Respectfully, you don’t seem to know much about Qaddafi. His differences with the Iraniand went well beyond just “the political.”
Qaddafi hated Islamists and tried to crush them. He also denied the legitimacy of the Hadiths, which marked him as a blasphemer.
He also had plenty of his own reason to hate the Americans and the British. I assume you’re familiar with the 86 bombing Libya.
Interestingly enough, Baer never made such allegations during his memoirs of the CIA or until almost 15 years after he’d quit the CIA and years after he was given some fame due to George Clooney’s movie Syriana.
Beyond that, the CIA was always notoriously inept when it came to Iran and the Libyans admitted to doing it.
Also, when the Iranians engaged in such actions, they used the Hezbollah for cover.
So “respectfully”, what are you saying; either the ex-CIA guy is talking shit, or you - Mr Internet regional expert - is talking more nonsense like with the Jordan/PLO episode yesterday?
I have to say, based on your recent contributions, I think I know where most people are leaning.
If you mean toward “the ex-CIA guy is talking shit,” you are correct. One years-after-the-fact recollection of second-hand conversations is hardly as damning as the mountain of evidence that suggests Libya was acting on Libya’s behalf.
No doubt the Vincennes added fuel to the fire, in that I imagine Libya (and everybody else) thought that shooting down a civilian airliner is not okay even if it’s an accident committed by an employee of everyone’s favorite superpower. The Iranian angle is covered on Wikipedia.org: Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories.
I’m merely pointing out that the overwhelming consensus is that Libya was responsible, Libya took responsibility and Libyan agents were handed over to the UK and jailed for this.
People who disagree are viewed as conspiracy theorists.
Anyway, I merely pointed out that Baer’s timing for this revelation seemed a little odd and one wonders why he waited so many years before disclosing his beliefs before voicing his claims.
Also Baer is merely expressing his opinion and claiming that other CIA officers believed this was the case without providing evidence to support it.
That said, if you wish to engage in conspiracy theories go ahead.
Also “Ex-CIA guy”? Had you even heard of Baer before you looked up the Telegraph article?
I’m not sure why you’re engaging in personal insults since I haven’t insulted you and they’re forbidden in GD.
Beyond that, if you’re referring to the incident wherein you admitted you’d never heard of King Hussein?
In the thread you brought up, you were criticized by several people for making insults and a refusal to make an argument so I suspect most people do not share your beliefs.
IN fairness to the rest of the people on this thread I’d recommend taking it to the Pit.
“In fairness”, there is no value in us interacting. To say ‘you don’t get stuff’ is to “politely” understate. Basically, it just ain’t fun. Though I wait in great anticipation for a cite on any subject that doesn’t involve buying a book.
Dr Drake - thank you. That is the second internet opinion on the value of a retired CIA operative. The internet, of course, wins. In fact, I can’t think why newspapers of high repute print his nonsense when views such as your and Inb Warraq’s are readily available.
I don’t think you do.
Key prosecution witness in the Lockerbie trial, Tony Gauci, was believed after many years when he positively identified someone who had bought a T-shirt off him. So, y’know.
Has anyone re-posted those, like maybe Live Leaks or something?
It’s not quite as straightforward as that, I’m afraid. And it’s not just conspiracy theorists who have doubts about the conviction secured. This is a decent primer from the London Review of Books Gareth Peirce · The Framing of al-Megrahi: The Death of Justice , but there’s lots more, and actually much better sourced. The Al-Megrahi threads on here have links to other sources, but I’m happy to supply them again in the morning.
At the very least, the al-Megrahi trial verdict was very debatable, and the Scottish Criminal Review Commission agreed, but al-Megrahi’s illness and real-politik intervened.
That is certainly vastly more compelling than the speculations put forth by Baer.
I would say that such an operation carried out by Iranian intelligence agents rather than Hezbollah flunkies would be very out of character, particularly in 1988.
Also such operations typically would take longer than six months to plan and execute.
I doubt we’ll ever know the truth now. There is a move in Scotland by some eminent legal types to get an inquiry started, but it’ll go nowhere. It’s been buried.
Quite right, needless to say. The fact that Gadaffi admitted to it ought to be enough to persuade anyone, not to mention a prior history of funding and engaging in terrorism. Furthermore, having admitted its complicity, in 2002 Libya offered $2.2 billion in restitution to the families of the victims, of which $2.16B was paid out in subsequent years, and in 2003 the Libyan ambassador submitted a letter to the UN Security Council formally accepting responsibility for the Pan Am bombing.
If one is going to engage in stupid conspiracy theories about who the real perp was, there are lots of other candidates besides Iran, including space aliens. The PLO was a favorite for a time.
I think you’re quite wrong, unless this board is infested with conspiracy theorists, which I don’t think it is.
I think most of us are inclining to the Hanlon’s Razor interpretation: Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
With respect to the shooting down of MH17, the subject of this thread, I agree. That latest conversation was a bit of a digression.
I love that quote and have been using it for many years – it’s absolutely amazing how versatile it is and how much it explains about so many things that happen in the world and in everyday life. It’s also known as one of the many hundreds of corollaries of Murphy’s Law. 
…indeed. The evidence is pretty convincing that al-Megrahi was railroaded. But there is a huge divide between how US people see the conviction and most of the rest of the world see it.
The discussion was about Libya’s involvement and the plausibility of conspiracy theories that some other entity, like Iran or space aliens, was the guilty party. Megrahi may have been a scapegoat, but that doesn’t change the fact of Libya’s admission of culpability, payment of restitution, and formal admission of guilt to the UNSC.
And this whole subtopic is a hijack from the MH17 shootdown by Russian-backed terrorists.
…he was more than a scapegoat. Which was my entire point. It is not a conspiracy theory to state that based on the evidence that has come to light since the trial Megrahi was probably innocent of the charges he was jailed for. Lockerbie has been raised in this thread. With all this talk of “conspiracy theories” it isn’t out of place to point out that “Al-Megrahi was probably innocent” to put the conspiracy theory accusations in perspective.
Maybe not, but it’s doubly irrelevant: irrelevant to the question of whether Libya was responsible for the bombing, and irrelevant to the topic of this thread. It may not stretch credulity to surmise that Gaddafi framed Megrahi in order to protect someone else, but to suggest that he and his Libyan agents weren’t responsible for the bombing is strictly Loony Tunes territory. They openly and formally admitted it, for Christ’s sake.
Maybe when Obama apologizes/pays restitution to Nicaragua for Reagan’s supprt of the Contras, Russia might consider an apology for supporting the Donetsk People’s Republic. Until then, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. America has been more than happy to support terrorists of its own over the years, including the people who promoted Salafist jihadism in Afghanistan.