Lockerbie 83

The information on Lockerbie published in today’s Daily Mail from an Iranian defector, matches precisely what I was shown in a secret intelligence report in the FCO just around the time of the first Iraq war – that a Syrian terrorist group was responsible acting on behalf of Iran.  It was decided that this would be kept under wraps because the West needed Iran and Syria’s quiescence in the attack on Iraq.

I was at the time Head of Maritime Section in the FCO’s Aviation and Maritime Department. I was shown the report by the Head of the Aviation Section, who was deeply troubled by it.

The UK authorities have known for over 20 years that Megrahi was innocent.  The key witness, a Maltese shopkeeper named Tony Gauci, was paid a total of US $7 million for his evidence by the CIA, and was able to adopt a life of luxury that continues to this day. The initial $2 million payment has become public knowledge but that was only the first instalment.  This was not an over-eagerness to convict the man the CIA believed responsible; this was a deliberate perversion of justice to move the spotlight from Iran and Syria to clear the way diplomatically for war in Iraq.

It will of course be argued, probably correctly, that now Syria and Iran are the western targets, it is in the interests of the CIA for the true story to come out,  (minus of course their involvement in perverting the course of justice).  That is why we now hear it was Syria and Iran.  But it so happens that is in fact the truth.  Even the security services and government can tell the truth, when the moment comes that the truth rather than a deceit happens to be a tactical advantage to them.


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

83 thoughts on “Lockerbie

1 2 3
  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    “Craig Murray,

    With all this truth published – tell me – how are you still alive?


    Courtney, tell me you’re not being serious….Please!

  • Jives

    Fedup @ 11.28pm

    I often disagree with your posts but i think you’re bang on the money there.

  • Jives

    Habbabkuk @ 11.48pm

    Most naive of you Habba.

    You ought know they’ll whack-or attempt to-ANYONE that goes slightly off message/whistleblowerish.Snowden’s just been lucky so far.

    Did you not read of Craig’s escapade with the Yank “doc” in Uzbekistan??

    Don’t be so coquettish/wilfully ignorant Habba.

  • NR

    The derided, foil-hatted, conspiracy theorists are proving more right than wrong recently.

    It would not be a surprise if David Icke is also correct about the Reptilians. The next time anyone is lucky enough to stand beside a Royal, firmly grasp their ears and give a sharp tug upward. Their humanoid outer covering should slip off easily.

  • DomesticExtremist

    IIRc, al-Megrahi was about to launch an appeal against his conviction, one he was likely to win, when it was decided to release him on ‘compassionate grounds’.

  • fred

    “IIRc, al-Megrahi was about to launch an appeal against his conviction, one he was likely to win, when it was decided to release him on ‘compassionate grounds’.”

    No he wouldn’t have won an appeal, the Northern Lighthouse Board would have put a stop to that. His lawyers were sure he would win the appeal, the evidence was overwhelming that he should have won the appeal. That wouldn’t have been enough.

  • Clarence

    Why not add that Putin was advising Syria and Iran at the time? Surely that fact too must have been in your secret brief? Absolutely weird series of posts More than odd somehow. Almost creepy/

  • Ba'al Zevul(aka Gordon Bennett)

    ‘No he wouldn’t have won an appeal, the Northern Lighthouse Board would have put a stop to that. His lawyers were sure he would win the appeal, the evidence was overwhelming that he should have won the appeal. That wouldn’t have been enough.’

    We have our disagreements, Fred, but that isn’t one of them. Yes, an appeal would have brought forward incontrovertible evidence that everyone except Megrahi had been lying through their teeth to suit some filthy political end, so the only option was the compassionate getout clause. I’d only be faintly surprised – on technical grounds alone – if they’d found some way of giving Megrahi prostate cancer.

  • Ba'al Zevul(aka Gordon Bennett)

    …and I am sorry to say it looks like Salmond knew the back story in full. Bliar was terribly offended at the suggestion Salmond had been leaned on by London…he may have been for once telling the truth. No leaning was needed.

  • JimmyGiro

    The trouble with facts is that you cannot control them; but you can control belief in the ‘truth’ by weaving it with the moral necessity of justice.

    Therefore any system that wanted absolute control over the people’s minds, must first destroy the credibility of all the facts. Second, it must destroy all morality, because if people cared about the truth, they might do something silly, like discover the pertinent facts for themselves; or dare to scrutinize the logic that links the facts with the truth. So thirdly, the totalitarian State must destroy the ability to test, by hobbling the people’s education.

    Culture takes centuries to evolve, whereas subversion takes only the two decades required to ‘educate’ the next generation.

    And the evidence? Ironically, those who live by subversion leave trust to nothing, and require constant proof. They need to convince themselves that the people are perpetually credulous, such as the show trials that make people appear guilty on slim evidence, fake evidence, or the Pièce de résistance: no evidence whatsoever, but mere allegation; for which the State can control.

  • Shetland

    “Off-topic: does someone know whether the Scotland Act 1978 is published online somewhere? It doesn’t seem to be at either or I mean the actual Act, not the Order setting up the referendum.”

    “I’m interested in is the clauses which allowed Orkney and Shetland an ‘opt-out’.”


    The ’78 Act never passed to the statute books which is possibly why it isn’t online. Unless you’re interested for historical reasons the ’98 Act is here.

    By being enacted, the 1978 Act ‘passed to the statute book’ and became law.

    It was not put into effect, and was later repealed. Repeal of an entire Act means ‘removal from the statute book’, but surely not from the official record.

    I am interested in the special provisions for Shetland and Orkney in the 1978 Act.

    The Scotland Act (Referendum) Order 1978 (SI 1978/1912) which refers to the Act is online <a href="here). The instrument of repeal was the Scotland Act 1978 (Repeal) Order 1979 (SI 1979/928) appears not to be online.

  • doug scorgie

    11 Mar, 2014 – 5:51 pm

    “The punch line was that the U.S. State Department issued an internal travel advisory, warning that government officials should get off that specific flight on that specific day, because Pan Am 103 was expected to get bombed.”

    Hi Ben do you have a source for that?

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!


    If you’re hinting that the tenor of Craig’s recent posts is a sign that he’s being blackmailed, why don’t you have the guts to say so in a clear, honest and straightforward manner?

  • Winston
    Flirting With Fascists

    Ukraine: the Enemy of Your Enemy is Not Always Your Friend

    So this is one civilian population under threat of racially motivated reprisal attacks that NATO not only failed to protect, but *actively coordinated in assaulting*.
    Plurality of Libyans continue to think they’re worse of now than under Gadaffi

    The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq 2007 West Point Study Shows Benghazi-Darnah-Tobruk Areawas a World Leader in Al Qaeda Suicide Bomber Recruitment

    The report:

1 2 3

Comments are closed.