This article has been intentionally created ahead of completeness in content. This is not a stub problem; it is a perspective problem. Articles such as this are always called Coatracks or POV forks, for the lack of focus with their title. This article is intended to cover a much narrower focus than its title, mainly because its real title would be too long, and it would be too hard for its audience to find. If length were not a problem, it would be best, as of its state on 6th May 2014, called "Lockerbie airplane bombing and the Interfor report on purported CIA drug smuggling ring, and reasoning hence and whence". Titles that fill up more than the width of the page are a problem. And of course, there is also the problem of this information never standing a snowball's chance in hell of making it onto Wikipedia, and WP having covered most of the other points of view more than adequately. It is made more than clear in the lead, but it is worth reiterating, that the Interfor report on which some of this information is based is a piece of no given sources at all, other than its author. However, the considerations of the conclusions are not completely based on it alone, and therefore not all of the article is useless even if the Interfor report is completely uncredited

See Interfor report

This article may contain material from Wikipedia
An article on this subject has been redirected
to another page on WP:
Current versions of the GNU FDL article on Wikipedia may contain information useful to the improvement of this article

A fascinating look at the standards of evidence for corporations as regards their legal defense is provided by the Interfor report on the Lockerbie airplane bombing. This document concluded that the bombing was conducted by one half of an alliance between the CIA and drug smugglers, in order to prevent the discover and dismantling of the smuggling ring. Yet it was based on no evidence at all, in terms of sources. Yet Pan Am eagerly accepted the Interfor report and proceeded with its evidence in civil court.

So this is a perfect example of a lower standard of evidence, providing a diminished truth.

We can say for sure, not much. Some children's clothing was found in the wreckage, and a store owner testified that the person who bought them resembled one of the men found guilty of the bombing. But we can not say that this was a just result, even by the usual standards of legal evidence.

Half a million dollars was found in the wreckage. The Interfor report states that one of the CIA officers who died in the crash was carrying this to take to Washington and convince legislators of the pressing need to dismantle the drug smuggling ring and use the money to release the hostages in Beirut. The conclusion of the report was that the smuggling half of the alliance bombed the plane, in order to prevent its dissolution. But this is only half as much motive as the CIA had, see Lockerbie.

They would prefer to bomb the plane in order to prevent:

  1. The dissolution of the drug smuggling ring, which gave them ready cash and intelligence on the connections that its operatives had
  2. The early release of the Beirut hostages. Current president Reagan was a lost cause, near the end of his term and enmired in the allegations of Iran-Contra (WP). When the hostages were eventually released, it was a coup, if you excuse the expression, for George Bush Sr., ex-director of the CIA.
  3. The additional public relations disaster of both the evidence of another Iran-Contra and the compounding of the conception of it as a problem TYPE, a recurring problem and therefore a systemic problem of the CIA. Coups are recurring, and are painted as a problem of the countries in which they occur; Iran-Contra was painted as a one-off, and therefore not a problem; recurrence would require the CIA to come up with a whole new bucket of paint to cover it over. And of course the consequences should they fail were potentially existential; should they fail, the CIA could be destroyed completely, and this increased the risk infinitely. The CIA was faced with a choice between an easy solution with relatively few attendant consequences, and a host of imminent problems and the possibility of a solution which would at the very least divert resources from their propaganda plans, and at worst fail.
  4. Libya was, along with Zimbabwe, an African country with considerable public relations potential, that utterly refuted the myth of democratic capitalism as the sole workable system.[1] Libya was arguably the closest thing to true democracy that ever existed, ad nauseum hounding of its General People's Congress as
  5. Before the Army, and nowadays the CIA assassination squad (death squad) of drone missiles, the economic hitmen come in. But what about political hitmen? Do a false flag operation, and then say, "Do this and this and that or we hit you with the responsibility for this crime." As Wide Shut points out,
"In 1989 Anglo-American intelligence services and politicians widely blamed the Lockerbie bomb on a Palestinian terror group...backed by Syria and Iran. In 1990...Iraq became the Anglo-American Arab enemy number one in the run-up to the Gulf war; Iran became neutral and Syrian troops joined the Allied forces. Only Libya remained adamantly aligned with Iraq. Suddenly, coincidentally, the Lockerbie bomb was blamed on the Libyans." -Wide Shut[2]
Of course, it was Iraq and then Libya, but priorities, priorities. Such a setup even improves with age to a certain extent. The bombing of Libya surely enraged the very class of people that the CIA should be most concerned about: those growing up during the Bush administration, who not only objected on moral grounds, but had not been indoctrinated into the evils of Libya for decades. But then, the ruling class is routinely suicidal in its disregard for the youth. For much of the rest of the population, Libya was a long time coming.
Libya was first because the CIA's plans were the most advanced. The price of oil had been manipulated to Iraq's disadvantage, and Hussein was desparate for cash. Kuwait was a tiny sliver of land carved out of Iraq, historically a harbor for pirates and a fishery for pearl divers, magically transformed into a country by England, that just happened to have the sixth largest oil reserves in the world (11th in production-they take it out of the ground, relative to their reserves, relatively slower than other nations). After Iraq itself, at number five, there is no other country with as much oil reserves; Iraq currently has 140 billion barrels, and Kuwait, 104 billion. Saddam had pretty good reason to reckon Kuwait as his, a half of his country's oil wealth taken from him by a treaty his country made when it was a relative infant in world affairs. And when he asked the State Department if it would be OK if he invaded, they said yes. Why did he believe them? From his perspective, the US had put him in rule, had supported him in the war with Iran, and the dot of the US' obvious desire to see the destruction of his own government did not exist for him. It was thus impossible to connect it to the dot of America's unending war against the whole world.

Now that sovereignty destruction AKA regime change of Libya (#9 on the Wikipedia:List of countries by proven oil reserves) is complete, another one of those stories by defectors has arisen, saying Iran (#4) did it.[3] Other stories by defectors include Nuclear Winter Was A Hoax By The Russians and The Peace Movement Was A Plot By The Russians. We know that defectors get paid, but usually not, how much.

External links Edit

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.