I appreciate this is probably a sensitive subject, but am I missing something?

 

(Families of) Victims of IRA bombs want compentsation from Libya, because Libya was the source of the semtex.

 

I just don't follow the logic there. If I get hit by a drunk driver can I get compensation from the pub he was drinking in? Or the brewary that made the beer? Or the haulage firm that transported it?

Aye. How about compensation from America, as they funded the purchases.

Utterly silly.

Let's submit a claim against Ted Kennedy's Estate :C

I can't, it's against the Catholic Secret Code :C

Let's sue IBM for the holocaust :C

I'd rather go after Disney for that one.

I guess that the one difference being that Libya was unlikely to think that semtex* supplied to the IRA** could in any way be used in a legal, peaceful activity. Unless they truly believed that 'IRA' stood for 'Irish Restructuring Architects', a crack squad of civilian engineers who were redeveloping Dublin's brown belt. So the argument comes down to intent.

On the other hand, I'd be up for suing those fuck-witted yanks for supplying the IRA. But then they'd probably argue that they thought the money was going to buy potatoes or rosary beads.

* an explosive with no non-explosive uses that I'm aware of
** a terrorist organisation that used explosives to kill civilians

You could pretty much extend that to all weapons sales though.

Such as ours to Iraq.

I'm not suggesting there is any other reason for the IRA to be buying Semtex, but the fact remains that it was the IRA that blew shit up.

 

Not that I'm very comfortable with that argument, either tbh.

 

I guess I view it similarly to Iraqi (or East Timorese, or countless others) seeking compensation from BAE Systems, rather than the actual aggressor.

 

I'm not suggesting that Libya (or BAE, or whoever) 'get away' with their part in shit, just the concept of who can/should impose those settlements an that.

Possibly so, I'm not arguing that you couldn't. Although (and perhaps this is tinged with hypocrisy) I do draw a distinction between terrorism and 'traditional' warfare. For sure, the outcome is often the same for civilians (innocent people get killed or their likelihoods and families destroyed) but there is, in my befuddled mind, a distinction between a soldier who openly takes part in combat ostensibly against a similarly 'honourable' foe and a terrorist whose only intent is to run away before the damage is done.

 

Then, of course, there are the terrorists who sacrifice themselves as part of their attack and the 'death by wire' tactics employed by otherwise traditional armies that blur the lines. But sure, let the UK be sued too. You bloody deserve it you peddlers of death!

Aye, it's a funny one alreet.

I just find the idea of using the legal system (whether domestic or international) as recourse for acts of war (or warlike acts) fucking bizarre.

If I sold/gave you a knife knowing that you intended to murder one Andrew Holgate or Staffordshire, and then you travelled to Staffordshire whereupon you dispatched one dinosaur disillusionist, would I be prosecuted as an accomplice/co-conspirator?

 

(Because if so, you're not having it)

I could totally dodge a knife. Bring a flamethrower.

Agreed. I've always thought that they should abandon the international war crimes tribunals in The Hague. It's just an excuse for a bunch of useless lawyers to piss about on the world stage.

Again, it's a funny one, I do think there should be some oversight with acts of war. But... if a country has any fucking sense it'll hide any illegal acts or get immunity or whatever anyway. Trying to regulate war is pretty fucking futile.

And holding people accountable to laws they were never either implicitly or explicitly bound by is... strange.

While it'll no doubt be unpopular I'd argue that terrorism is the 'legitimate' (in a certain sense) response to 'illegal' warlike acts.

Have you seen the stuff? Screw play doh, those Libyans really know their modelling putty.

>>While it'll no doubt be unpopular I'd argue that terrorism is the 'legitimate' (in a certain sense) response to 'illegal' warlike acts.

 

I'd have to agree with that.

 

And also disagree with the notion that it's in anyway less 'honourable' to be a terrorist than a sodjer.

 

A terrorist organisation is, by definition, a group with far less power and resource than a national army, so of course they'll turn to guerilla tictacs (they're the Camo coloured ones) and 'soft targets' to maximise the impact of what they /do/ have.

 

By which I'm not saying I think terrorists are honourable, but rather that armies are not (unless in existence purely for defence and never ever used for first-strike/agression/securing oil reserves. More a peoples millitia than an army, really).

I made a full-size moddle of Challenger out of it once. I left it behind in Florida back in the '80s. Went back to look for it but never did find it. Wonder what happened to it?

The Libyan government where and arguably still are a bunch of bastards, but if the people who paid for and planted the bombs are allowed to walk free it doesn't leave any justification for this case beyond exploited or poorly targeted grief.
In my opinion they should be busy badgering the government for an explaination of why Libya are being brought in from the cold but still get to act like dicks.

Guerilla tactics I'm with you, but there's nothing honourable about targetting civilians rather than military centres.

Bearing in mind that I don't find any form of warfare (except revolution :C ) honourable, I don't find targeting civilians necessarily less honourable than other tactics.

 

Asuming the civilians are from the nation/state that is presumably abusing it's power to subjugate or oppress another (the basis for most terrorism), then there is a legitamate argument that those civilians, as the electorate, are as responsible as the Government or army of that nation.