How did Colonel Gaddafi get away with such evil for so long?

In this case, the leftists may be right — it was all about oil

8 February 2014

9:00 AM

8 February 2014

9:00 AM

What a vile piece of work Colonel Gaddafi was.

For some of you, perhaps, this will be a statement of the glaringly obvious. But I suspect there will be many others for whom, like me, this week’s Storyville documentary on the barbarity of his regime — Mad Dog: Gaddafi’s Secret World (BBC4, Monday) — was something of a revelation.

Sure, we’d all heard about the funny stuff: the time John Simpson went to see him and he farted noisily (Gaddafi, not Simpson) through the interview; the ridiculous outfits; the bullet-proof Bedouin-style tent that he insisted on bringing on his last world tour, complete with live camels to graze decoratively outside.

But the nastier stuff came as news to me: killing his foreign secretary, then keeping him in a deep-freeze in his palace so that he could regularly have a gloat over the body; visiting classrooms of 15- and 16-year-old girls, patting the ones he fancied on their heads, then having them dragged off by his security, gynaecologically inspected and shown pornographic videos (to educate them in his expectations) before raping them and then having them put away in asylums; deliberately shooting down one of his own domestic airliners, partly for the sheer hell of it, partly as a ruse to show the West that its sanctions were hurting Libya so badly that it couldn’t afford to maintain its own aircraft…

Perhaps I’m being naive here, given the murder outside the Libyan embassy in London of PC Yvonne Fletcher, not to mention the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. A dictator capable of such barbarities, surely, would be capable of anything? Well, yes, indeed. But how could we be sure he was personally responsible? Maybe the former was the work of ‘rogue elements’? Maybe the latter — as has occasionally been suggested — was really the work of Iran?

What becomes pretty clear watching this fascinating, supremely well-researched documentary — filmed everywhere from South Africa to Cuba, interviewing everyone from his arms dealer Frank Terpil to his head of protocol and one of his female bodyguards — is that Gaddafi was in it up to the neck in all these crimes and more. We haven’t even touched, yet, on the victims of every IRA bomb containing Semtex shipped from Libyan ports; nor on the women and children butchered in the Sierra Leonean and Liberian civil wars that Gaddafi bankrolled and that cost the lives of more than a million people.

So why was nothing done about him earlier? Well, partly it’s because he was so paranoid and his security was so tight it would have been impossible to assassinate him. (A plastic surgeon who had come to smooth out his wrinkly features recalled on the programme how he had had to operate on Gaddafi at 2 a.m. in one of his secret bunkers, and using only a local anaesthetic, so great was the dictator’s fear of being killed in his sleep.) And partly it was because he was so extraordinarily weird that it suited everyone’s interests to treat him as a joke.

It suited Gaddafi’s interests, obviously, because it enabled him to get away with murder, while terrifying his people and perpetually wrongfooting his subordinates with his Caligula-like capriciousness. It suited the leaders of the West — Reagan and Thatcher among the few exceptions — because Libya’s oil reserves were too useful.

I’ve long been sceptical of the ‘it’s all about oil’ argument beloved by leftists. But in this case it seems to have been true. One US intelligence agent recalled being asked by the CEO of a big oil company whether her government planned to continue with sanctions. When she said ‘Yes’ the CEO burst into tears.  Some elements in the US government were so eager to resume normal relations with Libya that they even proposed smearing the families of the Lockerbie victims. ‘How about we announce to the media that they got insurance money and show them as money-grubbers?’ one person suggested.

When Gaddafi wasn’t killing or torturing people he was seducing them with his oddball charm and his silly money. Libya’s oil revenues, during his reign, amounted to $1 billion per week, so he could buy almost anyone — from top US special forces veterans to top German rocket scientist Lutz Kayser (who was interviewed for the first time from his private island in the Marshall Islands) — or anything. He came close at one point to buying the entire nuclear arsenal of Kazakhstan — 100 nuclear bombs.

Perhaps this was our biggest problem with Gaddafi: he conformed so closely to our stereotype of a cartoon fantasy villain we couldn’t quite believe he was for real. Or, as that US intelligence agent put it, ‘He was so different we just did not know how to deal with him. He was untouchable.’

Still, he’s dead now. Sodomised multiple times then shot, apparently. You imagine he wouldn’t have wanted it any other way.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • fduggan

    This monster was aided and abetted for the last quarter century by the
    likes of Prof. Black and his always wrong legal experts; a
    sensationalist and disgraceful media, including news outlets (Scottish
    Herald, The Scotsman, and comical tabloids); media producers from BBC
    and others; shameless UK politicians like that dingbat Christine
    Graheme; book and movie promoters (the latest being John Ashton and
    Morag Kerr); the businessmen and diplomats who assisted Gaddafi’s
    successful effort to have Megrahi released from the Scottish prison; and
    more. Added to this incomplete list should be the UK family member, a
    supporter of Gaddafi from the very beginning, who sat with the Libyans
    during legal proceedings, went to Libya to hug Gaddafi, the man who
    murdered his daughter, and who called the detestable little murderer
    Megrahi “my friend” and a “gentle Muslim”.

    No one can take any pleasure reading these revelations about Gaddafi, but at
    least the thousands of investigators, police, prosecutors and law
    enforcement professionals who worked on the Lockerbie bombing can take
    some pride in not being persuaded by the many shills supporting Gaddafi.
    The Scottish justice system and the Crown Office is still being
    slandered, amazingly, in the UK press, even as they are seeking further
    proof in Libya. A handful of journalists, most recently Magnus
    Linklater, are derided when they report on the Libya supporters, who are
    more interested in publicity than justice.

    When Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, in cooperation with the new Libyan
    investigators, finds more evidence, as they will, the enablers will do
    little to change their execrable promotion of Megrahi and his Libyan
    government sponsors.
    Thanks to the Spectator for this story.
    Frank Duggan, President
    Victims of Pan Am 103, Inc.

    • Sharyn Bovat

      I think Gaddafi deserved to be killed – still I did meet the Palestinian money launderer that worked for the iranian National Gaurd – Frank Duggan lets have a debate. You are more articulate than me & if I’m wrong I will say that I’m wrong. NOBODY has told me I’m wrong. Some have confirmed that they too knew Iran ordered it as retaliation for fly 655. Sir – lets meet and hash this out. FYI A former Ben Bradlee winner agrees with me…. why? look at this

    • Morag Kerr

      Thanks for the plug, Mr. Duggan. May I ask if you have actually read my book? Those who badmouth me seldom have.

      I’m not concerned with the international whodunnit. I’m interested in the evidence, and the detective work. My book (“Adequately Explained by Stupidity?”, Troubador Publishing) examines the physical evidence recovered on the ground at Lockerbie, and analyses the orientation of the blast-damaged suitcases in a way the original forensics team neglected to do. All the evidence is from Crown productions, including some the Zeist prosecution unaccountably lost down the back of the sofa at the time of the trial.

      It is absolutely clear that the bomb suitcase was the one Bedford saw at Heathrow, an hour before the feeder flight from Frankfurt landed. The judgement depended on assuming the Coyle case was under the bomb suitcase. It was obviously, undoubtedly, on top. The judgement depended on assuming the bomb suitcase was not on the bottom layer of luggage. The evidence shows that is exactly where it was. The judgement depended on assuming the Heathrow interline luggage was moved when the feeder flight luggage was added to the container. The man who carried out that task (who was not called to give evidence) was adamant that he did no such thing. The Bedford suitcase, on the bottom of the container, was the bomb.

      This is OBVIOUS, when you examine all the relevant evidence together – incoming passenger and baggage records, witness statements, and the condition of the damaged suitcases. Nobody in the Lockerbie investigation did this. Perhaps no one person actually assembled all that evidence. It’s embarrassing.

      So, Gaddafi was a monster. He wasn’t the only monster in the Middle East in the 1980s. They didn’t all bomb Pan Am 103. Someone did though, and whoever it was, even if it was Gaddafi all along, did it by sending someone with a bomb to Heathrow that day, not to Malta. Megrahi, the man you hounded to his grave, was verifiably in Tripoli that afternoon.

      Your guys and our guys screwed this up royally, Mr. Duggan. All the pieces of the puzzle were there, both literally and metaphorically. But because nobody could go back and reassess an error made at the very start, pieces were forced together in an Escherian nightmare implicating Megrahi. Take them apart, do the whole puzzle over again from scratch, and there’s a simple, obvious, right solution. That’s what my book does.

      I don’t know who did it, but nobody is going to find out until they start looking at Heathrow. Megrahi’s alleged accomplices are hiding in the same bunker as Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

      • fduggan

        That was not a plug for your book, Dr. Kerr. Why would anyone dogpaddle through several hundred pages of self published theories about the placement of luggage in airports? Your unproven theories are always described as obvious, indisputable, simple, right, absolutely clear, exactly, etc, etc. Perhaps that is how some veterinarians explain their analysis of puppy poop to the owners of the dog in question, but it is not the professional terminology of an attorney explaining an untested legal theory.

        Personally, why would I want to spend one minute reading
        your self published tome when you have attacked me over many years in the various blogs which choose to print such slander? You have called me a liar numerous times, a crook, a charlatan, a scumbag, stupid and someone your would love to debate because you could shred me. I am not sure I got them all, and there are some variations, but I would not want to research your thirty eight thousand (38,000) posts on one of those blogs.

        In addition to being just plain nasty, your sense of cerebral superiority is comical. You are convinced you are smarter than the rest of us, especially me and all the stupid forensic examiners and legal experts and indeed the eight Scottish judges who found Megrahi to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

        No, Dr. Kerr, I do not intend to read your book and would
        encourage anyone else who is concerned with the use of our trees to also forgo the pleasure. I have never responded to
        your previous slanders, but I thought it was important since you are using this opportunity to peddle a very odd book.

        • SFM

          Mr. Duggan,

          it is quite ironical that you say Dr. Kerr is nasty and have name-called you. I believe that anyone comparing your post and hers, there is a world of difference, in language and in focus on the core issue. And not in your favor.

          You write “You have called me a liar numerous times, a crook, a charlatan, a scumbag, stupid”.

          I find it very unlikely that Dr. Kerr has called you ‘a crook’, as I am aware of no evidence for that. Can you post a reference?

          As for the issue at hand, hardly anyone who knows about your statements would expect that you would read any book that did not support your views.

          You are making false statements when you write that “eight Scottish judges who found Megrahi to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. That is not the case. Either you are amazingly ignorant about the contexts of the trial/retrial – or you are misrepresenting facts to a level where a ‘lie’ would indeed be an appropriate term.

          Whether you are aware of the serious pieces of evidence that has surfaced, with overwhelming documentation in the police’s own recorded statements I can’t know.

          If not, would you be kind enough to explain how (given your faith in the verdict) the production method of the printed circuit board of the timer fragment does not conflict with the theory that MEBO should have delivered it?

          Naturally, you forget to mention that SCCRC referred the case back to court. Are they, then, also ‘convinced they are smarter than the rest of us … and all the stupid forensic examiners’ etc.?

          Your level of debating is exceptionally poor, short on facts and rich with, let’s be kind and call it ‘misrepresentations’.

          Again, given your expressed shortage of willingness to learn it does not come as a surprise.

          Frank Munch

        • Morag Kerr

          Ah, so you haven’t read it. Thought not. Afraid of the truth, as usual.

          The book speaks for itself. I use the words obvious and indisputable because that’s how it is. I’m actually seriously shocked. The analysis of the evidence that proves the case Bedford saw was the one with the bomb in it is extraordinarily straightforward, and can be explained in a few minutes. It doesn’t take any special intellect or rarefied understanding. The complicated part is getting your head round how the original investigation missed it, and I’m not sure I really do understand that.

          As we all know, the machinations of the legal system in CYA mode make the mills of God look like greased lightning, but truth, as they say, is the daughter of time.

        • Martin Adams

          Frank. Cite just 1 example where Dr Kerr has called you a a crook, a charlatan or scumbag. Just 1.

          I haven’t written a book but I do think you are a charlatan who simply refuses to look at the facts to come to an objective opinion. How do I know this? Because you simply refuse to ever discuss the details of the case. Never do you go into detail about the ins and outs of the evidence.

          And that is the modus operandi of a charlatan. Mud slinging without factual arguments. Refusal to answer specific aspects because that would lead to logic. And that is precisely what you are afraid of, logic. Charlatan.

        • Martin Adams

          O. Frank. Did you happen to notice Iran-Contra? Watergate? They were considered conspiracy theories, as you like to call JfM’s efforts to clear Magrahi’s name, until they were proven during senate committee hearings.

          The evidence against Megrahi/Libya was just so breathtakingly thin and circumstantial at the time of the first judgement and of the subsequent appeals.

          It has recently emerged that the prime piece of forensic evidence (the small piece of circuit board) was not a match with the Libyan timers and that this evidence was withheld from the court.

          The case against Megrahi was already thinner than a cigarette paper, if it ever really existed at all. Any thinner and it just evaporates.

          You also choose never to mention that the evidence about the break in at Heathrow Airport a few hours before departure of PA103 was also carefully ignored. That testimony from the baggage loader was NEVER HEARD!!!!

          You won’t reply to this point for point because you know you can’t win the arguement that way.

  • Roy

    As we could all rejoinder; will any succeeding leadership exhibit
    anything less monstrous? Will the western democracies scramble with
    one-another as is the usual theme, to obtain that oil? If they don’t
    China undoubtedly will. The degree of the Muslim world’s monstrous
    insidiousness will make not the slightest difference. Yet in the same
    breath as if under some centrifugal force, the world at large will
    exhibit the most astounding backward step of formulating a policy of
    coercive trade embargo on Israel for no reason at all. The unheard of
    threat by America to de-legitimize Israel must be the most ignoble act
    of betrayal to a fellow democratic nation ever.

  • Martin Adams

    There you go again hey Frank Duggan. Strange how you do not mention the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which found 6 grounds that the case against Megrahi was a miscarriage of justice. Is the SCCRC a conspiracy dingbat?. Instead you prefer to accuse your opponents of something they were not, a supporter of Gadaffi. Your tired old ramblings never address the real points.

    The metallurgical evidence proving that the circuit board could not have come from MEBO.

    Withheld evidence of a break-in at Heathrow the night before the bombing.

    Witnesses paid for testimony.

    That Gauchi saw a photo or Megrahi before the ID parade.

    You never mention any of these things do you Frank. Instead you try to combine a righteous indignation to a wrongful conviction with cuddling a nasty dictator. Which is really pathetically transparently ridiculous.

  • Grendal55

    Frank Duggan’s extraordinary outburst, apparently against all things Scottish, reflects his shallow and blinkered approach to the issue of Libya and Lockerbie. Instead of repeatedly rushing to print to demonise my small nation he should look a bit closer to home.
    While Megrahi, convicted of the Lockerbie bombing on the flimsiest of evidence, lay dying in a Scottish jail, US political and business leaders were falling over themselves to woo the man who, by their own reasoning, was the mastermind behind the atrocity with a view, they openly declared, to “normalising relationships” between the oil-rich dictatorship and the oil-hungry superpower. Thus, when Condoleeza Rice met Gaddafi in Tripoli early in September 2008 she did not say “you are a mass murderer and the USA demands that you hand yourself in to the international courts of justice for trial”, she said “We are working on a trade and investment agreement, a framework, which will allow the improvement of the climate for investment, which I know very many American firms wish to do.”
    And in August 2009, the newly-elected Democratic government sent a delegation to Libya led by John McCain, including Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins. McCain noted how “bilateral ties have taken a remarkable and positive turn in recent years.”
    However, we shouldn’t think that the trade was one-way. America had weapons to sell. In January 2008 Libyan government official Abdel-Rahman Shalqam was wined and dined on Capitol Hill with executives from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Occidental Petroleum and Raythorn as well as officials from the US trade representatives office.
    So was the Lockerbie issue a stumbling block on the trade between America and Libya? It seems not. US trade with Libya soared after economic sanctions were lifted by the Bush administration in 2006. Oil exports totalling 2.5 billion dollars flowed into America from Libya that year and exports from the US to Libya increased by over 400%. No need for dodgy Blairite deals in the desert there then!
    Frank Duggan knows all this but remains strangely silent. Can the US government do no wrong in his eyes? This could be because his eyes remain firmly closed when viewing evidence of American government interference in the Lockerbie case.
    Let’s start with one of the bigger ones: Very early in the investigation, Scottish police officer DCI Harry Bell began reporting back to his superiors that the only identification witness, Maltese shop keeper Tony Gauci, appeared overly interested in receiving monetary reward for his evidence. We now know that Mr Gauci received over $2 million from the Americans for that evidence and his younger brother Paul over $1million for “maintaining the resolve of his brother”, something Frank Duggan has, I believe, always denied knowledge of. In Scotland paying witnesses for evidence is called “a bribe” and is illegal.
    For those of you who haven’t heard the interview here is Mr Duggan some years ago discussing the matter with George Galloway..
    Mr Duggan tries to portray those who doubt the case against Megrahi as cranks and “dingbats.” However most Scottish lawyers now agree that Megrahi was innocent and a senior Scottish legal body the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, specifically set up to examine evidence for appeals, found no less than SIX areas of concern in Megrahi’s conviction.
    The conviction of Megrahi relied on a chain of evidence which the prosecution
    linked into what it claimed was a watertight case. There is nothing wrong, in
    principal, with presenting such a case to a court but each link has to be sound
    and unbreakable. In Megragi’s case it turned out that almost every link was
    paper-weak. Some of the evidence presented in court should never have been
    accepted by the judges and certainly would never have been accepted by a jury of 15 fair-minded Scots, which may or may not explain why Megrahi was denied a jury trial.
    Since the trial, further investigation has proved that witnesses were bribed, evidence fabricated and facts withheld from the defence. Books have been written about the Lockerbie case and the best and most comprehensive is probably John Ashton’s Megrahi you are my Jury. There are too many flaws in the case against Megrahi to be covered here but this is a flavour of them. Remember, this is a chain of often circumstantial evidence; one link breaks and the case falls.
    One of these links is the “identification” of Megrahi by Tony Gauci, who ran
    a clothes shop in Malta called Mary’s House. A small fragment of electronic
    circuit board was found embedded in a charred shirt near Lockerbie which
    forensics suggested had been in the bomb suitcase at the time of the explosion.
    The article of clothing was traced to Gauci’s shop and the circuit board
    fragment was said to have originated from one of a batch of electronic timers
    sent to Libya by a Swiss electronics company called MEBO (further investigation
    has cast doubt, some would say disproved, that the fragment had come from Libya
    and the article of clothing from Mary’s House, but I’m not concentrating on
    these now). In 1989, Tony Gauci was interviewed by Scottish police to see if he
    recalled the transaction 9 months previously and they must have been astonished
    to find that he thought he did! Indeed, Tony went further and gave a
    description. The man, he said, who had bought the article (a Slalom shirt) and
    other articles which he was able to list was over 6 ft tall, with a big head and
    a large chest though not fat. He spoke “Libyan” and Tony thought he was Libyan
    rather than Tunisian though he had “dark skin.” Around this time he also
    described the man as about 50 years old. Slightly built, fair-skinned Megrahi
    was 5ft 8in and 36 years old. Most people agree that Tony is “a simple man”
    though Scotland’s Lord Advocate was later, less politely, to describe him as “an
    apple short of a picnic.” It became clear that he was greatly influenced by his
    brother Paul who was described by police as very interested in monetary reward.
    As time went on Tony was regularly interviewed by Scottish police officers and
    one, Detective Chief Inspector Harry Bell, wrote in his diary “During recent
    meetings with Tony he has expressed an interest in receiving money.” The path
    from Tony’s description of the clothes buyer as looking nothing like Megrahi to
    his “identification” of Megrahi in court is long and convoluted. Suffice it to
    say that Tony pointed to Megrahi in the dock and stated “he is the man on this
    side, he resembles him a lot.” It is now established (though it was not admitted
    for a long time) that Tony received $2m from a US government agency.
    One of the other “links in the chain” which the Crown case against Megrahi and Libya depended on was its assertion that the timer fragment found in the fragment of shirt near Lockerbie was from one of the timers sold by a Swiss company called MEBO to Libya in the 1980s. The circuit boards contained in the timer came from a company called Thuring and the timers were designed and assembled by MEBO. Thuring, in line with standard practice, coated the copper tracking on the circuit boards. Tests in 1990 had established that the tracks on the circuit board fragment, which the Crown insisted was part of the timer of the bomb, showed that the coating comprised of pure tin.
    However, in 2008, while preparing for Megrahi’s second appeal (which in the end didn’t go ahead) the defence decided to look again at all the evidence. In a serious of tests it was found that the tracking on the circuit boards of the batch of timers which MEBO sent to Libya were coated with a tin lead alloy (70/30). To make matters worse it was found that the Crown’s scientists had previously carried out the same tests and had come to the same conclusion!
    These results are devastating to the Crown’s narrative. If the timer did not originate in Libya then there is no reason to tie the timer fragment, and therefore the Lockerbie bomb, to that country and Megrahi. This is yet another broken link in the chain of “evidence” against Megrahi but there are others which are just as damaged.
    Of course Frank Duggan will accept none of this. As a representative of some of the victims’ relatives he believes he occupies the moral high ground.
    But Lockerbie is in Scotland and I am a Scot. It was my country’s worst terrorist atrocity and I believe that Megrahi’s conviction was one of its worst miscarriages of justice. I, and the other “cranks and dingbats”, will not be silenced by mockery and scorn from the likes of Frank Duggan.

    • T3M4

      And now, through David Cameron’s little FO secretary, Obama’s America and France nae less (Auld Alliance? Pah!) Libya is now under the control of Al Quaeda and other tribal gangs.

      One may think that The PNAC documents are in action, yet a little behind schedule.

      This is why Muammar Gaddafi was murdered by the Puppet Masters.

      They do not want the plebs of the planet to experience what life could be.

      • T3M4

        Post Script.

        I too am a Scot and I will be voting Yes in the forthcoming Scottish Independence Vote.

        Maybe it is because I am a Scot that I can see through the curtain of Lies projected upon The People of The World.

        Or maybe We all see it but are too afraid of ”rocking the Tyrants boat”.

        I am very aware of the ”Fear Campaign”.

        It doesn’t wash.

        Wake Up!

        • La Fold

          Most jocks cant see past the end of their street let alone a curtain of lies!

    • Sharyn Bovat

      I’m sad that the people on the cover up team have not gotten the memo about this thing called the INTERNET. OMG! All I can say is I was told “the old guys are losing it”…. Ya’ll should be respectful the reason for the coverup ended and the DIA declassified stuff…. Frank Duggan get over it and “move on”….

  • T3M4

    It was always about Gold and Central Banks James.

    • T3M4

      John Simpson is hardly a ”credible” source by the way.

  • davidhill

    For the answer you had better ask Blair who by all accounts did secret deals with Gaddafi and not all to do with Lockerbie according to the international media.
    Dr David Hill
    World Innovation Foundation

  • fduggan

    What a wondrous thing is the internet, providing us all with the very latest information on the Lockerbie bombing. A lock was found broken at Thiefrow airport, or some guy named Bedford has a different notion of a particular suitcase! Who knew?
    Imagine if the internet was available at the time of the Kennedy assassination? What a blessing that would have been. We could have found out who really was responsible for that. I would love to hear your views on that one, if you can spare your time and attention from the events of 25 years ago at Lockerbie.
    And how about that poor fellow O J Simpson, who was hounded like that other innocent soul, Mr. Megrahi? Who do you think really killed his wife?

    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

    • Grendal55

      Em, wasn’t OJ Simpson found not guilty by an American criminal court? Surely Mr Duggan is not joining the dingbat ranks of the conspiracy-theory touting shills and trying to suggest that a court could get things so wrong. But maybe, if a criminal court could have been wrong about Simpson, a criminal court could have been wrong about Megrahi too. But that’s not what Mr Duggan was meaning, was it? I wonder if he is telling the truth when he says he was once a lawyer.

    • Sharyn Bovat

      My reply to Frank Duggan disappeared: The CIA “monitors” me if anyone wants to read it I put it on my blog – Yikes John Brennan tell your boys to STOP doing stuff to me on US soil… Thank You!!!

  • neilcraig

    Not 100% convinced that when the BBC say it, particularly about somebody the BBC’s government owners helped kill, it is true, let alone balanced.
    This is the same BBC that censored our “police” dissecting thousands of living people in Kosovo. That censors the killing, by fuel poverty, of 34,000 British pensioners last year. That censors any mention of the poisoning of Milosevic because they had no evidence against him (& indeed censored his innocence). The BBC that has been caught lying to promote a catastrophic warming scare they provably knew to be fraud. The BBC who promoted Helen Boaden for perjuring herself in the High Court to promote the warming fraud. The BBC that always censored reporting of the Kincora Boys Home, used by so many senior government apparatchiks.
    Also it has long been obvious that the KLA bombing was carried out by Syrian employed Palestinians, but the frame was changed when they became our allies in the previous war with Saddam.
    This is not necessarily to say Gadafi didn’t do any of this (he certainly was guilty of a lot) but that the BBC is not a trustworthy reporter willing to lie in either direction; that our own government has done comparable atrocities; and that Libya is not a safer, more democratic or freer place because of the “democrats” we put in, who may well be worse – but the BBC won’t report that until the government propaganda line changes …… again.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Still spouting the Authorised line, James?
    Libya was framed because HMG was miffed that the Colonel supplied the IRA. But then so did the US. What an irony.

    • barry walker

      Jackthesmilingblack is absolutely right. And the object of the Indictment was UN Sanctions.

  • fduggan

    Always nice to leave on a high note, but I really must move on to some other sources of entertainment. Nothing new here. The same old Lockerbie scholars with the same “evidence”. You can continue to get your sphincters constricted with postings to me, but alas, I will not be able to read them. Through the magic of Al Gore’s Internet, I can just click “unsubscribe” and poof, your are all gone. God bless.

  • Terry Field

    You are all bitter and twisted because he did not ask you to be the godfather of one of his infants.
    Anyway, if you did not like him, how do you like the replacements?!?!?!?!?

  • Guest

    How does the US military/industrial complex
    get away with such evil for so long?

  • dahszil

    Why does the US military/industrial/government complex
    get away with such evil for so long?


  • Tim Tempest

    Gadaffi dont do any of those things

  • Lampoon, wasn’t fool tool for economic charades of “EU and U.K” diplomacy contradictory how? Fully,
    aware of terror from Libya” since military and weapons industry was decline change are minds allowed this creep. To lingering yes, not odd abreast objective of economic powers quest to dominate African and Middle eastern economics. Retrospect similar to Muhammad AlI of Egypt whom master diplomacy of conspiring “Europe” Libya entangled Brother Leader of Africa mimic solidarity. To bemuse himself,
    literally dominated monopolized region advert enemies oppose change of politics whom? Gulf States,
    Saudi Arabia,Jordan and Egypt these nations equivalent to Gaddafi mayhem tragic Libya has reverted back to archery. Monarchy was excellent concept still lingers politics of Africa and Middle east military
    Brother Leader new how play them against each other. Lasted longer then problematic Iraq a failure,also promoted neo-African unity inaccurate regional bigot. Support master racist “Louis “Marabout” Farrakhan whom enrich “NOI” billions mining and logistic firms Libya become stable? Able to retain petroleum markets crime terrible reason “France decide assist central African states Merci!

  • Ssbbss

    Gaddafi drove around town hanging out of his sunroof his with everyone running out to wave to him, not in a bomb proof car locked up inside like Obama. Free electricity, free schooling, free health care just to name a few, his people LOVED him! He turned the poorest African nation into the richest! This article is the usual American propaganda bullshit stories. The USA paid terrorist to overtake the country and release the terrorists into Europe which gaddafi said would happen if he is killed! Read real stories about his legacy and talk to real libyans and you will hear the truth! America is a country exporting war! We’re doomed if this continues!

  • Wonkabar