Monday, September 07, 2009

Libya and the curse of blood money

When Megrahi, the alleged Lockerbie bomber was sent back to Libya to die last month, I wrote a tiny sentence in a very long post : " Oh please not another cycle.. it's getting lame who else now wants money ?"
Was this a premonition?......




Blogger Maya had commented" " About the US reactions to Mr. Megrahi's welcome in Libya - I do not quite understand you. There were similar reactions in Libya when the Bulgarian medics were welcomed and immediately pardoned, weren't there? It is only logical and does not necessarily indicate that somebody "wants more money".

My reply was that " I agree that 'it does not mean someone wants more money' but in the Libya case that's what seems to happen always :P but that was not my point this time."

Again it seems that time has proven me right ( if ever my old friend DM is still reading this blog he would nod his head in approval... I have always been right :P eh?).

No sooner had Megrahi made it back to Libya that the cries for compensation for IRA victims started to trickle in on August 25. I chose to look the other way, but now I am more than convinced I was correct in my assumption.

Just two days ago, "Gordon Brown has confirmed the UK will support compensation claims being made against Libya by IRA victims' families." [ref]

Apparently the Americans as usual had already negotiated compensation from Libya for their citizens ages ago cutting out the British in the process:

"Out-of-court deals have been agreed by Libya with three American victims of IRA atrocities.

But more than 100 UK IRA victims, who had been pursuing similar claims through the US courts, had been excluded from those deals" [ref].

Moreover, we are constantly reminded that the families of the US Lockerbie victims have received compensation, what did the UK victims receive?

Ironically numerous people in the UK lost family as a direct result of American aid, one minor example being the funding sent through the tarnished NORAID organisation.
We cannot forget that there was (it may not be that politcally correct anymore) widespread support for the IRA from a large group of Americans of Irish descent and other rich American misanthropes :P... the process only started to be curbed when it bit the US in the face. But my impression is that Americans don't really like those Brits anyway so turning a blind eye could be more than OK,

Today I wonder why is the US not paying blood money also for the victims of IRA terrorism ? It's attitude towards what constitutes terrorism leaves a lot to be desired (but you all know that now this is a useless conjecture).

In conclusion it's easier to just demand money from Libya, because the US can always give the excuse " oh but we have no power over what individual citizens chose to do"! LOL no they only have power when that individual is Muslim or Arab. Irish - Americans have not been incarcerated or viewed with mistrust for their relation to Ireland in their community and by their government - why ? again because they are white and so the xenophobia will not play against them. Xenophobia is selective and the UK is playing a game of distracting the world to gain points with the US and try to shift the blame of the current political fiasco between them on Libya.. The UK would not dare ask America for compensation.

The things goverments, politicians and those in power will do for strategic, national and personal interests... oh and I don't blame them - I merely remark on things



6 comments:

7mada said...

You Go Girl!

a_akak said...

Might be gone from the blogs but never far away From the Rock

I agree it seems we are an easy target for blood money and i hope the trend buckles this time

Fe Aman Allah

programmer craig said...

Another interesting post, H :)

Apparently the Americans as usual had already negotiated compensation from Libya for their citizens ages ago cutting out the British in the process...

Why would anyone think that the US should negotiate on behalf of British nationals?

But more than 100 UK IRA victims, who had been pursuing similar claims through the US courts, had been excluded from those deals.

Why were they pursuing their claims in American courts? I don't get it! That seems morally wrong and legally questionable. The US has no jurisdiction to hear cases brought by foreign nationals in regards to crimes committed in other countries.

Today I wonder why is the US not paying blood money also for the victims of IRA terrorism ?

Because the US government did not support the IRA. So why would the US government be criminally liable? And while the IRA has long been considered a terror group, it was only added to the "really bad" list (the one with HAMAS, Hezbollah and al Qaida) during the Bush Administration. Which means it wasn't illegal for private citizens in the US to financially support the IRI until fairly recently. Americans were prosecuted on occasion when they offered more direct support. If US law was violated by American citizens, then victims by all means have a right to file lawsuits against the people responsible, and the government has a right to file criminal cases. But I haven't heard of any such cases being fled, so I assume none exist. Am I wrong?

And H, do you really not see a difference between a state officially sponsoring terrorism, and a few individuals deciding to involve themselves in terrorism of their own volition? It doesn't seem the gray area you make it out to be, from my perspective. Is the US government also responsible if any Arab-Americans decide to engage in terrorism overseas? That seems an untenable position.

Irish - Americans have not been incarcerated or viewed with mistrust for their relation to Ireland in their community and by their government - why ?

As far as I know, the IRA never committed terror attacks against the US, right? What am I missing? :)

programmer craig said...

OK, now on to the meat and potatoes!

But my impression is that Americans don't really like those Brits anyway so turning a blind eye could be more than OK

Well, I can only speak for myself but I don't really like the Brits, you're right about that. And in view of recent events, I'm becoming quite hostile towards the UK. But let me tell you something as somebody who has an English last name and went to school with a bunch of Irish kids during the late 1970s and early 1980s... if you think that there was no "xenophobia" in the US between Anglos and Irish back then, you're wrong! I got in fights with Irish kids a couple of times just because of my last name, my dear. Luckily my first name is Celtic, which gave me some wiggle room! Something seriously wrong in the world when white people are beating the hell out of each-other just because of where their ancestors came from. If they want to do that in the UK that's fine, but that crap has no place in America. This is where families move to start over.

Xenophobia is selective and the UK is playing a game of distracting the world to gain points with the US and try to shift the blame of the current political fiasco between them on Libya..

The British are so childish. It almost seems as if they think if they make a big enough stink about Libya that everyone will forget that they decided to release a Libyan who was convicted of terrorism juts because they wanted a good trade deal. It would serve them right if they ended up losing that trade deal AND losing their favored status with the US. That would be justice, in my opinion.

The UK would not dare ask America for compensation.

On the contrary! I think the US is the only country the UK doesn't worry about offending. They think they have us in their pocket or something.

By the way, I think all this finger-pointing now is just a preplanned smokescreen to disguise the fact that both the UK and Libya got exactly what they wanted out of this deal. And to put on a good show for the stupid Americans. But it won't work. because, really, we aren't that stupid. I'm starting to think the British may be the dumbest people on earth though, the way they keep getting played by their own government. Maybe all the smart ones moved to the US a long time ago, eh? Even that royal family is from Bavaria or some such shit. Princess Diana was the only one who was English, which makes her sons half-English at least. But those Princes seem dumbass a box of rocks, don't they? I think Britain was the world's first victim of "brain-drain", way back in the day. Good thing so many reasonably intelligent foreigners are moving there. Maybe Britain can be salvaged yet. Lets hope they don't go Islamic on us though, because then you really will see the US bombers over London :p

MusicLover said...

The things goverments, politicians and those in power will do for strategic, national and personal interests... oh and I don't blame them - I merely remark on things


It is true what you said at the end. Libya would not be in such a disaster situation if Muammar al-Gaddafi would mind his own business and just fix his own country. 40 years of his reign and Libyans are in worse shape then before he took power. Yes Qaddafi celebrating 40 years of power in screwing his own people, it is really sad when a ruler hates his own people. It is not amusing when you have the media are making fun of your own president because of his strange behavior.


programmer craig is giving valid points because USA has a legal system and Libya does not have one. Even the ex Israeli prime minister got convicted recently and the President also for sexual harassment. Even President Bush who was not loved was elected by his own people through the legal system.


Dubai opens a new railway system which costed $7.8 billion dollars and Libya pays millions of dollars to pay for stupid acts. What a comparison.


The Who - Wont Get Fooled Again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE

Maya M said...

Well, you may be right about the tendency of money being wanted from Libya - though I still don't see the connection between the reactions to Megrahi's release and the money demands.
A funny detail is that some of the same British who were so indignant about Megrahi's welcome gave a similar one to British citizen Michael Shields convicted for breaking the head of a Bulgarian. They of course believe he is innocent, though IMHO his conviction was based on much stronger evidence than Megrahi's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_of_Michael_Shields
So much for Westerners-vs-Arab/Muslims dichotomy. Shields' victim was no Arab and (judging by his name) no Muslim. Nevertheless, many British apparently did not consider him valuable.