Compensation sought for 'victims of Libyan weapons'

Victor

Is this preposterous? While I can understand the Lockerbie situation where Libyan agents were involved, selling weapons to the IRA was beyond arms length. Should "ordinary" arms exporting countries held responsible for their arms sales? Can Palestinians sue Boeing the next time a Hellfire missile slams into a refugee camp?

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/2541969?view=Eircomnet

Compensation sought for 'victims of Libyan weapons'
From:ireland.com
Saturday, 14th February, 2004

The British Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair must press Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi on compensation for those killed or wounded by weapons his regime supplied to the IRA, the Prime Minister was urged today.

The Conservatives' Northern Ireland spokesman Mr David Liddington said Mr Blair should make the demand when he meets the Libyan leader as a result of the dramatic improvement in diplomatic relations between both countries.

Mr Liddington also said the Prime Minister should insist on a detailed inventory of the weapons given to the IRA.

The Tory spokesman told BBC Radio Ulster: "I welcome Libya's decision to rejoin the international community but I don't think there is any point in having improved relations with Libya if we are going to simply tiptoe around all the difficult questions.

"I think it would be quite right for the Prime Minister to be upfront and to put on some pressure both for compensation and in particular, in my view, for information about the arms trade to terrorists."

On Tuesday, Libyan Foreign Minister Mohammed Abdulrahman Shalgam became the first minister from his country to meet the Government since 1969.

In December an announcement by Colonel Gaddafi that Libya was getting rid of its weapons of mass destruction was received enthusiastically by Downing Street and by US President George W Bush's administration.

Diplomatic relations between London and Tripoli were severed in 1984 after Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead outside the Libyan Embassy.

Libya was also suspected of involvement in the bombing of a plane flying over Lockerbie in Scotland in 1988.

PA

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Originally posted by daveirl
I still can't get past my anger with Gadafi being treated as if he's a great world leader. It's disgusting.

But on the issue, were the IRA not internationally recognised as a criminal organisation, whereas the Israeli government are democratically elected? Perhaps this is where the discrepancy in the analogy lies.

But they are using said weapons for an illegal occupation as well as illegally under US law.
Are we forgetting who helped Mr. Q into power in the first place?

Should we list other instances of the use of US or UK arms (being that they are the two largest suppliers in the world ) being used for illegal purposes.

Victor

Originally posted by daveirl
But on the issue, were the IRA not internationally recognised as a criminal organisation, whereas the Israeli government are democratically elected? Perhaps this is where the discrepancy in the analogy lies.

OK, how have the UDA / UVF been seen parading with SA-80 rifles, when the only source of SA-80 rifles are British forces (I think some small Caribbean country was the only othe purchaser)?

Tommy Vercetti

Presumably the Conservatives will be advocating putting together some sort of compensation package for the victims of loyalist weapons supplied by Brit intelligence then. Way to open an industrial-sized can of worms, stupid tories:rolleyes:

Redleslie

Originally posted by Victor
OK, how have the UDA / UVF been seen parading with SA-80 rifles, when the only source of SA-80 rifles are British forces (I think some small Caribbean country was the only othe purchaser)?

There was the Brian Nelson thing too.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Originally posted by daveirl
Don't jump down my throat, I didn't pass judgement on whether it was right or wrong, just tried to give a possible reason.

/me stops jumping down dave's throat.
Wasn't meant to sound like that...just pointing out some facts regarding Israel's illegal use of weapons as well as reminding people about Qhadafi being a former US/UK puppet.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
I still can't get past my anger with Gadafi being treated as if he's a great world leader. It's disgusting.

Whats disgusting about letting the man onto the world stage so that other nations can hound him off it with charges about his various ill-doings, and ideally make a mint in recompensation from it as well???

That seems to be the only reason they're letting him back into the "limelight", so to speak, that I can see.

As for whether the charge is preposterous or not...I'm guessing it will be targetted along the lines of "knowingly and willingly supplying terrorists" rather than anything which would possibly cast a shadow of unrespectability on such fine, upstanding actions as those of the Israelis that Victor referenced, or indeed those of any formal standing army.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
OK, how have the UDA / UVF been seen parading with SA-80 rifles, when the only source of SA-80 rifles are British forces (I think some small Caribbean country was the only othe purchaser)?

Well, if there was some small Caribbean country who also purchased them, then the UK is off the hook until it can be shown to be the supplier.

Then you'd have to show that they were knowingly supplying terrorists.

Then you'd probably have to actually link the weapons to actual events if it ever went to a court of law.

See, I reckon the UK expect Libya to cave on this one, as they have done on every claim so far, so that they agree compensation without a court-case. That means there'll be no legal precedent should anyone even try taking a similar case against the British...at which point all of these finer issues will become very significant.

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Whats disgusting about letting the man onto the world stage so that other nations can hound him off it with charges about his various ill-doings, and ideally make a mint in recompensation from it as well???

Your missing the word "alleged" from the above statement

Originally posted by bonkey
That seems to be the only reason they're letting him back into the "limelight", so to speak, that I can see.

So Nothing got to do with the X Billion barrells of oil he is currently sitting on?

Victor

Oh, there is the issue that Libya supplied the arms to the IRA in response to Britain allowing the American stage their attacks on Libya out of the UK.

Originally posted by Hobart
Your missing the word "alleged" from the above statement

Well if a Libyan intelligence agent was convicted of Lockerbie and there has been tacit admission of other acts.

Originally posted by Hobart
So Nothing got to do with the X Billion barrells of oil he is currently sitting on?

There is no oil embargo against Libya, so the oil is flowing.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
Your missing the word "alleged" from the above statement

Ooops, so I did.

So Nothing got to do with the X Billion barrells of oil he is currently sitting on?

No, I don't believe so. As Victor just pointed out, thats already available on the market.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, if there was some small Caribbean country who also purchased them, then the UK is off the hook until it can be shown to be the supplier.

Apparently they were among 13 guns stolen by a serving UDR soldier.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
Apparently they were among 13 guns stolen by a serving UDR soldier.

Grand...then there is no complicity by the UK government, so they'd be off the hook.

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by Victor
There is no oil embargo against Libya, so the oil is flowing.

I accept that. However up until 1996 there was severe pressure on Clinton to re-enact the embargo on Lybia. However Gadaffi pulled a master stroke when he negotiated the release of a number of American citizens (or CIA agents can't really remember) from Algeria that year. The sceptical among us would also argue that he arranged the kidnappings .

Penzoil (A US company) is the biggest non-national driller in Lybia. My point is, badly explained as it was, is that the US cannot afford to be seen to be dealing with "rogue governments" or "terrorist lead regimes" and hence the, somewhat convienient, un-freezing of relations with Lybia.