Victims of IRA attacks to sue Gaddafi

[Alonzo]

IRA victims are to sue the Libyan Government and its leader Colonel Gaddafi over claims the country supplied explosives for bomb attacks.
A class action is to be filed in US courts along with lawsuits from American victims of IRA bombings.

Among the UK litigants is Colin Parry, whose son Tim, 12, was killed in the Warrington bomb in 1993.

London-based lawyer Jason McCue, of H2O Law, said the case would take into account 10 IRA bombings.

'Held to account'

These include the Enniskillen bomb which killed 11 people in 1987, the Harrods bomb of 1983 which claimed the lives of six people and the Manchester bomb of 1996 in which no-one was killed.

Mr McCue said the lawsuits were based on any attack where Semtex allegedly supplied by Libya was used for a bomb or to boost a fertiliser bomb.

He said UK victims of the IRA were able to take action in a US court if they joined a legal action being brought by US citizens.

Mr Parry said: "It is important the state of Libya is held to account."

Omagh bombing

He was awarded the OBE in 2004 for his peace campaigning work, which includes setting up the Tim Parry Jonathan Ball Trust and the Peace Centre in Warrington in 2000.

Three-year-old Jonathan Ball was also killed in the same blast as Tim Parry.

H2O is also involved in suing the alleged perpetrators of the 1998 Real IRA Omagh bombing.

No-one at the Libyan Embassy was available for comment.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4892022.stm

If people are going to start suing countries on the basis of supplying weapons to groups that were then used to kill people, then how long until the u.s. starts facing lawsuits?

[KrAzY3]

Are you standing up for Gaddafi?
If I understand correctly, they are saying that his government was directly involved in this. This wasn't like they just went out and bought some fertilizer from the local store, they were intentionally aided. We all know Gaddafi has supported terrorism, it makes perfect sense that he pay for his crimes.

Having said that, the question of supplying arms goes back to what you believe they are intended to be used for. If I sell someone a gun, I do not know what they will do with it and if they tell me they are going to go hunting then I would tend to believe them. If I sell someone some Semtex and they aren't demolition workers and they are members of a terrorist group, yes I know what they intend to do and I am aiding them.

If the U.S. intentionally aids terrorists they should be punished as well. If you show me a instance in which we gave plastic explosives of the like to a terrorist and he blew up a plane or something, hell yeah who ever sold them that should face a lawsuit, or worse. If we INTENTIONALLY aid a terrorist, if we give arms to a group we know intends to deliberately target civilians then we should be liable. That doesn't mean arming a group of people makes us liable. In regards to the IRA anyone selling them Semtex damn sure knows what they intend to do with it.

[Labrocca]

Wasn't he sued already for some terrorist plane hijackings some years ago?

[Alonzo]

Yes, but the issue was mainly aiding and protecting those involved.

Are you standing up for Gaddafi?

Not sure why I have to defend something just cause I think something else is ridiculous.

If I understand correctly, they are saying that his government was directly involved in this. This wasn't like they just went out and bought some fertilizer from the local store, they were intentionally aided. We all know Gaddafi has supported terrorism, it makes perfect sense that he pay for his crimes.

Having said that, the question of supplying arms goes back to what you believe they are intended to be used for. If I sell someone a gun, I do not know what they will do with it and if they tell me they are going to go hunting then I would tend to believe them. If I sell someone some Semtex and they aren't demolition workers and they are members of a terrorist group, yes I know what they intend to do and I am aiding them.


They're not saying he was directly involved in the attacks. They're saying the IRA bought weapons from libya, but nothing more is alleged. If the IRA told libya "these are going to kill civilians" then they may have a point. But no allegation is made they did that. They would have been used both in attacks on civilians and in attacks on the government.


If the U.S. intentionally aids terrorists they should be punished as well. If you show me a instance in which we gave plastic explosives of the like to a terrorist and he blew up a plane or something, hell yeah who ever sold them that should face a lawsuit, or worse. If we INTENTIONALLY aid a terrorist, if we give arms to a group we know intends to deliberately target civilians then we should be liable. That doesn't mean arming a group of people makes us liable. In regards to the IRA anyone selling them Semtex damn sure knows what they intend to do with it.


In what was formerly known as the school of americas (forget the current name) we train many foreign soldiers who are notorious for involvement in death squads and significant human rights abuses in countries such as el salvador. Some methods are taught that violate international laws on treatement of prisoners and rules of war, including torture, kidnapping and execution. Manuals used by the school were released by the u.s. government that verified this. Because of these issues some countries, such as argentina, have refused to send soldiers to train there.

A lot of things, such as above, have dual uses. They can be used for good and they can be used for bad. The u.s. often doesn't care about the downsides, even though they know abuses will occur. Similar to libya here, they supplied explosives to be used in a resistance movement. The IRA is not a pure terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda, it had realistic political goals and carried out many attacks on the government itself.

[KrAzY3]

They're not saying he was directly involved in the attacks. They're saying the IRA bought weapons from libya, but nothing more is alleged. If the IRA told libya "these are going to kill civilians" then they may have a point. But no allegation is made they did that. They would have been used both in attacks on civilians and in attacks on the government.


Allow us to be clear here, are we or are we not talking about Libya supplying Semtex to a terrorist group?

[Alonzo]

They're not saying he was directly involved in the attacks. They're saying the IRA bought weapons from libya, but nothing more is alleged. If the IRA told libya "these are going to kill civilians" then they may have a point. But no allegation is made they did that. They would have been used both in attacks on civilians and in attacks on the government.


Allow us to be clear here, are we or are we not talking about Libya supplying Semtex to a terrorist group?



Not all attacks where directed at civilians. Pretty much any group fighting against a government will end up being labeled terrorist, so it's important to look at what about the group qualifies it as such.

The IRA should be considered a terrorist organization for its attacks on civilians, but there's a difference between supplying weapons to a group where the sole method of attack is against civilian targets, and supplying weapons to a group who simply uses that as one type of attack.

For a lawsuit like this it should need to be shown that Libya provided weapons for use in civilian attacks.

[KrAzY3]

According to the suit, the Semtex was used to kill civilans. I am not saying they should win outright, I'm saying if they prove Libya did supply Semtex to the IRA and it in turn did kill civilians they have a very good case that Libya was deliberately supporting and aiding terrorism. If this isn't proven then of course they have no case.