Debate Call: Anyone

15 September 2010
last update 4 October

In the past I have issued a couple of debate calls here at the Lockerbie Divide, for Brian Flynn and one "Kaddafi Delenda Est." I've thought of challenging Frank Duggan and Richard Marquise, but figured they were too smart to take me up and it would be a waste.

But here is my challenge to anyone who can step up and defend the official story.
If the official story were really true, it could be jointly:
1 - used as a legitimate basis for indictments and thence crippling economic sanctions
2 - used to rightly convict one of the two accused in a court of law and allow sanctions to end once compensation was rendered by Libya
3 - be discussed at length and in detail after the fact without fear of it falling apart like that Cinderella spell after midnight.
If the facts of the 3-D world we inhabit matched the legal reality, the proofs of Megrahi's guilt (the bomb bag from Malta, Tony Guci's ID, etc.) should be something these people know front to back. It would be easy to shut us down by showing the ruling was more like science than magic. They call it fact of the science type, but defer to the Zeist judges' formulaic encoding with the unquestioning reverence afforded the magical class. Not a good sign.

The evidence in its details, like how we totally know the bomb came from Malta - aside from Megrahi being there at the time - should be Bunntamas' forte.

It's not.
It's noted.

Take it as a challenge, folks. Sharpen up over there.
Who can discuss the actual details of what Megrahi was convicted on? Moussa Koussa, human right violations, supposed meetings, and other peripheral issues are not relevant. Megrahi (and to a lesser extent Fhimah) matter here. None of this "Megrahi was on Malta Dec 21" nonsense. we all agree on that, under an alias, and looking just suspicious enough to frame. What's the evidence the bomb was there that day? That's what's in dispute here. What is the evidence and why is it convincing to you? None of this "well, the judges accepted it" tripe. Again, we all know what they accepted. Why do you think they were right to do so? Without explanation it looks like blind faith to me.

Gauci's supposed identification of Megrahi also needs re-explained to me and many others. Why isn't that a total crock? I'd also love to hear a defense of Mr. Giaka's smoking gun testimony that Cannistraro hyped back when we were starving Libya over it. Since 2001, (most) everyone just ignores that one.

In short then, I'm looking only for anyone who can hold up the official story's explanations of why Megrahi is guilty. You needn't be any of the higher profile people I've mentioned yet - anyone who feels they have a grasp of the facts to try and sort out this conspiracy theorist will do. If it works out, the comments section right below might do, but ideally that would be for you to accept the challenge and decide a format for a more formal debate.

One notably excellent place to put me "in my place" is the JREF forum. You can see many of our links and the back story here, and the best thread to jump directly into is this one, currently occupied by two PA103 victim's family members - Matt Berkley for the Swire side and "Bunntamas" for the American side.

And here, the comments are open.


Charles said...

Richard Marquise might rise to your challenge, quite politely, but Mr Henderson might threaten to kill you if you disbelieved him. You might ask him to explain why he was employed to finish off the inquiry so efficiently and promptly. Perhaps the previous SIO got cold feet at the lies he was expected to spin. Some one after all, a very senior Scottish police officer, retired, has to be Scottish equivalent of Deep Throat, and he hasn't come forward yet. There are two names on the tip of my tongue, but I don't know either of their handicaps!

Caustic Logic said...

Yes, ol' Stu... I'm just focusing on those I see around the internet. It seems to be pretty much Americans. The British Frank Duggans don't seem to get out in the fray much.

Bunntamas said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Caustic Logic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Caustic Logic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Caustic Logic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.