The Lockerbie bombing in 1988 was perhaps the 9/11 of its time.
While it didn’t result in the kind of phony Global ‘War on Terror’ that was conducted after 9/11, it did give the US and Britain the platform for beginning a targeted downfall of a particular nation and society, this being Libya.

This was accomplished the same way in Libya as it was accomplished in Iraq: first by years and years of crippling sanctions and forced hardship (via the UN),then by all-out destruction against a nation that is no longer able to defend itself (Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011).

There are essentially two ways to look at Lockerbie.

One, the most important, is as a criminal investigation of an act of mass murder. The other is as a prolonged political or geo-political tool serving multiple purposes. Both are worth revisiting; particularly as the ghost of Lockerbie (and all of its victims) has reappeared in news media in the last few weeks.

Revisiting the subject of Lockerbie is important both as a study of geo-politics and the place of political terrorism within that arena and as a study in history and how it relates to contemporary events.

I want to take a broad overview of the Lockerbie subject here, touching on all of those areas: this article will cover (1) the reasons why the ‘official’ story of Lockerbie is so problematic and disputed, (2) the release of the ‘Lockerbie Bomber’ from prison in Scotland and why it happened, (3) the political and geopolitical motives and consequences of the Lockerbie trial and verdict, and finally (4) the many different theories as to who really did carry out the Lockerbie bombing and why. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

So this feels really weird now.
After Chris Cornell’s death back in May, I wrote one immediate article on the subject and then I consciously chose not to write anything more.

This was for the same reason that I chose not to get drawn into all the conspiracy theories and predictable ‘Illuminati ritual murder’ videos springing up on You Tube – I was too upset by the death of one of my genuine heroes and I didn’t want to complicate or infect my feelings any further by opening myself up to all those other things.

It’s much easier to take an objective, dispassionate overview of subjects or cases like this when you’re not emotionally invested in the individual person: but when it concerns someone you really care about or have a strong sense of connection to in your psyche, it is more difficult to stomach all the rabid theories and speculations or to assess the ‘evidence’ at all.

I still feel that way; and I am generally wary of the plethora of Illuminati-centered conspiracy theories/videos that immediately spring up every time anyone vaguely famous dies.

In some cases, there are genuine reasons a death needs to be looked at more closely, but in many cases it’s just people who dive blindly onto the conspiracy bandwagon for either click-bait or just ingrained (unhealthy) reflex.

I’m not someone who thinks every death is a conspiracy; and I still probably don’t think Chris Cornell was murdered. But the last couple of days have re-awoken niggling uncertainties.  Read the rest of this entry »

A couple of days ago marked the one-year anniversary of the failed coup attempt in Turkey.
This event has been substantially commemorated in Turkey in recent days; although, even now, it really isn’t clear precisely what happened a year ago.

Some still think the ‘coup’ attempt was staged by the government as a means for Erdogan to consolidate power and begin purges across national institutions. Others still think it was a failed CIA-backed plot, involving ‘Gulenist’ agents, and aimed at overthrowing Erdogan and his party. Read the rest of this entry »

Rita Hayworth is still one of the most iconic pop culture figures of the 20th century and one of the four or five most iconic ‘Hollywood’ stars of the last century.
A few weeks ago marked the thirtieth anniversary of her death in 1987, and I wanted to take a moment to draw attention to some of the curious things relating to Hayworth and also to generally reflect on her.

Her story is an extraordinary, though not particularly happy, one; one that straddles the ‘Golden Age’ of Hollywood and cinema, the Second World War, and even becomes a real-life story of a princess, is punctuated by high-profile marriages and dysfunctions, and eventually finishes as a sad story of early onset Alzheimer’s.

The fact that Hayworth developed Alzheimer’s very young – and a time when the illness wasn’t very well understood – is the saddest aspect of her story. For much of her final years, it is said she didn’t really even know what being ‘Rita Hayworth’ meant and didn’t fully even remember her past.

My own fascination with Rita Hayworth began not with any of her films, but with a feature-length documentary film about her life I remember seeing on TV a number of years ago. It was narrated by Kim Basinger and called simply Rita – The Biography of Rita Hayworth; I remember being entranced by it when it was on in the very late hours of Christmas Day (or early hours of Boxing Day) about twelve years ago. Read the rest of this entry »

It was difficult to work out exactly what is behind the ‘Qatar Diplomatic Crisis’ that seemed to suddenly emerge early in June.

The Qatar diplomatic crisis apparently began on 5th June when several countries – principally Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain and the UAE – abruptly cut off diplomatic relations. This included trade and travel bans.

Subsequent to this, the Saudi-led group of governments has issued an ultimatum to Qatar in the form of a list of demands that the Gulf State will have to meet.

Why? On the surface of it, Saudi Arabia and the other countries have criticised Qatar for funding terrorist organisations. There has also been criticism of Qatar’s relations with Iran and criticism too of the Al-Jazeera broadcaster that is based in Qatar.

Donald Trump joined in, endorsing the isolation of Qatar and accusing it of being a state sponsor of terrorism. Read the rest of this entry »

The ‘age of stupid’ is the only term I can think of for framing this ongoing nonsense.

President Trump and members of his administration have taken the questionable approach of stating outright that the US will respond severely if the Syrian government carries out another chemical attack on civilians.

More than that, it is insisting that Damascus is planning said attack and claims to have proof of this. Read the rest of this entry »

Widely published ‘reports’ in the last week or so claimed that the so-called ‘Islamic State’ group’s elusive ‘caliph’, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had been killed in a Russian airstrike in Raqqa.

In fact, the reports are now that this story was false – which makes me wonder why it was doing the rounds at all. Baghdadi has in fact been declared ‘killed’ a number of times in the last couple of years. I’ve never believed those claims – because I’ve never been properly convinced that ‘Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’ exists at all.

In covering this subject of Baghdadi here, I’m going to revisit some of what I’ve written here before – specifically regarding the Baghdadi mystery, but also the older Bin Laden myth (as I believe the two are related), and the whole business of this ‘caliphate’ that the ‘ISIS/Daesh’ group has been trying to carve out in the Middle East. Read the rest of this entry »

The YouTube video I embedded into the post yesterday on the London Bridge attack CCTV footage no longer exists – the video was obviously taken down some time before or after I posted the article.

The footage I was trying to link to, as I explained in the previous post, showed a different, longer version of the CCTV footage to the version that was shown on mainstream outlets and most YouTube channels.

The version that most channels/websites are showing is a shortened version, which omits the following segment that I alluded to yesterday. Read the rest of this entry »

This post here is essentially to draw a line, for now, under the London Bridge June 3rd terror attack.

I’ve come in for some flack elsewhere – particularly since the CCTV video was released – for posting about the attack having possibly been a false-flag type operation.

Just briefly here, I want to explain/defend myself and make sure there isn’t any real misunderstanding. Firstly, in the original posting, I never said the attack was a ‘hoax’ or that it didn’t really happen. I clearly, specifically, didn’t say that at all.

I generally accept the story of the three identified attackers (maybe I’m just getting lazy), the attack in London, and now the CCTV footage purporting to show the police taking on the attackers. Read the rest of this entry »