They said that they were releasing him for humanitarian reasons, but now the truth is out -- as well as the astonishing sycophancy and dhimmitude of the Blair and Brown governments. "Devastating secret files reveal Labour lies over Gaddafi: Dictator warned of holy war if Lockerbie bomber Megrahi died in Scotland," by Ian Birrell in the Daily Mail, September 4:
The startling extent to which Labour misled the world over the controversial release of the Lockerbie bomber is exposed today in top-secret documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday.In public, senior Ministers from the last Labour Government and the Scottish First Minister have repeatedly insisted that terminally ill Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds in a decision taken by Scottish Ministers alone.
But the confidential papers show that Westminster buckled under pressure from Colonel Gaddafi, who threatened to ignite a 'holy war' if Megrahi died in his Scottish cell.
And despite repeated denials, the Labour Government worked frantically behind the scenes to appease Gaddafi's 'unpredictable nature'.
As recently as last month, a spokesman for Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond was insisting: 'The decision was taken on the basis of Scots law and was not influenced by economic, political or diplomatic factors.'
Equally damaging, the documents also suggest that as well as sharing intelligence-gathering techniques, Britain gave Libya hundreds of suggested questions for Islamic militants detained in Libya in 2004.
This will inevitably cause widespread dismay because of the regime’s systematic use of torture during interrogation.
The revelations come in documents – some marked ‘UK secret: UK/Libya Eyes Only’ – found strewn on the floor of the British Ambassador’s abandoned residence in Tripoli.
Many of the papers demonstrate the warmth of the relationship between Britain and Libya and, in particular, the extraordinarily close links between the Blair Government and the Gaddafi regime.
The notes show how:
Tony Blair helped Colonel Gaddafi’s playboy son Saif with his ‘dodgy’ PhD thesis while he was Prime Minister.
British Special Forces were offered to train the Khamis Brigade, Gaddafi’s most vicious military unit.
MI6 was apparently willing to trace phone numbers for Libyan intelligence.
Gordon Brown wrote warmly to Gaddafi in 2007 expressing the hope that the dictator would be able to meet Prince Andrew when he visited Tripoli.
MI6’s budget (£150 million in 2002) was readily disclosed to Libyan officials, along with details of how Britain’s Downing Street emergency committee Cobra operates.
Britain’s intelligence services forged close links with Gaddafi’s brutal security units.Megrahi was released two years ago and transferred back to Libya, where he received a hero’s welcome from Gaddafi. Last week, it emerged he is still alive – although very ill – after he was tracked down to his home in Tripoli.
A series of documents marked ‘confidential’ and ‘restricted’ reveal that Gaddafi threatened Britain with ‘dire consequences’ if Megrahi died in Scotland.
Diplomats feared the harassment – ‘or worse’ – of British nationals; the cancellation of lucrative contracts with firms such as BP, Shell and BG; and the end of defence deals and counter-terrorism co-operation....
Ten bucks says Megrahi will line up for Libya against Usain Bolt in the 100 meters at the Olympics in London next year.
Dying of cancer, my a**!
This truly reveals the utterly deprived mentality of the so-called "intelligence community" and those leading the "war on terror"--the politicians and the generals.
Blair was always moral degenerate--he's been enamored of communism since his youth, and stomach-turning pictures of him smiling with Gaddafi have been out for years.
What is unsettling most is that the members of the IC have so little in the way of anchored principals that they can turn on a dime and assist regimes like that of Gaddafi, simply because the mercurial leader supposedly changed his spots, i.e. changed his stance on terrorism/nukes.
How exactly does that work? Either Gaddafi did or did not murder hundreds over Lockerbie. Either he did or did not bomb a discotech in Germany. Either he did or did not murder thousands of Libyan dissidents over forty years, either publically or in closed quarters.
So a change of stance overcomes that? Even the governments of the UK and the US can now forget about Pan Am over Lockerbie? If true, might as well just open up the prisons, as their occupants has just had a change of stance on their feelings about murdering, raping and robbing--at least until they feel the urge again, as Gaddafi would and inevitably did.
The same Blair & Brown Labour party who opened the gates of the country to mass immigration of Muslims, due to self hate of the British people. The same Blair & Brown & cronies that should be rotting in jail for being traitors to their country.
British government undertook a huge political deceit of the British people (and of the West) for years in its politically corrupt relationship with the Gaddafis, and much of the MSM tagged along.
Maxpublius: I believe you meant "depraved" (having decayed or no moral standards) rather than "deprived" (lacking the privilege of having) unless you're referencing the song "Gee, Officer Krupke!" in "West Side Story": "I'm depraved on accountah I'm deprived!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mzKEqgUHkM
In any case, we all know Muslims aren't to blame for any of the evil things attributed to them: it's everyone else's fault for "oppressing," especially the Jews. In other news, the NYT in its Saturday editions "even-handedly" blamed both Turkey (the perpetrator) and Israel (which was defending itself) for the Mavi Marmara incident a year ago May. Unsurprisingly, the NYT also demanded Israel apologize. For defending itself. Dog bites man story.
again here we have proof of the Western government lack of courage to stand up to these tinpot dictators.. Reagan had a better way to deal with this piece of human debris!
Blair and Brown did not lie. What could be more humanitarian than to prevent Jihad?
Hello Ole,
I still remember fondly your very enlightening essays on England, Germany, and Churchill's real role.
So, is it better to get the English buccaneer type of leadership, leading to one, perhaps two World Wars, or the poltroonish leadership of a Blair, absolutely willing to lie to his own people and betraying any principles he might have had, in exchange for the favors of a tin-pot, megalomaniac dictator with no real power except in the torture dungeons of his own country?
Maack, Yes, thank you for the correction, although for the collaborationist IC, politicians and generals, deprived of moral IQ points may fit as well.
For Gaddafi et al, I'll give them that they are depraved on account of following the spirit if not the letter of Islam, and I'm not sure which is worse.
It appears the British government is in the process of handing over the keys to the country to the pious followers of Islam.
After the era of slave trade, what followed?
"...Selling of the people by the people's politically elected leaders; in their elevated positions as illegal trade Masters".
In my opinion, especially in the US, leaders and members of MSM - should stop proving it that;
...the whole World is a mini mart, where all are for sale, to the highest bidder in the currency of human desire.
It's official now, the only decent people with any guts, at all, left in England are all part of the English Defense League.
The Blairs were and are a blight on our nation. Cherie is still up to her tricks, trying to make a ass of the law and making it up as she goes along; just as her husband did with Gadaffi...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8739000/Cherie-Blair-criticised-by-court-for-not-sending-cocaine-smuggler-to-jail.html
What I've seen here is certainly a very cozy relationship between Britain and Libya while Gaddafi was in charge, which on it's own is pretty sickening considering the abuses that have occured under his dictatorship.
However, I don't see any evidence here to indicate that Libya threatened anyone with any jihad as regards to the Lockerbie bomber. Maybe I missed something but if I haven't, aren't we just making assumptions? Considering the title of this piece is about jihadist threats, shouldn't we be providing evidence on this?
JpPaul88,
You said: I don't see any evidence here to indicate that Libya threatened anyone with any jihad as regards to the Lockerbie bomber.
However, according to the Daily Mail:
"A series of documents marked ‘confidential’ and ‘restricted’ reveal that Gaddafi threatened Britain with ‘dire consequences’ if Megrahi died in Scotland."
What evidence are you looking for?
But the confidential papers show that Westminster buckled under pressure from Colonel Gaddafi, who threatened to ignite a 'holy war' if Megrahi died in his Scottish cell.
Jihad IS holy war.
Exactly, according to Daily Mail. And we're just supposed to take their word for it. Look, I'm more than happy to accept the evidence (that being the showing of any relevant document, or...........just any proof); thus far this has not happened.
Stating that a document is confidential is not proof in itself. I'm not accusing the Mail of lying (if it's confidential, it's confidential and they can't show it...........but they can mention it? I'm not sure on the legalities of this) but without proof, the argument that Gaddafi threatened a holy war if Megrahi died in Scotland, is just unsubstantiated.
Ever read the description of Vanity Fair in John Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_? I think you'd like it.
In short, they've divulged some of the important documents, but apparently not the ones pertaining to a jihad threat.
Again, I'm more than happy to accept the charges upon seeing the proof. At the moment, there simply is none.
Though someone may or may not have lied, it was not Blair or Brown in this case. The bomber was released by the Scottish Parliament, not the British one.
The last labour govenment has sold us down the river,we will struggle to survive their open door policy allowing so many unwanted and unneeded musllims into our country. But the embarresment of the magrahi release and the cowardly way our leaders bowed to a tin pot madman will leave a stink in air over britian for a long time. Lets not forget that many people in that govenment are still about today. I hope they are voted out of office as soon as possible.
"MI6 was apparently willing to trace phone numbers for Libyan intelligence."
Absolutely disgusting. Helping a homicidal dictator find the location of his enemies inside one's own democracy!
Blair and Chamberland...
Two peas from the same pod.
"We will never surrender", Winston Churchill. Now, there was a real man.
Again, what proof are you looking for?
I doubt there is videotape showing that this happened. What will you accept?
Is it my imagination, or has the once-proud and mighty British royal lion morphed into a cowering mouse?
Winston Churchill is rolling over in his grave.
I am so glad that Churchill was granted honorary U.S. citizenship. Perhaps the 20-30% of current Brits who believe he was only a legend will let us keep him.
Your query to Ole Hartling poses a false dichotomy. You assume that British stalwartness, so absent now, was at least in part responsible for both world wars. This is an assumption, not an axiom, and a very spurious assumption at that. I suggest you read Fritz Fischer's take on the causes of WWI and I also suggest that you place the blame for the outbreak of WWII virtually entirely at Adolf's feet (minus some Neville Chamberlain spinelessness, which only all the more contradicts your thesis). Really, RonaldB, your either/or to Ole Hartling represents a gross misreading of history.
As in all cases, no heads will roll this time either. It's about time these guys start ending up in jail.
Read Al Qur'an. That's your proof! And if you want evidence of Gaddafi's pre-cons, you don't have to look far. Bombing American soldiers in Germany. And, of course, Lockerbie.
I'm not sure I can be much clearer.
I know Gaddafi was a tyrant dictator and that the world is a better place without him in charge. The fact that we (Brits) had anything to do with this monster is just embarresing, and these documents prove this involvement.
However, these documents in no way state, or even reference any threat to Britain. Nor do they even mention Megrahi. We are literally to take the Daily Mail at their word. We are to assume that because Britain and Libya had a cordial relationship, that they simply gave Megrahi back to Libya under threat of jihad. This is just simply speculation and to state it as a fact (and a headline) is false.
As for the Qur'an - I know. I too am deeply worried about this religion and I am grateful to people like Ali Sina, who have provided important insights into it's many problems. However, this is not the proof I am looking for.
The British government have always poked their noses into another countries business supposedly on moral grounds but always when there is a deal to be done. In the wake of British intervention and double dealing, countries like South Africa and Rhodesia are today in tatters and dependent on aid from the West. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya will be no different.
When you've been given a bust of Winston Churchill, don't insult and embarass the donor by making a public display of returning it. (No matter what kind of dreams you have of - or for - your peripatetic father.)
The "brilliant" display of Obama diplomacy and International narcissism could be interpreted into this fiasco.
Oh dear, we seemed to have reached an impasse. OK, if you can prove that the 'Daily Mail' has no proof of Gaddafi's threat and is just making it all up, I'll believe you. But until then, ......
Well I'll take your 'oh dear' and raise you a 'good grief!'. Lol, I'm only messing, but seriously, if I come up to you screaming with excitement that I've found God and you tell me you don't believe me, that doesn't give me the right to say "well prove me wrong!". The proof from the denying party is automatic upon lack of evidence from the claimant. In this case, Daily Mail made the claim; therefore they have to prove it. If they can't, it's automatically disproven. To state otherwise is just logical short-circuiting. The onus is very much on them. Thus far, still no proof.
Revealed: Blair and Brown lied -- they released Lockerbie bomber because Gaddafi threatened jihad
.............................
My God, *what cravens*. That these men are 'leaders' of Great Britain is *appalling*.
More:
Tony Blair helped Colonel Gaddafi’s playboy son Saif with his ‘dodgy’ PhD thesis...
.............................
A minor detail in the whole scheme of things, no doubt.
Still, that the *Prime Minister of Great Britain* is reduced to cranking out a passable thesis for the lazy son of a brutal dictator of a third-tier nation—as though Blair was a fairly smart but wimpy kid on the playground pushed into doing the bully's homework for him—sadly says it all...
Wellington wrote, replying to Ronald B:
You assume that British stalwartness, so absent now, was at least in part responsible for both world wars. This is an assumption, not an axiom, and a very spurious assumption at that...
...............................
I could not agree more, Wellington, and had planned to address Ronald B's comments myself.
This nasty bit of calumny seems to be gaining ground—Pat Buchanan has been flogging this meretricious proposition in his "Churchill, Hitler, and "'The Unnecessary War'"—that Hitler did not want war, but was—somehow—pushed into conquering, oppressing, and brutalizing most of Europe by Winston Churchill.
This is not only false, it *is absurd*. Hitler had long made his bellicose plans clear.
Thugs claiming they were "forced" into their barbarities is nothing new—but decent men giving credence to such idiocy in such large numbers is.