主播大秀

Maybe Libya could be forced to pay compensation to the victims of the IRA but then, why should they when the US based groups that openly funded the IRA are not being pursued for the same thing???

Mr. Crawley:

...Should Libya pay compensation?....

Yes, the Libyan government should pay the compensation for their *alleged* involvement in the I.R.A. troubles.....

=Dennis Junior=

Rather than giving a long winded explanation have a look at this link and do some research on the subject if you like.

Good point JCAbuDhabi, Irish Americans who raised funds for the IRA and who posted weapons through the post to the IRA are as culpable as the Libyan regime,both have blood on their hands. Further more, those American politicians who encouraged the Irish Republican movement,and who courted them, must bear some responsibility for those that the IRA murdered and butchered in UK.

William:

You say: 鈥淚f a car manufacturing company gave a car to a customer with the full knowledge that this person intended to use the car to run down a third party, then the family of that third party would have a pretty strong case鈥� (for compensation from the car company).

Suppose that we are talking of weapons sales to other governments. They are sold by UK (USA, Russia etc) companies/government to foreign governments in the knowledge that at least some of these weapons will be used to kill people. Should the relatives of any victim anywhere in the world be entitled to sue the companies/governments of the country which produced the weapons that killed their loved ones? Are these governments not 鈥榓ccomplices in the crime鈥�?

Who should it be okay to sell these weapons to governments (e.g. Libya) but not to sub state groups such as the IRA when morally these governments may be just as 鈥榖ad鈥�?

Halabja is an interesting case. The UK and the USA sold weapons to Saddam Hussein, who then used some of them on his own people, and they continued in this knowledge to trade with him. At Halabja in 1988 there was a major poison gas atrocity for which Saddam Hussein was assumed to be guilty. Did this stop the arms sales from the UK and the USA? On the contrary, sales, including chemical weapons, were INCREASED to Iraq by both countries after 1988. Then, when he became an enemy, the moral outrage became audible and Halabja became solely his atrocity, even though an increased suspicion developed that it was Iranians who were responsible, or that at any rate they were the target in the town (or did the USA and the UK believe all along that Iran was responsible and armed Saddam further in response?).

Clearly, moral indignation at killing is highly selective and usually depends on which side you are on.

The point about NORAID is well founded, and logically the principle has to be the same, however as always realpolitik doesn't always leave room for the logical.
Looking at it from a slightly different angle however - what questions does this Libya issue raise in relation to the payments to victims proposed (and then dropped) by the Eames Bradley report?
Surely the fact that compensation is being sought, with strong support from main political parties in this instance, shows the Eames Bradley proposal should have been given more consideration than it was?
The fact that it was a proposal put to Eames Bradley from victims themselves shows there is more support out there for the idea of victims patyments than was reflected in political parties' press releases and mainstream media.
Ofcourse the circumstances with the issue of Libyan compensation are different but the issue of financial remuneration in this instance has to have some wider reverberations when looking at the now defunct Eames Bradley proposal.

Its not compulsory to pay the compensation.

OK, a question. We're all on pre-moderation, right?

So, how did post #8 get through?

If I might put it this way, it may "not be compulsory to pay the compensation" but the advertisement published in #8 on a 主播大秀 website is offering 50% discount on insulation.