A stinging rebuke from the damsel in the tower.

Oh, Kapitein!  Kapitein rush hither so we might smite this obtuse, disingenuous fool who dares questions our insightfulness and sincerity.

Your ability to laud the career of Ted Kennedy and then pose as defender of a damsel in distress, and Christianity to boot, suggests that you've been with one too many prostitutes, and you might want to get yourself tested.

Atheling's initiation of this little tit for tat is a perfect example of leading with one's mouth and gin, if she had a reflective bone in her body she would have stopped and realized she was the one who introduced shrillness into the thread. Harpies is a real problem within the conservative movement for females and males.

Your comments were cheap.  I value free speech, however, this does not prevent me from calling to attention your tasteless remarks.  If you are aware that atheling is female, then you must also be aware that she is Christian.

If lewd suggestions are all you have left at your disposal, perhaps you had better talk politics with a prostitute instead of Brussels Journal members - at least she would be getting paid to listen to you. 

Cheap shot?

Try head shot. Of course, I don't expect that to silence you, since you appear to have perfected the art of speaking out an orifice most of us rarely use for debating.

Next time before you pop off with that little pop gun you mistake for Big Bertha, I suggest you reread the post you're popping off at, as well as, your own before posting.

Though his conviction warrants further investigation, I remain convinced of his guilt and the guilt of the Libyan government.

However, the al-Megrahi case is unrelated to that of the six Bulgarian nurses.  Moreover, comparing the Libyan and Western (i.e. Scottish) legal systems is laughable.

atheling:

I suggest you take to your heels, before a gust of hot air blasts your way... 

traveller:

Your 20 years spent in Islamic countries has clearly impaired your judgement.  Instead of refuting the arguments and supporting facts I presented, you have repeatedly resorted to deprecatory remarks, made mistaken and unrelated comparisons (e.g. the Pope, Mexican-American boundary), and have all but regurgitated Libyan propaganda.

Rather than address the gross injustice on the part of Libyan officials, you blame the Western media.  This is my last comment to you on this matter.  Perhaps Libya suits you more than Flanders.

See Atheling how easy it is to imitate life. You win the Red Teddy for the TBJ. Kapitein has plans for you! Lingerie optional.

@KA:

Hysteria is right.  Sheesh.  This person is all over the place. 

@Capo:

"1.) What was the substance of Obama's promises? Change? I think he set the bar pretty low i.e. IQ level of most people who voted for him."

Actually, Dear Leader set the bar too high. He promised to close Guantanamo immediately, and then received a cold bucket of water thrown at him when he realized it would be tougher than he thought to close it.  No one in Congress will stand behind him on that one, and no other nation will accept them. 

He promised to end the war in Iraq and bring home the troops immediately, and yet we are still there because reality hit him in the face when he took office - a quick withdrawal would have resulted in chaos.

He promised a new era of bipartisanship and the end of "politics as usual" in DC.  He said he would appoint Republicans and new faces to his Cabinet to usher in his era of "bipartisanship".  HA!  No such thing!  Instead, he has appointed Clinton era hacks - it's all politics as usual.

He promised that every bill that crosses his desk will be available for five days on the net for the public to view and comment.  He has yet to keep that promise.  As a matter of fact, he has been whipping Congress to ram legislation through without even allowing its members to read the bloody bills! 

He couldn't even keep his promise of getting a dog from the pound for his kids - he got an expensive pedigreed dog instead. 

You don't have to tell me about Red Ted. But once again, you put yourself in an indefensible position regarding dictators and democratically elected legislators.

(Waiting for more blustering and hysteria now.) 

Okay kapitein, you call me a Nazi and I call you a pinko commie, you can punch your Party card and go sing the Internationale into the sunset.

No not a link to lingerie site by one of our friendly bots.

Atheling for your knowledge base of how big  business and big government are joined at the hip you really should study how the Kennedy clan corrupted so many facets of our lives, and how they exist above the laws of the land that us lumpen proletariat must abide.

And while you are at it take a look at all, and I mean ALL,  the other little congressional athelings :-) who have emulated Red Teddy and turned their elected offices into Princely Realms held together by blantant graft, corruption and a haughty disdain for their confused and bewildered constituents.

Perhaps we should call this period in American History, Appanage America?

Gaddafi might need a new tailor, but over the years which one, Red Teddy or Green Gaddafi raged a more prolonged and deadly attack against the founding princples of America?

atheling:

I appreciate your succinct and witty response.  More than I can say for capo. 

traveller:

International experts attributed the epidemic to the hospital's unhygienic conditions, and even Saif al-Islam admitted that some of the children had been infected with HIV prior to the Bulgarian nurses arriving in Libya.  Yet Libyan authorities accused the nurses of being Western intelligence agents and subjected them to barbaric torture, including the electrocution of their genitals. 

It is Libya's responsibility to control its borders.  If sub-Saharan Africans are entering Europe from Libya, then Libya is responsible.  Al Gathafi's opinions on illegal immigration via his country to Europe are irrelevant; he must either prevent sub-Saharan Africans from crossing the border into Libya or treat them as refugees in Libya.  This gross negligence is ironic, given the Colonel's pretensions to leading a united Africa.

Your references to "true Libyan children" and "black Africans" are indicative of strong personal bias.  When the Bulgarian nurses story broke, I was of the opinion that either Libya should be bombed until it released the nurses, or that all Libyan nationals in the EU to a maximum of 600 (preferably females) should be imprisoned and subjected to the same treatment.  If the torture of the nurses is reminiscent of medieval barbarism - sans electrocution - my 100:1 ratio is equally barbaric if more recent.  As you can now appreciate, I am far from a Libya-phile.

capodistrias:

Your hysteria and hyperbole remind me more of Mein Kampf than appeal to the democratic process.  In Singapore, undue criticism is a criminal offense if it is not "constructive".  Now I understand why...

I guess the WH was testing out their emergency control of the Internet.

'We the People' are a Republic. And Red Teddy was a traitor to the Republic . Go ask a Chekist.

"I disagreed with Ted Kennedy's positions on most issues, and I don't consider him a "liberal lion".  However, Ted knew what was required to get things done in Congress and that is more than I can say of Obama.  Ted worked tirelessly, even if the resulting compromises deviated widely from his objectives.  He understood the limitations of American democracy, and I respect his commitment to more than mere rhetoric.  Obama has no such substance; even with a Democrat-controlled Congress, he cannot make good on his election promises."

1.) What was the substance of Obama's promises? Change? I think he set the bar pretty low i.e. IQ level of most people who voted for him.

2) I think Red Teddy achieved his objectives very well, why do you think the Russians are so smugly laughing at Americans right now?  

3)Red Teddy is one of the true monsters of the 20th century. He betrayed his God, Country, family and his ancestral heritage. Instead of taking up the banner of his Irish Catholic heritage from his fallen brothers, who had their own faults, but who I would never think of as traitors, Red Teddy embraced the enemy whatever form it took the USSR, the IRA (commie bastards), Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc.,whatever form the culture of death took he embraced it. Why? An act of personal cowardice which he never overcame, but instead chose to drag as many of his fellow countrymen down with him as possible. Well America, Red Teddy has walked away again, how do you like the driver he left in the car this time? What a Joker.

traveller wrote that he "wouldn't want his [the Colonel's] job for any amount of money."  This is why my response compared the work involved for politicians in democratic and dictatorial governments, as traveller was under the illusion that the latter was incomparably difficult.

I disagreed with Ted Kennedy's positions on most issues, and I don't consider him a "liberal lion".  However, Ted knew what was required to get things done in Congress and that is more than I can say of Obama.  Ted worked tirelessly, even if the resulting compromises deviated widely from his objectives.  He understood the limitations of American democracy, and I respect his commitment to more than mere rhetoric.  Obama has no such substance; even with a Democrat-controlled Congress, he cannot make good on his election promises.

Many African wars are territorial disputes stemming from colonial rivalries.  The two-state solution for Israel and Palestine is neither a revelation nor attributable to the Colonel, however, I am pleased that he supports it.  As regards foreign nationals in Libya, I was mainly referring to guest workers e.g. the Palestinian physician, Bulgarian nurses and Swiss businessmen. 

Do you truly believe that LAFICO's investment in Juventus FC was in the interests of Libya or for the benefit of Al-Saadi?

One cannot ascribe Libya's successes to the Colonel without factoring in its failures, and as I noted in prior comments, he is personally responsible for the sanctions imposed on Libya.  Certainly, the Colonel is more progressive (and eccentric) than his sub-Saharan and Arab equivalents.

Libya does have an illegal immigration problem, albeit due to sub-Saharan migrants.  Moreover, Western media have not villified the Colonel, and in fact, many praise his rapproachment with the West and his re-invention. 

 "I am surprised by traveller's rush to al-Qaddafi's defense.  Democracy is far more difficult than dictatorship, even if the issues are rather dull by comparison.  Of the two, the recently deceased senator from Massachussetts had the harder job."

Harder job?  A rather strange point to bring up when questioning Traveller's posts? Are you saying that Red Ted was a champion of democracy, a tiller in the vinyards of the demos?

marcfrans: I fail to see why you addressed your last comment to me, since I did not mention the AIDS case.  I agree with everything else in your last posting.

I wanted to coordinate the response to traveller.  While I generally respect his or her prolific commentary, I am surprised by traveller's rush to al-Qaddafi's defense.  Democracy is far more difficult than dictatorship, even if the issues are rather dull by comparison.  Of the two, the recently deceased senator from Massachussetts had the harder job.  Moreover, the notion that al-Qaddafi was a "pure nationalist" is plain folly.  When it comes to seeking supranational power, the Colonel is greedier than the "eurocrats" in Brussels, albeit less successful.  Does the Colonel "respect nations and their national values"?  If invading Chad, interfering in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, perpetrating and funding terrorism, and mistreating foreign tourists and guest workers are signs of respect, then the answer is a resounding "yes".

@ Kapitein

I fail to see why you addressed your last comment to me, since I did not mention the AIDS case.  I agree with everything else in your last posting.

@ Traveller

We obviously disagree on the merits and demerits of Khaddafi as a person and as a leader, but I will not pursue this any further.

The one point I do want to dispute is your description of Libya as a "nation against the whole world".   Khaddafi is the officially 'chosen' leader of the African Union and receives regular visits from the Italian Prime Minister, among others. He is currently hosting a big international gathering of 'leaders' from around the world to celebrate his rule-for-life.    I thought I would never do this, but now I must quote Kapitein Andre:

"...al-Qaddafi is garden variety African warlord or president-for-life"

(but a rich one, because of oil, and with few subjects).   

Lockerbie was one of the stranger cases I followed, my recollection was that the better evidence pointed to others with the Libyans perhaps playing some kind of role but when the Libyans caved I have to admit no matter how interesting it might have been to speculate why they caved it seemed a less than pressing issue. Thanks for bringing some new info to light for me.

I fail to comprehend why the AIDS incident exonerates al-Megrahi.  According to investigate journalists, the children died as a result of accidental ingestion due to the pre-existing unsanitary conditions.  Rather than addressing deficiencies in the Libyan healthcare system, the Libyan authorities implicated the foreign doctor and nurses.  The nurses were raped and tortured in the custody of the Libyan police.  Al-Megrahi, in comparison was spared the indignity of broom handles and electrodes (which I am sure his victims' families would have gladly subjected him to), and even released early!

Libya's pariah status was entirely due to al-Qaddafi's ambitions, which in retrospect exceeded his talents and the resources at his disposal.  In attempting to achieve his megalomaniacal goals, al-Qaddafi resorted to war, terrorism and the sponsorship of both.  These resulted in sanctions and military operations by various countries.

Qaddafi has no honor.  He is as despicable to his own compatriots as he is to foreigners.  He jet-sets in tented luxury as Libyans endure grinding poverty; he forges a "special relationship" with the West, and yet avoids being held to account for his atrocities.

Face it, traveller, al-Qaddafi is garden variety African warlord or president-for-life. Though you may be charmed by his international presence, philosophical/political ideas, charisma and disastrous fashion sense, I am not.

@ Traveller

The Libyan government has admitted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, it paid monetary compensation to victims' families, and it handed over two of its operatives for trial in The Hague.  These are all facts.  They do NOT constitute the totality of the 'truth' about this bombing, but they do say a lot!

Obviously, one could argue that these facts resulted from pressure exerted on the Libyan dictator.  But, why would he accept responsibility for a crime he did not commit or has no responsibility for?  The current impasse between Switzerland and Libya illustrates the importance of 'honor' to him, no matter how screwed-up his values are.  Your theory requires a lot of 'faith' that conflicts with at least some factual observations. 

Though your excerpt is interesting and it raises issues that warrant further exploration, I remain convinced that al-Megrahi was rightfully convicted.  I understand that Libyan intelligence perpetrated the bombing in such a way as to cast blame onto Iranian and Syrian-sponsored terrorist groups.  Indeed, had the aircraft exploded over the Atlantic as intended, none of the evidence implicating Libya would have been recovered.  Moreover, Libya is a known perpetrator and sponsor of terrorism, albeit not very admittedly.  Whereas Palestinian terrorists tended to acknowledge their activities, Libya's terrorism was exposed by Western intelligence.

See: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/KH28Aa01.html

The accusation pretends that Megrahi has dissimulated the bomb in an audiocassette Toshiba filled with military explosives, in a piece of luggage registered in Malta. Pierre Prier, the investigating journalist of “Le Figaro” writes on 14th September 2007:”the only link between the Libyan and the bomb, according to the minutes of the 2001 court case, was a piece of cloth, wrapped around the electronic timer of the bomb”
That piece of fabric came from a shirt of the brand “Slalom”, sold by a shop in Malta, where the owner, Tony Ganci, recognized Megrahi as the buyer of the shirt.
This witness falls through because Megrahi couldn’t have been in Malta on that day, and during different testimonies Gancia comes out as frequently changing his sayings and being untrustworthy.
The court case develops then against the Libyans as being based on 2 metallic pieces the size of a finger nail, obviously coming from an electronic timing device. This device was produced by the Zurich company Mebo. That company exported those devices to Libya and to the Stasi of East Germany. Behind the Stasi is the Iranian relation of the “VEVAK or Iranian secret police”, the Iranian minister of Intelligence(the boss of VEVAK) and the armed section of those organisations, the SAVAMA.
Without losing any time and without even waiting for the outcome of the court case, the Security Council of the United Nations orders in the form of an ultimatum the immediate extradition of the 2 Libyans. Libya refuses and a series of sanctions are immediately applied. In November 1993 all Libyan funds are frozen worldwide.
Professional people are doubtful however. In December 1993, Claude Silberzahn, director general of the French DGSE, declares openly during an interview with the BBC, at the occasion of a broadcast titled:” silence over Lockerbie” that he is looking at new information and new elements which are interesting to say the least.
The Swiss manufacturer has gone back on his original declarations that Libya was the sole buyer of the electronic timers. This opens the East German channel and behind the Iranian/Palestinian connection, which proves that the original conclusion of the CIA was correct. More important, an engineer of the Mebo company confirms that he testified in 1990 to the authorities that the East Germans had bought this equipment. This channel had never been followed. “Der Spiegel”, the German serious magazine, publishes 18th of April 1994, the declaration of the German Prosecutor Volker Ratch, that “no German judge would condemn the 2 Libyans today in light of the elements we have.”

Tired of the embargo Moammar Khaddaffi accepts in 1999 to “extradite” the Libyans to a Scottish court in The Hague. The families of the victims accept and the 2 Libyans are judged by the Scottish judges. Megrahi receives a sentence of perpetual imprisonment and Fahima is set free.
After the “extradition” of the Libyans to the court the sanctions are lifted and after the judgement the Libyans pay the families of the victims 10 million dollars each. There are other heavy payments involved which are secret. Nobody cares about Megrahi and the international community shakes its head when Megrahi appeals.

Than arrives 18th July 2007.

In a declaration, authenticated by a Swiss notary, Ulrich Lumpert, a retired engineer of the company Mebo and the principal witness in the Lockerbie case, comes back on his declaration and, eaten by remorse, declares that he lied about the origin of the pieces which ignited the bomb.
Edwin Bollier, the boss of Mebo, confirms the declaration of his old employee, adding that he intended for a long time to lodge a judicial complaint against Lumpert.. The 24th of August 2007 Bollier involves the public prosecutor in Zurich to lodge this new information with the Scottish courts.
Meanwhile the Scottish high court has accepted the new appeal of Megrahi, having rejected the first appeal in 2002. Together with these happenings, an independent Scottish judicial commission had concluded that a judicial error had probably occurred.
The only honorable man in this sordid affair seems to be the boss of Mebo, Edwin Bollier. Unknown to anybody, Bollier had been requested by the British authorities, before the court case, to examine the metallic pieces of the timer and Bollier had concluded, BEFORE THE COURT CASE, that the pieces were NOT part of a shipment to Libya.
During a later second inspection he saw and declared that the metallic pieces had been tempered with and that the colour and general aspect had changed.
Bollier declares on Radio France International on Wednesday 29th August 2007: ”those pieces had been tempered with to make it look as if the Libyans had done it.”
Pierre Péan, leftist journalist declares in the same broadcast:”This revelation confirms that Lockerbie has not been ordered by Libya or Khaddaffi but by others”

Please find my reaction here to your article.

THE CRIMINAL CRIMINALISATION OF LIBYA

Reading now since years about the “terrorist” Libyans and their “mad” dictator, I decided that enough is enough.

Please find my reaction to your article here.

Together with my friend Yves Bonnet, ex-director general of the French DST under Mitterand, we decided to publish a short version of the chapter covering Lockerbie in his new book about Khaddaffi. I just translated and shortened the text for this blog.

21 December 1988 a Boeing 747 exploded in flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. Most of the passengers were US military personnel, based in Germany and flying home for the Christmas Holiday. 11 villagers of Lockerbie die in the crash and the total number of victims amounts to 270.
The same day, without any relation to the crash, President Reagan declares during a press conference that the US might consider a military strike against a chemical warfare factory in Libya.
4 January 1990 2 Mig aircraft of the Libyan air force are shot down by US fighter aircraft over the Mediterranean Sea.

Because of the hardening of the US stance against Libya, it would be natural to expect the US to start accusing Libya for the Lockerbie terrorist attack. No such accusations come forward.
Five months after the Lockerbie crash, 11th May 1989, the Washington Post publishes an article echoing the “near certainty” of the CIA of the identity of the terrorists, it points at the splinter group of Ahmed Jibril of the Front for the Liberation of Palestine, general command, a big name for a small hard group,. created in 1968. This small, difficult to infiltrate group is blatantly revolutionary, based in Syria and according to the CIA, backed and controlled in this case by the Iranians as revenge for the accidental shooting down of an Iranair Airbus on 3rd of July 1988 over the strait of Ormuz, making 290 victims. So far everything follows a certain logic. The US State Department follows this same line and to be sure those diplomats are not known to jump to conclusions lightly. The more so that there are still a number of American hostages in Lebanon under the control of Syria and Iran. We can be sure that the State Department has thoroughly investigated this case before following the same logic.
The 10th of August 1990, to the utter surprise of all observers, Syria, after condemning the Iraqi invasion in Kuwait, sends troops to Saudi Arabia together with the troops of the most US friendly nations Egypt and Morocco. This is definitely a victory for the US diplomacy, which continues by trying to obtain the military support of Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran, which just previously has condemned the invasion of Kuwait. choses this very moment to sign a peace treaty with Saddam Hussain, accepting the proposals of Saddam Hussain of exchanging war prisoners and retreat of the Iraqi troops of Iranian occupied territories.

The benefits are immediate: Syria immediately starts an offensive in Lebanon against the troops of Michel Aoun 13 october 1990 and invade Beyrouth.The new US friends of Hafez el Assad keep very quiet before this aggression, doubled up with the assassination of Dany Chamoun, leader of the supporters of Michel Aoun, together with the murder of his whole family.
In Washington meanwhile, the official declarations start to change: “it seems that new elements indicate that the bomb of flight 103 had been assembled and placed by Libyan agents of the Libyan secret services. In order to stay a little bit credible they add that this does not exclude the cooperation of the Syrian, Iranian and Palestinian services.
The US judicial is launched with 2 objectives in mind: accuse the Libyans and exonerate the Syrians and Iranians.
The first objective is reached by the accusation of 2 Libyan agents by the US and British judges, on 14 November 1991: Abdelbasset al Megrahi and Fahima.
The second objective is reached this same 14th November 1991 by the declaration of the chief of the criminal investigation department of the Department of Justice, confirming that no proof exist of the implication of Iran and Syria in this Lockerbie case. This same official adds that this has nothing to do with the desire of the US, to have friendly relations with Syria.
A miraculous lucky moment arrived on the 4th of November, or 10 days before, when Terry Anderson, the last US hostage has been freed, after Joseph Cicippio, Alann Steen and the British hostage Terry Waite.

Possibly as the Scots act more independently on the world stage they will find it difficult to maintain their reputation for prudence and courage. 

The BP connection demonstrates the sort of collusion noted by "blueglassnost" and "KO" where the interests of big government and big business converge, in this case to pervert the course of justice.

As for the "special relationship", Britain's participation in the War on Terror or American OCOs is the decisive factor post-9/11.  In politics, as in business, you are only as good as your last transaction.  The Anglo-French relationship went the way of the German-Italian one, because one party in each case failed to deliver.