally
entered Omani waters.
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
There is no doubt as
to where the Commanding officer's priority would and should lie and
that is with the safety of his ship and not the safety of aricraft
flying over it.
In which case he should have obeyed orders and not given chase illegally
into territorial waters.
Since Vincennes would have been SOPA, just who do you think these
'orders' came from?
Captain Richard McKenna, Chief of Surface Warfare for the Commander of
the Joint Task Force, who'd ordered Rogers back to Abu Musa.
The preceding is a total misrepresentation of events. When ordered to
do so, VINCENNES turned back to Abu Musa. Then his helo, which had
followed the original batch of boats, came under AAA fire. Under the
ROE at the time, this negated the orders and allowed (legally) 'hot
pursuit'.
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
Further he had every reason to suspect under the
circumstances that the attack might be a sideshow to distract the
Commander of the warship away from a more serious attack from the
air.
Really? On what do you base this given that there were two other US ships
in the area watching in disbelief as the Vicennes disobeyed orders and
went chasing two small gunboats?
You really, REALLY want to ignore that F-14 they were tracking, don't
you?
I'm more interested in the P3 Orion that was in the area. We now know
the F14 was, in fact, an Airbus.
We 'know' no such thing, unless that Airbus mounted an AWG-9 radar.
Post by HardySpicer
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by soupdragon
Post by Mel Rowing
It would appear therefore that Captain Gee did unfortunately
interpret the situation in this way.
And had he consulted his Aegis system, he would have found it was a
commercial aircraft climbing, not descending to attack as he and his
crew believed. All the information was there for him but, for reasons
that have been speculated about widely, he chose to ignore it with tragic
consequencies.
The preceding is an outright lie.
"The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and
reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air
Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the
assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in
altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down."
Fogarty Report: Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding
the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988
Your lies, above:

"And had he consulted his Aegis system..."

He did. Implying he did not is a lie.

"... he chose to ignore it ..."

Outright lie.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
Jeffrey Hamilton
2012-05-24 02:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
A minor nit Mel, USS Vincennes had in fact entered Iranian waters
and was NOT in international waters and the USS Vincennes was NOT
under attack, it did the attacking and the Iranian jetliner it blew
out of the sky, was in Iranian airspace and in it's correct flight
path...Hmm, I gues it was a little more than a minor nit, afterall.
Is it not a fact that the incident occurred in the Strait of Hormuz a
mere 21 miles wide. That would make Iran's territorial waters at that
point half of this distance just over 10 miles beyond the Iranian
coast. In fact apparenlty there is an internationally recognised and
used by all ships including warships, channel that cuts through both
Iranian and Omani waters.
USS Vicentes either deliberately indentified this aircraft as civilian
before shooting it down or not. You have to make your own mind up
about that one.
Whatever the case, the aircraft was under Iranian ATC. Under
international procedures the first consideration of ATC is aircraft
safety. If Iranian ATC were unaware of the incident taking place in
the Strait then they certainly should have done since the Iranian
military certainly would have known. If this incident had happened
under British ATC then there would have been no aircraft shot down
since ATC would have created an exclusion zone around the incident and
either grounded civilian aircraft or diverted them round it. ATC
systems do not send civilian aircraft into an ongoing conflict area.
To do so is almost asking for an incident. It is in battle situations
that mistakes are most likely to be made
The Capt. disobeyed his orders (Rules of Engagement), his crew was both
poorly trained and undisciplined.

Mel, you're trying to suck and blow at the same time. Give it up...

cheers....Jeff
Fred J. McCall
2012-05-24 03:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
A minor nit Mel, USS Vincennes had in fact entered Iranian waters
and was NOT in international waters and the USS Vincennes was NOT
under attack, it did the attacking and the Iranian jetliner it blew
out of the sky, was in Iranian airspace and in it's correct flight
path...Hmm, I gues it was a little more than a minor nit, afterall.
Is it not a fact that the incident occurred in the Strait of Hormuz a
mere 21 miles wide. That would make Iran's territorial waters at that
point half of this distance just over 10 miles beyond the Iranian
coast. In fact apparenlty there is an internationally recognised and
used by all ships including warships, channel that cuts through both
Iranian and Omani waters.
USS Vicentes either deliberately indentified this aircraft as civilian
before shooting it down or not. You have to make your own mind up
about that one.
Whatever the case, the aircraft was under Iranian ATC. Under
international procedures the first consideration of ATC is aircraft
safety. If Iranian ATC were unaware of the incident taking place in
the Strait then they certainly should have done since the Iranian
military certainly would have known. If this incident had happened
under British ATC then there would have been no aircraft shot down
since ATC would have created an exclusion zone around the incident and
either grounded civilian aircraft or diverted them round it. ATC
systems do not send civilian aircraft into an ongoing conflict area.
To do so is almost asking for an incident. It is in battle situations
that mistakes are most likely to be made
The Capt. disobeyed his orders (Rules of Engagement), his crew was both
poorly trained and undisciplined.
And you're a liar. As I already noted, the Captain precisely followed
the ROE for the area and you haven't a clue about the crew.

About what I expect from you.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...