Uncovering the lie, but passing the buck

In November a film investigating the background to the Lockerbie bomb was shown to an audience, consisting mainly of media, in the House of Commons after its screening at the London Film Festival had been stopped on short notice.

The film by the American producer Allan Francovich gives evidence of the involvement of various intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the American Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) who were using PanAm for protected drug shipments (an ongoing practice with many airlines). It points to the probability that the bomb that blew up the flight 103 over Lockerbie must have got on board in the very suitcase which those agencies ensured would be loaded bypassing standard security at Frankfurt. However, the film is far too concerned with the question whether the bomb originally came from Lebanon and was possibly sponsored by Iranian affiliated groups in retaliation for the downing of an Iranian civilian aircraft by an American warship, and consequently gets confused in its own arguments. 

The fact that American agencies knew of the bomb, not just the drugs, and ensured that some people deemed important by them cancelled or re - booked their flight, makes the scenario of Iranian revenge on America a seemingly implausible one. The lead that the DEA might have wanted to get rid of an American security officer involved in hostage negotiations in Lebanon who was about to blow the whistle on those drug operations should have been more thoroughly followed, as should have the many pointers towards Israel like, for example, that the drug carrier was under regular "surveillance by Mossad". This omission may well be due to the great number of ex - intelligence personnel with Mossad connections amongst the interviewees. Maybe, there is one branch of the intelligence community getting their own back on another... This might explain Tiny Roland's support in assisting with the production of this film. 

Whilst not exactly subject of the film, one of its most interesting aspects was that it showed once more with how much ease the various secret services of allegedly sovereign countries interlock and work to their own agenda, well removed from any national interest of their perceived employers. Like most material probing into these matters, the film failed to recognise that Middle East and other terror organisations are only sub - divisions and off - shoots of one and the same big officially sponsored international network dealing in political plots, arms, drugs, and, most of all, deception; as are the rulers of those regions following their orders when they appear to challenge the "freedom" of the West. Libya's Muammar Ghadaffi is no exception. British trained, he "miraculously" escaped the damage inflicted by the American bombing of Tripoli, just as his fellow traveller in Iraq survived the prolonged aerial bombardments during the Gulf war. The soldiers stationed in the installations targetted by the Tripoli bombing were conveniently out on night exercise, and the only people who suffered were, as always, innocent civilians. They are also the victims of the trade embargoes, whether it be against Libya or Iraq, external austerity measures which ensure that their despotic rulers who are otherwise quite unpopular, stay in power. After all, as Algeria has shown, we can't afford democracy for Muslim nations, or even worse, Muslim nations ruled by intelligent men loyal to their country and enjoying the trust of their people. No wonder that the UN feels compelled to side against Bosnia.

Author: Islamic Party of Britain

Date Published: Jan 1995