25th anniversary of Lockerbie atrocity today

Femme_Fatale

I remember when this awful event happened (I was a young kid) but never properly researched the finer details - until today. Holy ****... it's something that you wouldn't be able to get your head around.
Not a single survivor on board the plane (one woman was discovered still alive by a farmer's wife in a field, but it was too late by the time emergency services got there) and then the massive quantity of fuel causing firebombs that turned residents of an estate into ash. "Vaporised" is the term that was used...
How would all those people who witnessed what was falling from the sky ever be right again...

The ripple effect is still being felt today as it is agreed justice has never been fully done. Gaddafi said he never ordered it, but there are folks in the know who claim this is untrue...

wretcheddomain

The direct cause of these atrocities is the West's incessant interference in Arab affairs. In this sense, we need to apportion blame on both sides.

It just won't do to say it's a one-sided affair. I'm not suggesting you believe this but many do and its disconcerting.

Wacker The Attacker

I feel an invasion coming on

Muise...

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The direct cause of these atrocities is the West's incessant interference in Arab affairs. In this sense, we need to apportion blame on both sides.

It just won't do to say it's a one-sided affair. I'm not suggesting you believe this but many do and its disconcerting.

The direct cause was a bomb on the plane.

nlgbbbblth

I was recording Fanning's Fab 50 that night. I think it was the first night of three. A newsflash interrupted the broadcast. I still have it on tape.

wretcheddomain

Muise... wrote: »

The direct cause was a bomb on the plane.

The bomb was the proximate cause of the catastrophe.

The direct cause of the occurrence of the incident is Western interference in Arab countries.

Muise...

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The bomb was the proximate cause of the catastrophe.

The direct cause of the occurrence of the incident is Western interference in Arab countries.

What is the direct cause of your comments, since the OP never mentioned blame?

Femme_Fatale

If you're going to fight the West (and I do understand grievances towards the American government) don't do it by blowing up a jumbo jet full of people (mostly American, but of several other nationalities too) going home for Christmas and over land.
The people of Lockerbie must have thought it was the apocalypse. What an intensely numbing, terrifying, surreal feeling it must have been...

wretcheddomain

Muise... wrote: »

What is the direct cause of your comments, since the OP never mentioned blame?

The direct cause of my comments is wretcheddomain.

You're right - the OP never mentioned blame, I did.

Therefore, the net value of your post is 0.

Fox_In_Socks

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The direct cause of my comments is wretcheddomain.

You're right - the OP never mentioned blame, I did.

Therefore, the net value of your post is 0.

What would you like to do now?

bnt

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The direct cause of the occurrence of the incident is Western interference in Arab countries.

It was a bit more specific than that: Iran Air Flight 655.

The "West" has been "interfering" in "Arab" * countries for centuries - that alone isn't a reason for terrorist action. Osama Bin Laden, after receiving US support for years in Afghanistan, turned against the USA because of USA bases in what he considered the holy land of Saudi Arabia. Iran had actually thrown off Western interference (the 1979 revolution) and was engaged in a war with Iraq. They were even getting some weapons from the USA by back channels (the Iran-Contra affair).

So, the Iranians behind Pan Am 103 had no specific gripe with the USA until a US warship, guarding oil tankers headed for the USA, shot down one of their passenger aircraft.

* Iran is not an Arab country, the Iranian people are Persians.

wretcheddomain

bnt wrote: »

It was a bit more specific than that: Iran Air Flight 655.

The "West" has been "interfering" in "Arab" * countries for centuries - that alone isn't a reason for terrorist action. Osama Bin Laden, after receiving US support for years in Afghanistan, turned against the USA because of USA bases in what he considered the holy land of Saudi Arabia. Iran had actually thrown off Western interference (the 1979 revolution) and was engaged in a war with Iraq. They were even getting some weapons from the USA by back channels (the Iran-Contra affair).

So, the Iranians behind Pan Am 103 had no specific gripe with the USA until a US warship, guarding oil tankers headed for the USA, shot down one of their passenger aircraft.

* Iran is not an Arab country, the Iranian people are Persians.

I'd agree with most of your conclusions, as drawn from the evidence.

It's also true that at various times over the course of the past decades that the United States has shifted allegiance to one group or country and then further shifted. This is part and parcel of what I mean by 'interference'. It can be interference in support of one group and then a radical shift in support of another depending on the strategic interest in mind.

Muise...

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

What would you like to do now?

I think he'd like to say he told us so. It's always nice to fingerjab on a thread about a massacre.

clairefontaine

A guy I went to college with lost his 14 year old sister on that flight.

wretcheddomain

Muise... wrote: »

I think he'd like to say he told us so. It's always nice to fingerjab on a thread about a massacre.

It's not about jabbing - it's about putting catastrophes such as this in context. The only way to learn from events such as this is by analysing its causes and trying to act appropriately in measures to deter this type of crime.

Another poster rightly mentioned the Iranian flight which was savagely shot down by the USS Vincennes killing 290 people. It's a curious case to see how this is almost forgotten by many yet somehow the Lockerbie bombing deserves our attention.

The fact remains that both events were directly (or for some 'indirectly') caused by Western intervention and any analysis of events such as this needs to take causation into account if a fair and balanced discussion is to take place.

Skid X

I remember watching BBC2 when this Newsflash came on. It was a horrific tragedy, coming so close to Christmas made it even more poignant

clairefontaine

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It's not about jabbing - it's about putting catastrophes such as this in context. The only way to learn from events such as this is by analysing its causes and trying to act appropriately in measures to deter this type of crime.

Another poster rightly mentioned the Iranian flight which was savagely shot down by the USS Vincennes killing 290 people. It's a curious case to see how this is almost forgotten by many yet somehow the Lockerbie bombing deserves our attention.

The fact remains that both events were directly (or for some 'indirectly') caused by Western intervention and any analysis of events such as this needs to take causation into account if a fair and balanced discussion is to take place.

Really. Lockerbie happenned in Scottish airspace and killed 11 people on the ground. What the hell does SCotland have to do with the USS Vincennes who MISTAKINGLY identified the Iranian flight as hostile.

Lockerbie was a pre mediated terrorist attack on a civilian plane, carrying citizens of different nations, someof whom were children, some of whom were Scottish and in Scottish airspace.

Skylinehead

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Another poster rightly mentioned the Iranian flight which was savagely shot down by the USS Vincennes killing 290 people. It's a curious case to see how this is almost forgotten by many yet somehow the Lockerbie bombing deserves our attention.

Forgotton? It was one of the highest profile plane crashes in history, and still is. Obviously people are going to think about Lockerbie much more, because it happened in Scotland. Would you go on about people not musing over every Iraq suicide bombing in the same way as 7/7? It's human nature.

wretcheddomain

What on Earth are you talking about?

clairefontaine wrote: »

Really. Lockerbie happenned in Scottish airspace and killed 11 people on the ground. What the hell does SCotland have to do with the USS Vincennes who MISTAKINGLY identified the Iranian flight as hostile.

Lockerbie was a pre mediated terrorist attack on a civilian plane, carrying citizens of different nations, someof whom were children, some of whom were Scottish and in Scottish airspace.

If you've done any level of research into the Iranian flight you'll learn that the vast majority of the evidence points toward a deliberate strike. There was nothing 'mistaken' about that attack. I'd urge readers of your horrendous post to do even a light amount of reading on the topic and you'll also come to the same conclusions.

As for Lockerbie carrying different civilians, this is irrelevant to this discussion.

Skylinehead wrote: »

Forgotton? It was one of the highest profile plane crashes in history, and still is. Obviously people are going to think about Lockerbie much more, because it happened in Scotland. Would you go on about people not musing over every Iraq suicide bombing in the same way as 7/7? It's human nature.

When I said forgotten, I didn't mean that it's not known, rather, that the same level of critique is not given to both tragedies.

And if your human nature regards Lockerbie citizens are more valuable than the citizens on the Iranian flight, then you're welcome to that conclusion. I, however, regard both with equal distaste, regardless of proximity.

Femme_Fatale

wretcheddomain wrote: »

And if your human nature regards Lockerbie citizens are more valuable as the citizens on the Iranian flight

They didn't say that ffs. It's human nature to pay more attention to what is close to home, literally and metaphorically. I wouldn't expect people in e.g. India to pay much attention to Lockerbie.

clairefontaine

wretcheddomain wrote: »

What on Earth are you talking about?



If you've done any level of research into the Iranian flight you'll learn that the vast majority of the evidence points toward a deliberate strike. There was nothing 'mistaken' about that attack. I'd urge readers of your horrendous post to do even a light amount of reading on the topic and you'll also come to the same conclusions.

As for Lockerbie carrying different civilians, this is irrelevant to this discussion.



When I said forgotten, I didn't mean that it's not known, rather, that the same level of critique is not given to both tragedies.

And if your human nature regards Lockerbie citizens are more valuable than the citizens on the Iranian flight, then you're welcome to that conclusion. I, however, regard both with equal distaste, regardless of proximity.

Basically what you are doing is rationalising a terrorist attack on civilians in airspace that had nothing to do with the USS Vincennes.

So they deserved it. Got it. Merry Christmas. Your point has been made loud and clear.

I'm sure the same goes for 911, the Madrid bombings, the London subway bombings, the attack on the the Beslan school, etc, IRA attacks, etc.

wretcheddomain

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

They didn't say that ffs. It's human nature to pay more attention to what is close to home, literally and metaphorically. I wouldn't expect people in e.g. India to pay much attention to Lockerbie.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Basically what you are doing is rationalising a terrorist attack on civilians in airspace that had nothing to do with the USS Vincennes.

So they deserved it. Got it. Merry Christmas. Your point has been made loud and clear.

Again, please stop talking about human nature. Speak for yourself because I don't share your human nature. Similarly, if Indians wish to play down Lockerbie in the same way we play down the Iranian flight, they're equally deserving of condemnation.

At least Claire Fontaine is consistent with illogical posts. Numerous times throughout this discussion, I referred to both attacks as catastrophes/tragedies. I'm discussing the political dimension to these catastrophes.

Skid X

Johnny Rotten from the Sex Pistols and his wife were booked on the flight, but didn't board it. They were charmed that day.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/johnny-missed-lockerbie-flight-6948512.html

In an interview with the Scottish Sunday Mirror, the Sex Pistols frontman - real name John Lydon - said: "Nora and I should have been dead.

"We only missed the flight because Nora hadn't packed in time. We had a big row and then took the next flight out.

"The minute we realised what happened, we just looked at each other and almost collapsed."

Femme_Fatale

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Again, please stop talking about human nature. Speak for yourself because I don't share your human nature. Similarly, if Indians wish to play down Lockerbie in the same way we play down the Iranian flight, they're equally deserving of condemnation.

It's not about "wishing" to play things down. It's about what people are aware of.
Your "compassion" is pretty hollow when all you seem to want to do is score petty political points.

wretcheddomain

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's not about "wishing" to play things down. It's about what people are aware of.
Your "compassion" is pretty hollow when all you seem to want to do is score petty political points.

You can equally abhor a catastrophe and be in the realisation of its political consequences.

Elmer Blooker

I have a very good memory and this football match was on the telly that night.
The terrible atrocity actually happened while this was going on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wB7n2UwC6c

Mr.Crinklewood

Leave them to remember their loved ones in peace Sky News.

Femme_Fatale

wretcheddomain wrote: »

You can equally abhor a catastrophe and be in the realisation of its political consequences.

Never said you can't.

JupiterKid

I remember seeing it on BBC news as if it were yesterday. Hard to believe its been 25 years. Lockerbie has never fully recovered from that tragedy.

HighClass

Frankie Boyle has a good joke about it.

It was a tragedy, but the residents did get some good luggage out of it!

wes

clairefontaine wrote: »

Really. Lockerbie happenned in Scottish airspace and killed 11 people on the ground. What the hell does SCotland have to do with the USS Vincennes who MISTAKINGLY identified the Iranian flight as hostile.

There is some disagreement btw on the whole mistake thing. It seems that the Captain was found to be looking for a fight in some of the investigations, at best he was guilty of man slaughter, and he didn't spend any time in jail, which is to be expected.

Also, the American's awarded the Captain of the ship a bloody medal after what happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Rogers_III#Iran_Air_655

Rogers remained in command of the USS Vincennes until May 27, 1989.[13] In 1990, President George H. W. Bush awarded Capt. Rogers the Legion of Merit decoration "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989." The award was given for his service as the Commanding Officer of the Vincennes, and the citation made no mention of the downing of Iran Air 655.[14]

So the time frame he was awarded a medal for includes, when he "accidentally" killed a plane full of civilians. It seems to me that the American's went out of there way to rub salt in the wounds of the victims families, which was just a nasty (and stupid) thing to do imho.

None of that justifies the Lockerbie bombing, but again we have no clue if the Iranians were behind it. So let not down play another atrocity, just because the other one was committed by the US.

wretcheddomain

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Never said you can't.

Never understood the popularity of that juvenile phrase.

I never said you said I can't.

Jeez.

Every comment I make doesn't presuppose that you made a contrary position.

Femme_Fatale

wes wrote: »

So let not down play another atrocity, just because the other one was committed by the US.

Who's downplaying what? Quite the conclusions on this thread.

Tipsy McSwagger

Bottom line is the wrong man was sent to jail for it.

Elmer Blooker

wes wrote: »

None of that justifies the Lockerbie bombing, but again we have no clue if the Iranians were behind it. So let not down play another atrocity, just because the other one was committed by the US.

It's generally believed now that Gadaffi was responsible.

On 21 December 1988, came the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded in mid-air and crashed on the town of Lockerbie in Scotland after a bomb set by Libyan agents detonated, killing all 259 people aboard, and 11 people in Lockerbie. Iran was initially thought to have been responsible for the bombing in revenge for the downing of the Iranian Airbus by the USS Vincennes, but in 1991 two Libyans were charged, one of whom was convicted of the crime in a controversial judgement[39] on 31 January 2001. The Libyan Government formally accepted responsibility for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing on 29 May 2002, and offered $2.7 billion to compensate the families of the 270 victims.[40] However, the convicted Libyan, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was allegedly suffering from terminal prostate cancer, was released in August 2009 by the Scottish Executive on compassionate grounds.

A Dub in Glasgo

I was working in Lockerbie about 15 years ago and went to see the memorial. I am convinced that al-Megrahi was innocent and died an innocent man. The case against him is so full of holes it would embarrass a juvenile justice system. A black day for Scottish justice.

Sad for the victims families that the true perpetrators are still at large

A Dub in Glasgo

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

It's generally believed now that Gadaffi was responsible.

That link you posted is crazy - 'allegedly suffering from terminal prostate cancer'

He 'allegedly' died from prostate cancer, your post belongs in the tin foil hat forum

Elmer Blooker

perhaps you're right that al Megrahi was a scapegoat, Robert Fisk's book - The Conquest of the Middle East - "hints' that this character who carried out operations "on behalf of Syria, Gadaffi and Iran" was responsible, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Jibril

A Dub in Glasgo

Then justice was denied

Tipsy McSwagger

http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2009/09/03/lockerbie-megrahi-was-framed/

Foot reported that most of the staff of the US embassy in Moscow who had reserved seats on Pan Am flights from Frankfurt canceled their bookings when they were alerted by US intelligence that a terrorist attack was planned. He named Margaret Thatcher the "architect" of the cover-up after revealing that she killed the independent inquiry her transport secretary Cecil Parkinson had promised the Lockerbie families; and in a phone call to President George Bush Sr. on 11 January 1990, she agreed to "low-key" the disaster after their intelligence services had reported "beyond doubt" that the Lockerbie bomb had been placed by a Palestinian group contracted by Tehran as a reprisal for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by a US warship in Iranian territorial waters. Among the 290 dead were 66 children. In 1990, the ship’s captain was awarded the Legion of Merit by Bush Sr. "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer."

Perversely, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, Bush needed Iran’s support as he built a "coalition" to expel his wayward client from an American oil colony. The only country that defied Bush and backed Iraq was Libya. "Like lazy and overfed fish," wrote Foot, "the British media jumped to the bait. In almost unanimous chorus, they engaged in furious vilification and op-ed warmongering against Libya." The framing of Libya for the Lockerbie crime was inevitable. Since then, a US defense intelligence agency report, obtained under Freedom of Information, has confirmed these truths and identified the likely bomber; it was to be centerpiece of Megrahi’s defense.

Tipsy McSwagger

clairefontaine wrote: »

Really. Lockerbie happenned in Scottish airspace and killed 11 people on the ground. What the hell does SCotland have to do with the USS Vincennes who MISTAKINGLY identified the Iranian flight as hostile.

The flight was delayed and the bomb should have gone off over the Atlantic. This would have removed any evidence.

Lockerbie was a pre mediated terrorist attack on a civilian plane, carrying citizens of different nations, someof whom were children, some of whom were Scottish and in Scottish airspace.

It was an attack on America and since 178 out of 243 victims were American this makes perfect sense that it was a revenge attack for the shot down Iranian plane.

Nodin

wes wrote: »

There is some disagreement btw on the whole mistake thing. It seems that the Captain was found to be looking for a fight in some of the investigations, at best he was guilty of man slaughter, and he didn't spend any time in jail, which is to be expected.

Also, the American's awarded the Captain of the ship a bloody medal after what happened:



So the time frame he was awarded a medal for includes, when he "accidentally" killed a plane full of civilians. It seems to me that the American's went out of there way to rub salt in the wounds of the victims families, which was just a nasty (and stupid) thing to do imho.

.

O yeah. I remember footage of them coming into port....
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/25/us/crew-of-cruiser-that-downed-iranian-airliner-gets-a-warm-homecoming.html
Going on that my memory of the event is fairly accurate.

wes

Nodin wrote: »

O yeah. I remember footage of them coming into port....
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/25/us/crew-of-cruiser-that-downed-iranian-airliner-gets-a-warm-homecoming.html
Going on that my memory of the event is fairly accurate.

It beggars belief how insensitive the American's were about this. Not only did the Captain get off scot free, they went out of there way to honour him, and the rest of the crew. It really is amazing how stupid and shameful this carry on was.

bnt

clairefontaine wrote: »

Really. Lockerbie happenned in Scottish airspace and killed 11 people on the ground. What the hell does SCotland have to do with the USS Vincennes who MISTAKINGLY identified the Iranian flight as hostile.

Little, if anything. They couldn't have timed it exactly, given how many variables there are involved. Takeoff times, routings, etc. The plane would have been out of Scottish airspace in a matter of minutes. It is incorrect to think of the bombing as an attack against Scotland: 35 of the passengers were students from Syracuse University - do you think that means anything?

Fratton Fred

wretcheddomain wrote: »

If you've done any level of research into the Iranian flight you'll learn that the vast majority of the evidence points toward a deliberate strike. There was nothing 'mistaken' about that attack. I'd urge readers of your horrendous post to do even a light amount of reading on the topic and you'll also come to the same conclusions. .

I know an ex Royal Navy matelot that was on board a British destroyer in the same escort as the USS Vincennes and he was listening to everything that went on.

As far as he was concerned, the Iranian Airbus was doing everything wrong and the Vincennes did everything by the book.

He still can't believe they shot it down though. He said everything went quiet, the Vincennes disappeared and then someone just said **** me, they've ****ing shot it down.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know an ex Royal Navy matelot that was on board a British destroyer in the same escort as the USS Vincennes and he was listening to everything that went on.

As far as he was concerned, the Iranian Airbus was doing everything wrong and the Vincennes did everything by the book.

He still can't believe they shot it down though. He said everything went quiet, the Vincennes disappeared and then someone just said **** me, they've ****ing shot it down.

Not so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Shooting_down_of_Flight_655

They made a balls of it, essentially. What isn't mentioned, but is quite pertinent, is their mission. They were supposedly there to 'protect shipping' but in fact were acting to protect Iraqi shipping during the Iran-Iraq war. Having a "side" and an enemy may well have helped make them less wary about engaging targets than if they were there in a truly neutral capacity. Accidents happen in war of course, but there was no excuse for the attitude afterwards.

ProfessorPlum

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know an ex Royal Navy matelot that was on board a British destroyer in the same escort as the USS Vincennes and he was listening to everything that went on.

As far as he was concerned, the Iranian Airbus was doing everything wrong and the Vincennes did everything by the book.

He still can't believe they shot it down though. He said everything went quiet, the Vincennes disappeared and then someone just said **** me, they've ****ing shot it down.

What was the Iranian flight doing that was 'doing everything wrong'? They were on their filed flight plan in civilian airspace, in radio contact with the controlling ATC unit. Same as every commercial flight should be. Seems like US ship was a little over zealous. I really can't see how anyone can blame the Iranian crew for getting shot down.