zaterdag 9 april 2011

America cannot and will not succeed in Afghanistan/Pakistan (06 Oct 2009) Intelligence Squared

06 Oct 2009
Minutes: 01:49:19

MP4 - 547 MB
Vimeo source

Intelligence Squared, the global forum for live debate, is dedicated to creating knowledge through contest.


Speakers: Ralph Peters, Steve Coll, John Nagl, Patrick Lang, James Shinn, Steven Clemons, John Donvan.

The Obama Administration has implemented a significant change in policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, which they view as a single challenge, AfPak. More troops and a new commander have been sent to Afghanistan, and the US has increased its level of support and aid to Pakistan. To many, this means they are becoming further entrenched in an open-ended quagmire where any military solution will ultimately fail. Others question whether they should care if Afghanistan has a strong central government or a democratic one. While most agree it should not become a terrorist haven, opinions differ on how this should be accomplished: more troops, covert operations, diplomacy?

And what to make of Pakistan? The US cannot allow its nuclear arsenal to fall into the hands of radicals, but President Obama has ruled out putting troops on the ground. The task of rooting out al Qaeda and Taliban militants falls to Pakistan’s army, which has, until recently, supported these groups as a hedge against future conflict with India. How much tolerance does America have for the long road ahead with AfPak? Can they ever “win,” and how would they even define a win in this region?

First vote: 48% For, 25% Against, 27% Don't know

Final vote: 43% For, 45% Against, 12% Don't know


Ralph Peters

Speaker Ralph Peters thumbnail
Former member of the US military and author
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer who rose from the enlisted ranks. As a soldier or civilian, he has experience in over 70 countries. Published widely as a commentator and essayist, Peters has been an opinion columnist for the New York Post since 2002. He has covered conflict zones in Iraq, Israel and Africa, and also has affiliations with USAToday, Armed Forces Journal and Armchair General Magazine. In March, he became Fox News’ first Strategic Analyst.

Peters is the author of over 20 books, published both under his own name and the pen name Owen Parry. His novels include The War After Armageddon (2009), and Flames of Heaven: A Novel of the End of the Soviet Union (2003). He is also the author of a number of non-fiction books about politics, conflict, and american foreign policy. They include Looking For Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World (2008), and Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World (2002). He is the author of works on military and international affairs, bestselling and prize-winning novels, and an adventure-travel memoir.

Steve Coll

Speaker Steve Coll thumbnail
President and CEO, New America Foundation
Steve Coll is president and CEO of New America Foundation, and a staff writer at the New Yorker magazine. Previously he spent 20 years as a foreign correspondent and senior editor at the Washington Post, serving as the paper’s managing editor from 1998 to 2004. He is the author of six books, including Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (2004), which won the Pulitzer Prize in 2005. Coll had already been awarded a Pulitzer in 1990 for explanatory journalism. His 2008 book The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century was a finalist in the National Book Critics Circle Award.

John Nagl

Speaker John Nagl thumbnail
President, Center for a New American Security
John Nagl is president of the Center for a New American Security and a visiting professor in the War Studies Department at Kings College of London. Nagl retired from the US Army after 20 years with the rank of lieutenant colonel. He led a tank platoon in Operation Desert Storm and served as the operations officer of a tank battalion task force in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has taught national security studies at West Point and served as military assistant to the deputy secretary of defense. Nagl is the author of Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam (2002) and was on the writing team that produced the US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual.

Patrick Lang

Speaker Patrick Lang thumbnail
Political commentator and author
Patrick Lang is a retired senior officer of US Military Intelligence and US Army Special Forces (The Green Berets). He served in the Department of Defense both as a serving officer and then as a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service for many years. Lang is a highly decorated veteran of several of America’s overseas conflicts including the war in Vietnam. He was trained and educated as a specialist in the Middle East by the US Army and served in that region for many years. During his career, he has served as the Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and counter-terrorism at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and as a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service. Lang received the Presidential Rank Award of Distinguished Executive for his work at the DIA.

After retiring for the second time from the government, he was a business executive for ten years in a large manufacturing company operating in the Middle East and South Asia. He is the author of Intelligence: The Human Factor (2004), The Butcher's Cleaver (2007), and Death Piled Hard (2009).

James Shinn

Speaker James Shinn thumbnail
Former US Assistant Secretary of Defense
James Shinn was Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia in 2007-08. Before his work at the Pentagon, he served as the national intelligence officer for East Asia in 2003-2006, first at the Central Intelligence Agency and then for the director of National Intelligence. After serving in the East Asia Bureau of the US Department of State in the 1970s, he spent 15 years working in high tech firms, first at Advanced Micro Devices, and then at Dialogic, of which he is a co-founded. Shinn was senior fellow for Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations from 1992-1996.

Shinn is the author of Weaving the Net: Conditional Engagement with China (1996), and co-author of Political Power and Corporate Control (with Peter Alexis Gourevitch, 2005).

Steven Clemons

Speaker Steven Clemons thumbnail
Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation
Steven Clemons is director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, which aims to promote a new American internationalism that combines a tough-minded realism about America’s interests in the world with a pragmatic idealism about a kind of world order best suited to America’s democratic way of life.

Clemons is a senior fellow at New America, and previously served as executive vice president. Publisher of the popular political blog The Washington Note, he is a long-term policy practitioner and entrepreneur in Washington, DC. He sits on the boards of the Maryland and the Clarke Center at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and the CV Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience at Washington College in Chestertown. Clemons is also a well-known political blogger for The Washington Note, and his writing has also appeared on blogs for The Huffington Post and Daily Kos.

John Donvan

Speaker John Donvan thumbnail
Correspondent for ABC News
John Donvan is a correspondent for America's ABC News. He began his career with ABC Radio in 1990, moving to their television station in 1982, where he covered events in the Middle East. In the mid-1980s, he was CNN's London correspondent. He rejoined ABC in 1988 and, based in London and Moscow, covered many of the major international news events of the last two decades of the twentieth century. He returned to New York in 1993, contributing to ABC programmes such as World News Tonight and Good Night America. He joined Nightline as a correspondent in 1998.

Donvan has won two Emmy Awards, two Cine Golden Eagles, and a number of Overseas Press Pack Awards.

A pre-emptive foreign policy is a recipe for disaster (13 Sep 2004) Intelligence Squared

13 Sep 2004
Minutes: 01:43:46
MP4 - 393 MB

Intelligence Squared, the global forum for live debate, is dedicated to creating knowledge through contest.

The panel debate the motion: A pre-emptive foreign policy is a recipe for disaster. Chaired by Francine Stock.

Arguing for the motion are Senator Gary Hart and Sir Simon Jenkins.

Gary Hart states that, despite the theoretical nature of the motion, the point at issue is America's invasion of Iraq. He says that with an immediate and unavoidable threat, a nation does not require international acceptance to defend itself, but in the case of Iraq that threat was not present.

Simon Jenkins says that he is not against the concept of intervention or pre-emption, but has two basic concerns. Firstly, that we cannot have a state of affairs where any country can go to war; and secondly, that we should not extend this concept to groups that constitute a threat within other states.

Arguing against the motion are Christopher Hitchens and David Aaronovitch.

Christopher Hitchens says that it is often assumed the concept of pre-emption runs counter to the nexus of international law. However, he points to many treaties which suggest otherwise, such as the Genocide Convention – which mandates signatory powers (upon receiving information) to begin pre-emptive action. In his view a foreign policy that doesn't have a pre-emptive character is doomed to disaster.

David Aaronovitch says that a largely reactive foreign policy is certainly a recipe for disaster, and believes that the test of a pre-emptive foreign policy is the conflict in Afghanistan. He argues that if you vote in favour of this motion you are actually in support of a pre-emptive foreign policy, but you just want it to be more intelligent. Aaronovitch concludes by asserting the importance of intelligent and principled pre-emptive policy.

First Vote: 314 For, 195 Against, 183 Don't know

Final Vote: 265 For, 400 Against, 45 Don't know

The motion is defeated by 135 votes.

vrijdag 8 april 2011

Spreading democracy in the middle east is a bad idea (18 sept 2007) Intelligence Squared

18 Sep 2007Minutes: 01:32:18
MP4 - 462 MB

Intelligence Squared, the global forum for live debate, is dedicated to creating knowledge through contest.
Vimeo source

Read about the panelists debating the proposition "Spreading Democracy in the Middle East Is a Bad Idea" in the latest in the Intelligence Squared U.S. series.

Flynt Leverett
Flynt Leverett is a senior fellow and director of the Geopolitics of Energy Initiative of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. He has served as senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, Middle East expert on the secretary of state's policy planning staff and senior analyst at the CIA.

Dimitri Simes
Dimitri Simes is the founding president of The Nixon Center and publisher of its foreign policy bi-monthly magazine, The National Interest. Before the establishment of the center, Simes served as chairman of the Center for Russian and Eurasian Programs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Simes was born in Moscow and immigrated to the United States in 1973.

Shibley Telhami
Shibley Telhami is the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland, College Park, and non-resident senior fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. In 2006, he served on the Iraq Study Group as a member of the Strategic Environment Working Group.


Liz Cheney
Liz Cheney is an attorney and specialist in the areas of U.S. Middle East policy and reform in the Arab world. She served most recently as principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. Her responsibilities included designing and managing U.S. government programs to promote democracy in the Arab world.

Danielle Pletka
Danielle Pletka is the vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Her research areas include the Middle East, South Asia, terrorism and weapons proliferation. She recently served as a member of the Task Force on the United Nations, established by the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Natan Sharansky
Natan Sharansky is chairman of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at The Shalem Center in Jerusalem. From March 2003 until May 2005, he was an Israeli minister responsible for Jerusalem, social and Jewish diaspora affairs. He also has served as the deputy prime minister of Israel. He emigrated from the Soviet Union to Israel in 1986.


Robert Siegel
Robert Siegel, a senior host of NPR's award-winning evening newsmagazine All Things Considered, got started in radio news when he was a college freshman in 1964. As a host, Siegel has reported from Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Israel. Before joining All Things Considered in 1987, Siegel served for four years as director of NPR's News and Information Department.


Additional info:

Both the American project to spread democracy in the Middle East in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and the Iraq War were doomed from the outset. That's not because the Middle East is incompatible with democracy, but because the project was based on contradictions and erroneous assumptions.

Spreading democracy as a goal of American foreign policy is not new. Even in the Middle East, the administration of President George H. W. Bush pushed for democratic reform as a priority in 1989 and was instrumental in promoting elections in Jordan and elsewhere. During the first few months of the Clinton administration, Secretary of State Warren Christopher spoke of democracy and reform and raised the issue with Arab leaders.

The outcome was telling. Not only did Islamists do well in elections in Jordan and Algeria, but those countries that reformed were the most reluctant to cooperate with the United States after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. In the second case, the Clinton administration's need to rally support for the emerging Oslo agreements once again sidelined the democracy question.

But since Sept. 11, the policy of spreading democracy was sold as a strategic objective, not merely as part of spreading American values. The assumption was that the terrorism that America faced was, in part, a function of the absence of democracy in the Middle East. That this notion had little factual support mattered little. Much of the literature shows that moving from authoritarianism to democracy is unpredictable and destabilizing . Thus, it should have been clear from the outset that neither the public in America nor the public in the Middle East would see benefits that justified the course. Even worse, the very terrorism that elevated the democracy policy in America's priorities was likely to increase, as it thrives where central authority is weak and instability is widespread.

Indeed it is ironic that the three countries that were highlighted as true successes of the democracy policy—Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine—are now the subject of considerable concern and instability. But there is more about the troubling dynamics in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia where something else worked against the spread of democracy.

At the same time that the United States asked governments to reform, it also asked them to support policies in Iraq, the fight against terrorism and the Arab-Israeli issue that the majority of their publics opposed. Most could not resist America's requests, but in the process they felt even more insecure as their public grew angry, and they unleashed the security services to prevent revolts—even as they held limited elections. It is not surprising that in every public opinion poll I have conducted since 2003 most Arabs believed that the Middle East had become even less democratic than it was before the Iraq War.

The Arab governments' view that the advocacy of democracy was instrumental in this was matched by a similar view among the public. Public opinion polls in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon have shown consistently that fewer than 10 percent of Arabs believe that the spread of democracy was a true American objective, with most believing that oil, Israel and weakening the Muslim world drive American policy in the region. This was true even before anarchy spread in Iraq, but the latter, coupled with revelations of scandals, such as the Abu Ghraib prison abuses, only reinforced the public perceptions. The seeming rejection of the outcome of Palestinian elections once Hamas won and the feeling that America is doing little to end the occupation in the West Bank and Gaza have added to Arab skepticism.

It isn't that Arabs have substantially different views of democracy. When asked to name the countries they believe have the most democracy and freedom for their people, all their top choices are Western, democratic countries, including the United States. When they are asked to choose countries outside their own where they would like to live or study, most select Western countries, not China or Pakistan. In the end, most Arabs, like others, want freedom and a system in which their voices count. But even more, they want security for their families, and they reject foreign occupation and anarchy. The very American policy that was said to be aimed at spreading democracy increased the conditions that terrify the public and reduced the attraction of democracy itself. If Iraq is an example of the democratic change one can expect, who, anywhere, would want it?


Shibley Telhami is the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and Senior Fellow at the Saban Center of the Brookings Institution. This article is based on an article that appeared in the Spring 2007 issue of Dissent. Mr. Telhami will debate this topic as part of the Intelligence Squared US debate series.

The time to quit Iraq is now (17-01-2006) Intelligence Squared

Time: 01:53:1017 Jan 2006
MP4 - 398 MB

Intelligence Squared, the global forum for live debate, is dedicated to creating knowledge through contest.

The panel debate the motion: The time to quit Iraq is now. Chaired by James Naughtie.

Arguing for the motion are Dr Rosemary Hollis, Alastair Crooke and Sir Simon Jenkins.

Rosemary Hollis argues that the military contingent in Iraq should immediately prepare a military exit. She suggests that Britain should now switch the effort to a more positive, ‘hearts and minds’ emphasis on the civilian sector.

Alastair Crooke points to two key developments: the perception everywhere that the US (and therefore UK) is on its way out and that the Shia victory has granted the tools of influence to the government of Tehran. Cooke breaks down the arguments in favour of staying and ends with a call for diplomacy, pointing out that we need to establish a dialogue with all countries involved.

Simon Jenkins says we need to give Iraqis what we promised them, but that, at the moment, we are not doing this. Overall, he suggests that the Iraqi government will be undermined if it is seen as a puppet of the west – if it is regarded in this way, democracy will never take root. In Jenkins’ view, this is surely grounds enough for a complete military withdrawal.

Arguing against the motion are Amir Taheri, Tim Spicer and William Shawcross.

Amir Taheri hasn't heard requests for coalition forces to quit Iraq, either from Iraqis or from other coalition countries. Even those who opposed the invasion are not saying we should leave, but rather say that if you have broken something, you have to fix it. The only group that would benefit from immediate withdrawal of Allied forces is the insurgents.

Tim Spicer notes the horrible suffering experienced by Iraqis under the rule of Saddam Hussein. He says that the insurgency comes as no surprise, describing many insurgents as no more than criminals. He suggests that, until a proper police force is in place, insurgency will continue to flourish. Spicer emphasises that there is no civil war waging in Iraq, that the Iraqi army are making great steps forward, and that we need to give them the breathing space in which to prepare.

William Shawcross believes the idea that we should quit now to be frivolous. This is not an imperial venture, but a liberation. Iraqis have made an extraordinarily good start; why then are we running scared and why have we so little patience? Shawcross suggests that we should look beyond the Iraq seen in news reports and remain there until the Iraq behind the scenes is able to slowly rebuild itself.

First Vote: 246 For, 283 Against, 198 Don't Know

Final Vote: 272 For 431 Against, 36 Don't Know

The motion is defeated by 159 votes

Lockerbie - Air crash investigation S06E01 (NGC) Mayday S07E02

47 Min | 640 x 352 | XviD - 888Kbps | 25.000fps | MP3 - 128Kbps | 350 MB
Aired almost 20 years to the day that it happened, the Lockerbie disaster is one of the most infamous and devastating Terrorist attacks in history. On Wednesday 21 December 1988, the Pan Am Boeing 747-121 named Clipper Maid of the Seas, flight number 103 between Heathrow airport in London and JFK in New York, was destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members. 11 people in Lockerbie, southern Scotland, were killed as large sections of the plane's fuselage fell in and around the town, bringing total fatalities to 270.
Password: melonsrgr8

Air crash investigation(s) is also known as Mayday. The Lockerbie episode aired as S07E02. This is the HD version, 1,10 GB:

We should never negotiate with terrorists (03-10-06) Intelligence Squared

Time 01:42:15
03 Oct 2006
MP4 - 399 MB

Intelligence Squared, the global forum for live debate, is dedicated to creating knowledge through contest.


The panel debate the motion: We should never negotiate with terrorists. Chaired by Richard Lindley.

Arguing in favour of the motion are David Trimble, Frank J Gaffney Jr and Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi.

David Trimble draws on his experiences as a Northern Irish politician to propose the motion that we should never negotiate with terrorists. He states that we shouldn't see terrorists as deluded, and that instead of responding with repressive measures we should try to win the ideological war. This involves intelligence and penetration of terrorist organisations, but not negotiation.

Frank Gaffney Jr then explores the context of terrorism in the modern world. He states that negotiation is especially ill-advised given that terrorists use it as a tool for a political purpose, and discusses the characteristics of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, stating that the movement is more about power than faith. He then outlines four main reasons why we should not negotiate with terrorists and ends with the warning that negotiation entails real costs we cannot afford.

Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi admits that the global 'war against terror' is not working. However, he still maintains that we should never negotiate with terrorists for several reasons. First, that terrorist groups have been defeated in the past, and while there has sometimes been a heavy price, it can be done. Second, that while addressing the complex grievances of terrorism – something that is difficult in itself – we should maintain the fight against the reality of its acts of violence.

Arguing against the motion are William Sieghart, Colonel Lior Lotan and Jason McCue.

William Sieghart begins with the assertion that most terrorists are driven by a sense of grievance often shared by many. Therefore, we should negotiate primarily for the simple fact of realism. A war against terror has been shown to be extremely difficult while repressive measures clearly did not work in Northern Ireland. Not negotiating therefore justifies perpetual war, while dialogue with the most implacable of enemies usually proves fruitful.

Lior Lotan begins by debunking the myths of negotiation upon which the proposers of the motion rely. He then puts forward the benefits of a pragmatic and practical approach to negotiation, such as the opportunity to gain access to more information, or the moral value it grants the negotiating party.

Jason McCue declares that it is time for a wholesale review on the policy of fighting terror, suggesting that we need to deal with the causes rather than the effects. He draws from his legal experiences of negotiating with terrorists to put forward several reasons for dialogue. These range from a legal analogy that illustrates the importance of out-of-court settlements, an illustration of the hypocrisy shown by Western governments and the idea that common sense surely shows there must always be a preference for dialogue.

First Vote: 241 For, 247 Against, 201 Don't Know

Final Vote: 289 For, 381 Against, 55 Don't Know

The motion is defeated by 92 votes


Air crash investigation - Season 6 complete

 Password for new links:


S06E01: Lockerbie
Aired almost 20 years to the day that it happened, the Lockerbie disaster is one of the most infamous and devastating Terrorist attacks in history. On Wednesday 21 December 1988, the Pan Am Boeing 747-121 named Clipper Maid of the Seas, flight number 103 between Heathrow airport in London and JFK in New York, was destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members. 11 people in Lockerbie, southern Scotland, were killed as large sections of the plane's fuselage fell in and around the town, bringing total fatalities to 270.

S06E02: Head-on Collision
Wikipedia: The 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision occurred on 12 November 1996 when Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 763 (SV 763), a Boeing 747-168B en route from New Delhi, India, to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, collided in mid-air with Air Kazakhstan Flight 1907 (9Y 1907), an Ilyushin Il-76 en route from Shymkent, Kazakhstan to New Delhi, over the village of Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, India. All 349 people on board both flights were killed, making it the deadliest mid-air collision to date.

S06E03: Shattered In Seconds
Wikipedia: China Airlines Flight 611 Callsign: Dynasty 611 (CAL611, CI611) was a Boeing 747 on a regular scheduled flight from Chiang Kai Shek International Airport in Taoyuan to Chek Lap Kok International Airport in Hong Kong on 25 May 2002. The aircraft broke into pieces in mid-air and crashed, killing all aboard.

S06E04: Deadly Prize
Wikipedia: Partnair Flight 394 was a chartered plane flight which crashed on September 8, 1989 off the coast of Denmark 30 km north of Hirtshals. All the 50 passengers and 5 crew members onboard the aircraft perished, making it the deadliest civilian airline disaster involving an all-Norwegian airline company.

S06E05: Operation Babylift
Wikipedia: Operation Babylift was the name given to the mass evacuation of children from South Vietnam to the United States and other countries (including, for example, Australia, France, and Canada) at the end of the Vietnam War (see also the Fall of Saigon), during April 1975. C-5 Galaxy 68-0218 was the initial mission of Operation Babylift to bring Vietnamese orphans to the US in the few remaining days before the Republic of Vietnam fell. The C-5 departed Saigon-Tan Son Nhut Airport at 16:03. Twelve minutes after takeoff, after climbing through FL230, there was what seemed to be an explosion as the lower rear fuselage was torn apart.

S06E06: Ditch the Plane
Wikipedia: Tuninter Flight 1153 was a Tuninter flight from Bari International Airport in Bari, Italy, to Djerba-Zarzis Airport in Djerba, Tunisia. On 6 August 2005 the ATR-72 on the route, TS-LBB "Habib Bourguiba", lost both engines and ditched into the ocean.

S06E07: The Plane That Vanished
Wikipedia: Adam Air Flight 574 (KI-574) was a scheduled domestic passenger flight operated by Adam Air between the Indonesian cities of Surabaya (SUB) and Manado (MDC) which disappeared near Polewali in Sulawesi on 1 January 2007. The plane, a Boeing 737-4Q8, was ultimately determined to have crashed into the ocean, from which some smaller pieces of wreckage have been recovered. The flight recorders ("black boxes") were retrieved from the ocean on 28 August 2007, while salvage efforts for some larger pieces of wreckage continued. All 102 people on board are missing and presumed dead.
Apologies for the 2.2mb 6th file. I only noticed it was that small after I was about half way through uploading the episode.

S06E08: Frozen in Flight
Wikipedia: American Eagle Flight 4184 was a regional airline flight that crashed after flying into known icing conditions on Halloween, October 31, 1994. Control was lost and all aboard were killed.
The following links are my original upload which includes breaks and skips in the broadcast:

And these links are for a larger filesize version, but without the skips.

The conspiracy files - Lockerbie (2008)

In December 1988, Britain's worst terrorist attack left 270 people dead. After a massive police and FBI investigation, a Libyan intelligence officer was found guilty of mass murder, but he has now been granted a second appeal against his conviction.

Twenty years on, will the full story of Pan Am flight 103 finally emerge?

The Conspiracy Files follows the trail of evidence from the Middle East, through Europe and on to North America, investigating the tangled web of claims and counter-claims surrounding the Lockerbie bombing.

The first thread the programme follows is that of the mystery caller who tipped off the US Embassy in Helsinki two weeks before the crash happened, that a bomb would be planted on a flight from Frankfurt.

The programme talks to the American agent who took the call, tracks down the man who is believe to have made it and also interviews the Palestinian who was investigated by the police and exonerated as a result.

The second thread leads to Ahmed Jibril, leader of the Palestinian extremist faction PFLP-GC. In a rare interview, he denies the allegation that this group were behind the attack, backed by Iran.

The programme then looks at the theory put forward by Juval Aviv, an investigator hired by Pan Am, that rogue CIA agents allowed the bomb to be planted in a top secret drugs operation which went horribly wrong.

The Conspiracy Files also examines the prosecution case that Libya carried out the attack.

It has always been supposed that the motive was revenge for an American attack on Tripoli in 1986. Among those killed was Colonel Gaddafi's four-year-old adopted daughter Hannah.

But the programme also examines allegations that the Libyans were set up.

It examines allegations that evidence implication Libya was planted or tampered with.

This is categorically denied by the leader of the FBI's Lockerbie task force, Dick Marquise, who spoke at some length to The Conspiracy Files. "I can promise you it did not happen," he said.

Many believe that Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the murders was a fall guy. If he was responsible for placing the bomb, he was a pawn in a much bigger political game.

Martin Cadman, whose son Bill died in the disaster, told The Conspiracy Files: "The truth has not come out. I think the investigation found out what it was told to find."

Producer/Director: Guy Smith
Executive Producer: Sam Anstiss 

Lockerbie - Het witwassen van een regime (Gideon Levy, Tegenlicht - Backlight 2005 - Dutch)

"Lockerbie - The whitewash of a regime"
Dutch documentary on the Lockerbie bombing case. A 2005 program from VPRO's Tegenlicht (Backlight). Gideon Levy visits the families of Lockerbie victims, and questions the outcome of the lawsuite in Zeist, that claims Al-megrahe is the terrorist. There is a lot of Enlish spoken language, all with Dutch subtitles.

Lockerbie - Het witwassen van een regime (Gideon Levy, Tegenlicht - Backlight 2005 - Dutch)
49:00 minutes - MP4 - 184 MB

Libië is sinds een jaar hard op weg salonfähig te worden en lijkt niet meer in het rijtje van schurkenstaten thuis te horen. Dat bleek toen in maart 2004 Tony Blair plotseling de Libische leider Gadaffi bezocht. Op zijn beurt bracht die een maand later weer een bezoek aan de Europese Gemeenschap. Terwijl in Irak een oorlog gevoerd moest worden om massavernietigingswapens te vinden, leverde Libië de zijne vrijwillig in. Inmiddels zijn bijna alle sancties tegen Libië opgeheven. Wat is hier aan de hand? Voor het antwoord op deze vraag volgde Tegenlicht het afgelopen jaar een aantal nabestaanden van de aanslag op het PanAm vliegtuig dat in 1988 boven het Schotse Lockerbie ontplofte.

Bij de aanslag kwamen 256 inzittenden om het leven en nog eens 11 inwoners van het dorpje. Hun nabestaanden in Groot-Brittannië en de VS hebben zich goed georganiseerd. Deze nabestaanden blijken een cruciale rol te spelen bij de recente veranderingen in de relatie tussen Libië en het Westen.

Al kort na de aanslag wezen beschuldigende vingers naar Libië, dat op deze manier wraak zou hebben genomen op de Verenigde Staten wegens Amerikaanse bombardementen op Tripoli in april 1986. In 1992 stelden de Verenigde Naties sancties tegen Libië in werking. Door het handelsembargo raakte de Libische economie, die volkomen afhankelijk is van olie-export, in een diepe crisis. Uiteindelijk ging Libië onder voorwaarden akkoord met uitlevering van twee Libische verdachten. Het proces op neutraal terrein (in Kamp Zeist) o.l.v. Schotse rechters begon mei 2000 en duurde 22 maanden. Na veroordeling van één van de verdachten ging Libië akkoord met een schadevergoeding van 10 miljoen dollar per slachtoffer, in totaal 2,7 miljard dollar, overigens zonder formeel schuld te bekennen. Dat bedrag wordt echter pas uitgekeerd wanneer de laatste sancties worden opgeheven, Libië van de lijst van terroristische landen wordt afgehaald, en alle nabestaanden akkoord gaan.

Eén van de Engelse nabestaanden en hoofdpersoon in deze film, de huisarts Jim Swire, zette zich aanvankelijk in voor de uitlevering van de twee verdachten aan Schotland en de totstandkoming van het proces in Zeist. Maar tijdens het proces raakt hij overtuigd van de onschuld van de beklaagden. Eén van hen, Abdel-Basset al-Megrahi, zit op dit moment een gevangenisstraf van 27 jaar uit in een Schotse gevangenis. Swire vermoedt dat er gemanipuleerd is met bewijsmateriaal. Hij maakt zich nu sterk om boven tafel te krijgen wie er dan wel achter de aanslag zit en waarom er niets is gedaan met de waarschuwingen die wel degelijk waren binnen gekomen bij de veiligheidsdiensten. De Amerikaanse nabestaanden daarentegen blijven overtuigd van de schuld van Libië en gaan akkoord met de regeling.

Zowel de Engelse als Amerikaanse nabestaanden zijn goed georganiseerd en hebben, door druk uit te oefenen op politici, een zekere macht verworven. Hun verschil van mening ten aanzien van de schuldvraag bemoeilijkt echter het vinden van de waarheid. Want én Libië én het Westen lijken gebaat te zijn bij het herstel van de onderlinge relaties. Libië heeft hier zelfs 2,7 miljard dollar voor over. Maar waarom? En wie is dan wél schuldig aan de dood van 267 onschuldige burgers en het verloren leven van een Libiër in een Schotse gevangenis?

Regie: Gideon Levy
Research: Ger Wieberdink
Eindredactie: Roel van Broekhoven / Doke Romeijn / Marije Meerman

Listening Post - Release of Lockerbie bomber (Aug28 2009)

On the Listening Post this week, the world's media reacts to the release of the 'Lockerbie bomber', and Rush Limbaugh, the US radio broadcaster influencing the Republican Party.

- We start our show this week with the media circus surrounding the release of the 'Lockerbie bomber'.

Listening Post - Release of Lockerbie bomber - Aug28 09 - Part 1
Al Jazeera English - 13:00 minutes - MP4 - 45 MB

- In part two Listening Post's Meenakshi Ravi takes a look at the man who has been a political heavyweight in the US for over two decades, Rush Limbaugh.

Listening Post - Rush Limbaugh - Aug28 09 - Part 2
Al Jazeera English - 10:00 minutes - MP4 - 33 MB

Both parts posted in 1 rar file:

The Doha debates - Debating release of the accused Lockerbie bomber (13 nov 2009)

The Doha Debates focus on the early release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya

TRNN releases this video as part of a content sharing agreement with Doha Debates.

The Doha Debates are chaired by the award-winning former BBC correspondent and interviewer Tim Sebastian, who founded them in 2004 and secured their editorial independence.

The Doha Debates states that although the Debates are financed by the Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development, no government, official body or broadcaster has any control over what is said at the sessions or who is invited.

The debates focus on a single, controversial motion, with two speakers for and against. Once they have outlined their arguments, each speaker is questioned by the chairman and the discussion is then opened up to the audience for argument and a final electronic vote.

The 350-strong audiences are drawn mainly from Qatars student body and come from all over the Arab and Islamic worlds.

The Real News Network - The Doha Debates
MP4 - 46:01 minutes - 155 MB - 13 nov 2009

Inside Story - Lockerbie (25 August 2009)

Inside Story discusses the ongoing controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber as the UK government comes under fire for its alleged involvement in his release. Apart from the compassionate reasons, what is really behind al-Megrahi release?

English Al Jazeera - 24:55minutes - MP4 - 85 mb

donderdag 7 april 2011

People & Power - Lockerbie bombing probe (01 Jul 2007)

People & Power look into the findings of the Scottish Commission which has been reviewing the conviction of a Libyan man after an airliner was bombed over Scotland in 1988.

People & Power - Lockerbie bombing probe - 01 Jul 07 - Pt 1
Al Jazeera English - 10:45 minutes - MP4 - 34 Mb

People & Power - Lockerbie bombing probe - 01 Jul 07 - Pt 2
Al Jazeera English - 12:50 minutes - MP4 - 40 Mb

Posted together in 1 rar file:

The Maltese Double Cross - Allan Francovuch (1994) Lockerbie

The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie discusses evidence and witnesses that would eventually figure at the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial in 2000:

• the Mebo MST — 13 timer fragment, which Thomas Thurman of the FBI's forensic laboratory said that he identified on June 15, 1990;

• Mebo's Swiss owner, Edwin Bollier, is interviewed at length;

• forensic scientist, Dr Michael Scott, describes DERA's 'forensic expert', Alan Feraday, as a technician without any formal qualifications as a scientist;

• solicitor, Alastair Logan, criticises DERA's Dr Thomas Hayes for the forensic evidence that was used to convict the Maguire Seven;

• former CIA operative, Oswald LeWinter says the appointment of 'Libyan dirty tricks expert', Vincent Cannistraro, to head the CIA's team investigating Lockerbie 'would be funny, if it were not an obscenity';

• Department of Defense Whistle Blower Lester Coleman linked the bomb to a terrorist cell trained by CIA operative, Edwin P. Wilson; and,

• best-selling author, David Yallop, reviews the available evidence and looks at who might have been responsible for the Lockerbie bombing.

The documentary disputes the conclusion reached by the official investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, instead advancing the theory that the bomb was introduced onto the aircraft by an unwitting drug mule, Khaled Jafaar, in what the filmmaker claims is a CIA-protected suitcase.
Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, former prime minister of Iran, discusses the idea that Iran took revenge for the shootdown by the USS Vincennes of Iran Air Flight 655 in July 1988.

Movie Files    Cinepack    Ogg Video    512Kb MPEG4
The-Maltese-Double-Cross.avi     528.4 MB     709.6 MB     645.5 MB  


Inside Story - The Lockerbie bombers's release (2010)

Al Jazeera English 23 jul 2010
First 1.03 minutes have a black screen, program starts afterwards.

What are the implications of BP's alleged role in al-Merghani's controversial release?

On the show:
- Kenny Macaskill - Scottish Justice Secretary
- Bill Kidd - The Scottish National Party
- Hans Koechler - Intl Lockerbie Trial Observer
- David Cole - The Atlantic Council UK

MP4 - 480x360:

MP4 - 1280x720:


Trial of terror - The story of PAN AM Flight 103 (2006) Discovery Channel

44 Min 1 Sec | 512 x 320 | XviD - 1113 Kbps | 25.000 fps | PDTV | MP3 - 133 Kbps | 350 MB

The Story of Pan Am 103 showcases the real-life drama of federal forensic teams. This one-hour special not only features case details, but also reveals the psychology, art, and technology used to make it all possible-- experiencing the investigation through the eyes of those who lived it.