• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[Conspiracy-age] Efforts are underway to revisit Lockerbie and blame it on Iran

Status
Not open for further replies.

Guevara

Member
Short Overview of Lockerbie for those unfamiliar:

July 3 1988: (Civilian carrier) Iran Air Flight 655 is shot down by missiles from a U.S. cruiser, killing all 290 on board.

Dec. 21, 1988: Pan Am Flight 103 from London Heathrow to New York JFK is bombed over Scotland killing 270 people, 189 of them American.

Nov. 13, 1991: After a three-year joint investigation indictments for murder were issued on 13 November 1991 against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer and the head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines

Jan. 31 2001: al-Megrahi was convicted of murder by a panel of three Scottish judges and sentenced to life imprisonment. (In 2009 he was release back to Libya after being diagnosed with prostate cancer. He died in May 2012.)

2003: Muammar Gaddafi admitted Libya's responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and paid compensation to the victims' families, though he maintained that he never personally gave the order for the attack.

2004: Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem stated that his country had paid the compensation as the "price for peace" and to secure the lifting of sanctions. Asked if Libya did not accept guilt, he said, "I agree with that."​

Recent News:

UK Prime Minister David Cameron went on a surprise trip to Tripoli last week and announced British police would be visiting Libya, stating: "What we want to achieve is justice and a full uncovering of the facts.”

In September 2012, a group of relatives to U.S. victims petitioned Congress to further review the bombing. “Sadly, all these years later, the families of American victims are still awaiting justice. Until now, there has yet to be a complete investigation of those implicated in the crimes.”

And then this in the book section of the New York Times:

“It goes back to an old story,” he said. “Lockerbie.” The book is based on the premise that it was Iran — not Libya — that carried out the notorious 1988 airliner bombing. The Iranians went to great lengths to persuade Muammar el-Qaddafi to take the fall for the attack, which was carried out in revenge for the downing of an Iranian passenger plane by American missiles six months earlier, de Villiers said. This has long been an unverified conspiracy theory, but when I returned to the United States, I learned that de Villiers was onto something. I spoke to a former C.I.A. operative who told me that “the best intelligence” on the Lockerbie bombing points to an Iranian role. It is a subject of intense controversy at the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., he said, in part because the evidence against Iran is classified and cannot be used in court, but many at the agency believe Iran directed the bombing."

What the American Public Thinks about Iran:

qlywgupy706ufxj_alfmhq.gif

-Gallup

But still oppose military action on Iran, whether it be from us or Israel, and favor diplomatic solutions:

The new annual poll published this week by the Chicago Council for Global Affairs on American attitudes towards foreign affairs – dubbed “Foreign Policy in the New Millennium” - found that 70% of Americans oppose a strike on Iran that is not authorized by the UN Security Council, and 51% are opposed even if the UN body does sanction the attack. In addition, 59% of Americans are opposed to US intervention on behalf of Israel in case of Iranian retaliation for a preemptive Israeli attack.

-Haartz

TL;DR: Public and state policy attitudes to Iran differ wildly. It's not a lot yet, but I get the feeling we're going to revisit Lockerbie and (rightly or wrongly) blame it on Iran as a way of shifting public sentiment.
 
Err, David Cameron went to Libya to talk about justice for Yvonne Fletcher and finding her killer. Time are full of shit.
 

KHarvey16

Member
This would amount to a wasted effort on the part of those engineering it. Why bother with something so old if you're already willing to invent things?
 
I'm 22 years old and have never heard about this. How much of the American public would really get enraged about something that happened so long ago.
 

Walshicus

Member
A lot of people have been very dubious of the Libya connection to Lockerbie for a long time now. There was a very interesting documentary on it released a while back, which for the life of me I can't remember the name of.

I'm 22 years old and have never heard about this
That's depressing...
 

diamount

Banned
This would amount to a wasted effort on the part of those engineering it. Why bother with something so old if you're already willing to invent things?

Opening old wounds is far more effective. Just look to the Daily Heil for that. Just look how quickly they turned against Saddam when they were old chums in the mid-late 80s.. even giving them weapons to take out Iran and Kuwait.
 

Guevara

Member
I'm 22 years old and have never heard about this. How much of the American public would really get enraged about something that happened so long ago.

I'd argue that you aren't the target audience either. It's more effective to shift opinions among 50+ year old people, who probably remember Lockerbie vividly.
 

Tamanon

Banned
I don't buy it. Only way it would make sense is if they actually were involved. Otherwise, there are many better options for "framing" Iran.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Opening old wounds is far more effective. Just look to the Daily Heil for that. Just look how quickly they turned against Saddam when they were old chums in the mid-late 80s.. even giving them weapons to take out Iran and Kuwait.

The story would play for a week and then someone would get pregnant. No one would be convinced to go to war who isn't already. It's ridiculous.
 

diamount

Banned
The story would play for a week and then someone would get pregnant. No one would be convinced to go to war who isn't already. It's ridiculous.

Didn't say that would be the reason they'd go to war. But running such a story for weeks/months and a lot of people wouldn't be up on arms. Don't forget we've had the rhetoric of Iran = the enemy for a decade now.

So keeping that poignant is their top priority right now.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Didn't say that would be the reason they'd go to war. But running such a story for weeks/months and a lot of people wouldn't be up on arms. Don't forget we've had the rhetoric of Iran = the enemy for a decade now.

So keeping that poignant is their top priority right now.

And if that's the case they should pick a better story. This one sucks.
 

Guevara

Member
I don't buy it. Only way it would make sense is if they actually were involved. Otherwise, there are many better options for "framing" Iran.
While I think Iran may have been involved (they certainly had the motivation) what I'm really questioning is the timing.
The story would play for a week and then someone would get pregnant. No one would be convinced to go to war who isn't already. It's ridiculous.
Shifting public attitudes doesn't necessarily have to result in all-out war. It's more likely that this results in smaller policy changes, like support for Israel to do "preemptive" strategic attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities as an example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom