Motive behind the Lokerbie Bombing?

I'm doing a research project on Lockerbie bombing and I can't seem to really understand what happened . What I'm aware of is the bomb was planted in the fuselage and most passengers survived the initial bombing . How did the bomb get there in the first place if the person that was responsible for it survive ? Also I can't seem to find with the reasoning behind the bombing was. There were a few articles on the internet saying it was Iran or Libya or even both. And one article saying that libyan defense minister said Gaddafi was personally responsible, but for what reason? . Where was the plane heading to and from ? They're the only questions I can think about right now but if you include any other information that would be great thank you

2 Answers

Relevance
  • Favorite Answer

    The official line is this;

    Libyan agents loaded the suitcase containing the bomb onto a plane in Malta.

    That plane flew to Frankfurt where the suitcase was then transferred to London.

    At London Heathrow the suitcase was then loaded onto PanAm103 which was heading for JFK New York.

    The supposed motive was revenge for the USA bombing of Libyan cities in 1986.

    One man was convicted of the crime.

    The official lines seems implausable.

    Firstly, there is no proof that the suitcase containing the bomb was loaded onto a plane in Malta or transferred from Frankfurt, but the judges decided to accept that was what happened.

    The man convicted of the crime was accused because an eye witness said he had purchased clothes that were found in the suitcase. The eye witness identified many other people as being the purchaser of the clothes before seeing a photograph of the accused and then conviently identifying him.

    Both this eye witness and another unreliable witness were paid for their testimony.

    The forensic "experts" who identified the bomb particle found on clothes in the suitcase had no qualifications to draw such forensic conculsions and had give misleading evidence in other cases.

    There is a principle called Occam's razor that is applied in science and other fields - it states that the conculsion that makes fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct. The decision to blame Libya for the bombing of PanAm103 makes a lot of assumptions. Less assumptions are made when considering Iran.

    The Lockerbie / Pan Am 103 bombing took place in late 1988.

    In mid 1988 the US shot down an Iranian passenger plan killing around 290 civillians.

    Iran declared it would revenge this act.

    In Germany that same year police discovered a terrorist cell which was planting bombs inside electrical equipment - this was how the Lockerbie bomb was concealed - this group was funded by Iran.

    After the bombing there US Defence Intelligence Agency reports stating that Iran had paid millions of dollars to a bank account in payment for the bombing.

    So why turn on Libya?

    The US needed Iran on side during the Gulf War of the early 1990s, so they turned off the investigation.

    But the public needed to know that investigators would catch the guilty.

    Enter Libya - the US has long wanted regime change there and they tried this through UN imposed sanctions on Libya. They wanted the Libyan people to suffer so they would rebel against Gaddafi. So the UN imposed sanctions on Libya for not handing over the accused men for trial. The sancations were actually illegal , or at least legally dubious, since Libya actually offered to hand over the accused for trial several times, but the US and UK refused the options presented to them .... as I said, the US wanted regime change, they had an opportunity to force it but it backfired when Libya complied so the UK & US had to lie and claim Libya weren't playing ball.

    You mention that former Libyan ministers claimed Gaddafi was responsible. They have indeed said that but failed to provide any evidence. Many other people claimed others were responsible and presented evidence, but it is funny how those claims don't make the headlines, because of course they go against the official line.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    The story that I heard was that the Libyan agent put the bomb in the baggage of a women who was unaware of his intentions. Of course the whole story is full of holes and when the agent came to trial the evidence was so lacking that he had to be tried in secret in another country without a jury or a defense counsel and with no right to cross examine witnesses, call expert witnesses, to see the evidence against him or have a right of appeal or any of the usual minimum standards of justice that constitute a trial. the only reason for such a kangeroo court is to secure the conviction of an innocent man. It was such a blatant fudge that I came to the conclusion that it was most likely carried out by the CIA or M16 as a pretext for an assassination of Gaddafi. Of course they failed and just ended up killing Gaddafi's grandchild.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.