Posted by Vito on August 27, 2009, 8:21 am
>> I see the same flaw here as in your other notions. Agencies like CIA
>> only do what profits them. They'd get zip from framing some Libyan. So
>> why bother?
> Without getting drawn into this, I fear that you are being immensely
> naive. The framing of 'some Libyan' and Libya itself would have deflected
> the blame from other (in my view, far more likely) suspects; that's why
> they would bother. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in late 1990, the US and UK
> needed to neutralise Iran and Syria (which hosted Iran's unpleasant
> Palestinian proxies such as Hezbollah). The last thing they would have
> wanted was a united Arab coalition against them, in their determination to
> liberate Kuwait. They needed to have widespread Arabic endorsement for
> this.
> Saudi was terrified that they were next in line for invasion. Colonel
> Gadaffi had made the error of voicing his support for Saddam Hussein
> which, given his past support for such lovable characters as ETA and the
> IRA, made him the perfect fall-guy. President Assad subsequently gave
> Syria's approval, after having been loved up by our two countries. Odd
> that, eh?
Makes sense
Posted by Henry on August 27, 2009, 8:12 am
Vito wrote:
>> "A former Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement
>> claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated.
>> The retired officer - of assistant chief constable rank or higher - has
>> testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board
>> crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people."
> I see the same flaw here as in your other notions. Agencies like CIA only
> do what profits them. They'd get zip from framing some Libyan. So why
> bother?
Read the info in the links you deleted - better yet, have
someone read them for you and to you....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid 908
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/FATDAWG_Flight%20103%20The%20Other%20Story.htm
Posted by Schiffner on August 27, 2009, 11:33 am
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14908
> http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/FATDAWG_Flight%20103 ...
Who reads tabloids? Oh yeah the trash and cult members...never mind.
Now back to work serf.
Posted by Beav on August 26, 2009, 3:35 pm
> "A former Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement
> claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated.
> The retired officer - of assistant chief constable rank or higher - has
> testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board
> crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people."
Forever the busy one eh Henry?
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
Posted by Henry on August 27, 2009, 8:53 am
Beav wrote:
>> "A former Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement
>> claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated.
>> The retired officer - of assistant chief constable rank or higher - has
>> testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board
>> crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people."
> Forever the busy one eh Henry?
I enjoy reading and learning about events that really matter.
If you rely on others, especially politicians and the corporate
owned and censored media tell you how it is, you're likely to be
misled.
<deleted links restored>
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid 908
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/FATDAWG_Flight%20103%20The%20Other%20Story.htm
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
XML Sitemap
>> only do what profits them. They'd get zip from framing some Libyan. So
>> why bother?
> Without getting drawn into this, I fear that you are being immensely
> naive. The framing of 'some Libyan' and Libya itself would have deflected
> the blame from other (in my view, far more likely) suspects; that's why
> they would bother. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in late 1990, the US and UK
> needed to neutralise Iran and Syria (which hosted Iran's unpleasant
> Palestinian proxies such as Hezbollah). The last thing they would have
> wanted was a united Arab coalition against them, in their determination to
> liberate Kuwait. They needed to have widespread Arabic endorsement for
> this.
> Saudi was terrified that they were next in line for invasion. Colonel
> Gadaffi had made the error of voicing his support for Saddam Hussein
> which, given his past support for such lovable characters as ETA and the
> IRA, made him the perfect fall-guy. President Assad subsequently gave
> Syria's approval, after having been loved up by our two countries. Odd
> that, eh?