Relatives of those Libyans who died when President Reagan ordered a retaliatory strike against Libya, have complained to the UN in Geneva, calling for compensation equal to that to be paid by Libya to the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie (sp?) bombing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Sep24.html

Should these Libyans be treated differntly or do they merit equal treatment to the Lockerbie families?

I would say compensation should be paid - but then there is the problem of innocent deaths outside of wartime. Of course I have no idea of figures, but how many innocent people have died around the world as a result of a foreign powers attack in peace time?

But certainly I would see it as being wrong if we thought we were entitled to compensation yet Libyan counterparts were less than equal. I cant speak for the Libyan case as I knew nothing about it, but the Lockerbie bombing is one of my earliest memories as it came on the Scottish news when I was about 5 years old - and I remember that this specific moment was when I first shocked at what actually happens in the world. I doubt innocents dying as a result of a bombing is much different, suffering is suffering no matter where you live.

Compensation equal to that recieved for the PanAm 103 incident? Ridiculous.

The bombing of Libya occurred after the Libyan terrorist bombing of of a German disco, which killed at least two, and injured dozens. This was done at a private business, not a military target. While there were US servicemen there, there were also hundereds of civilians. There is no question that this attack was sanctioned by the Libyan government.

The US bombing was in retaliation of this attack, and was targeted at Libyan Military targets, including Quadaffi's headquarters. The bombings killed 27, and injured about 100, most of them in the military, as is my understanding.

The Pan Am flight 103 incident, again conducted by Libyan sponsored terrorists, cost the innocent lives of 270 civilians, not military targets, and and at least 200 were Americans.

Now families of the 27 in Libya want to sue for compensation equal to the amount authorized by the Pan Am flight disaster? Sounds more like a back-door attempt by Libya to avoid having to pay the judgement they agreed to pay. They should not be able to get away with this. Quadaffi has admitted responsibility for these acts. He (and these families) should be grateful that we didn't go in and do a whole lot more damage, considering the number of terror attacks Libya was responsible for in the 80's.

It is true that the American response was targetted at Khaddafi himself and Libyan military targets, but the actual result was a bombed civilian hospital and the death of Khaddafi's seven year old daughter.

The argument is made, by this petition, that the USA carried out a military attack without giving due regard to the consequences. That Reagan sanctioned a military action, much as Khaddafi did, knowing full well that civilians would be hit.

Or to put it very bluntly, two wrongs, do not make a right.

My opinion on this matter has always been the same. Reagan was wrong to authorise the strike. He should have used economic means to punish Khaddafi, so I am inclined to agree that the Libyan civilians killed in this matter deserve an equal amount of compensation.

Also, it strikes me, that as state sponsored terrorism can never be justified, then neither can any other state sponsored act of unlawful killing. The fact that the American pilots were wearing uniforms makes no difference to the Libyan victims, who did not stand a chance against the bombs that fell on them.

The deaths of the American, Scottish and other people, killed in the disco bombing and at Lockerbie do not carry any heavier weight in my eyes, since murder is murder, no matter who is responsible or how they did it.

C'mon, Moif. Quadaffi had been doing this stuff for years before the disco bombing. He was already under US and French economic sanctions for acts of terror. Three years of diplomatic efforts had failed. Just the month before, Quadaffi had been warned by the US that there would be a military reprisal with the next attack. And yet he blew up yet another civilian target.

Passenger liners, grocery stores, and night clubs are not military targets, Moif. For you to suggest that they are the equivalent of military headquarters, radar installations, and missle sites is ridiculous. Ok, 27 people there died. Notice we attacked military targets at night, when even military personnel were at a minimum. I woulds say that that was giving regard to the consequences.

Bombs go astray, accidents happen. But we did not deliberately go after high-population civilian targets. Quadaffi was not taking "military action". He was just a murdering thug, who had been warned of the consequences of going after civilians again. Too bad he didn't listen, but I'm sure as heck not going to be the first in line to pay him for his lack of discretion.

Really? Then how would you class the city of Dresden? or Hiroshima? Were they military targets?

I think you are confusing the issue with your perceptions here. Its always easy to call the other man a 'terrorist' because he does not fight by your rules, but when your own people are guilty of the same crimes, then its hypocrisy to call them as 'military' actions when you call his 'terrorism'.

And what possible difference does it make to the victims of the F111 attack, that Khaddafi had been warned?




I'm sorry, but so what? Its evident to any battery farm chicken that if you drop a bomb on a city at night, then people are going to die, and not even the latest greatest, all singing and all dancing US smart weapons are 100% precise. Even during Raytheon's controlled tests of the Tomahwak cruise missile, the weapons did not have a 100% success rate.

So when you know that your bombs are not going to hit with 100% accuracy and that there is a statistical probability that you are going to kill civilians, then there is no justification to level a useless military strike against a city... and certainly not because the leader of that nation was 'warned'.




Thats fine, except A; Khaddafi himself was never harmed, and B; No one is asking you to pay him anything. It is the families of the dead civilians who are asking for equal treatment.

Any regime which targets civilians as their modus operandi should receive retaliation. Is there a better option? Talk nice to Quadaffi and make him stop bombing? He has been quiet a while now, so it would appear the retaliation worked.

Their compensation is no more bombing unless they bomb us again. Case closed.

Moif, in case you hadn't noticed, we were in a declared shooting war at the time. Yes, I consider Dresden and Hiroshima valid military targets for their time. Both had major strategic military installations and factories. Not to mention the invasion and bombings of Paris, London, Manchuria, Shanghai, and the Phillipines by the axis.


No, I am making a clear distiction between targeting what are clearly military objectives, as opposed to deliberately targeting civilian locations. The difference is, we do not deliberately attempt to kill people not involved with military objectives. They go out of their way to target such places. Not hypocrisy at all.



Again, we went out of our way not to hit civilian sites. They were going out of their way to hit exactly those venues. As you say, with our weapons there was a statistical probabilty that we would kill civilians. With Libya's policy, it was a statistical certainty. And the fact that Quadaffi was warned, may not matter to those that died, but you can't lay the blame for our response to the German disco bombing at anyone's feet but Quadaffi. We told him his country would be attacked if he commited any further terrorist bombings, and he ordered them anyway. How is that our fault?

If they want compensation for the deaths of their family members, let them sue Quadaffi. He was the one ultimately responsible for their deaths.

Though I see your point Niteguy- Hiroshima and Dresden where never military targets in any way, they were purely there to instil terror into the population to make them disbelieve what thier leaders were saying. Japanese industry was never a central target in Japan, they were completely cottage style industry and decentralized, and there were no real targets in Dresden. It was simply to counter-act the propaganda of thier goverments, to take away the notion of thier "invuneralbility"- and terrorists today are using that same philosophy, for evil or good, they got thier ideas from other times. Isreal used the exact same technique to win freedom from Britain, and in fact, the Hamas actually copied Menachim Begin's playbook, with a couple of additions.

If Lockerbie is to be awarded damages, the innocent victims of Reagen should also be compensated, without question.

Who else should be compensated without question?How far do we go back and why, if intention and provocation are irrelevant? They can bomb a couple of passenger planes, and we should not retaliate because....?

That is indeed the slippery slope of compensation right? Why are the Lockerbie victms being compensated? Why does anybody get compensated for political decisions that cost lives? Shouldn't we compensate every innocent victim in Iraq, certainly far more in number that the WTC- or do they not count because "hey, it was an oopsie, we didn't mean to do it, collateral damage and all"- it sure rings hollow I am sure to the families of those victims!

If a government specifically singles out civilians as a target, they should be compensated. Seems straight-forward enough to me.

Okay, then we compensate the Dresden victims, right?
Oh, and the Isrealis need to compensate the innocents they kill in Palestine, whos main crime is to whom they are related?

Or, as my Grandfather told me "The Bad guy is never the Villian in his own eyes, and the winner writes the rules, might may make right, but it doesn't absolve anyone of thier sins"

Of course. Japan should be compensated as well. Then, they should compensated us for Pearl Harbor. Then, the Japanese should compensate the rest of Asia. The Germans would use their compensation to pay their victims, and the Italians would pay and be paid in kind. The French would receive pay as well, all boiling down to moif whose country would then compensate the Germans for the thirty year war (so brutal the bad feelings sparked the first and second world wars).

Or, we could just agree that targeting civilians in the age of modern warfare (that means Dresden doesn't apply, as bombing accuracy was only possible within about a 3 mile radius back then) is wrong. Strangely, even with such bombing inaccuracies, we avoided bombing passenger airplanes, especially during peacetime! If civilians are killed or injured during warfare indirectly that's unfortunate (and unavoidable). there will always be civilian casualties, but they should never be a specifically designated target. Otherwise, if it's all the same to you, we should turn our adversaries to glass. Saves time, money, and our own troop lives. We're the bad guys either way, right?

Was Denmark in the Thirty years war? What war was that?

Yes, moif. It's probably called something different which you're more familiar with link

That war took Germany from a population of 17 million down to 4 by its end. The most notorious were the Swedes, who ransacked German villages and killed German men who tried to protect their women by forcing them to drink (Schirlengsbecher) a fertilizer made from stored animal urine. Germany was completely destroyed, the people were stripped of their wealth, pride, and continuity as a leading power in Europe. Two hundred years passed before they acheived a standard of living which existed before the war. The bitterness and humiliation resulting from that war eventually brought on the first and second world wars.

It was a long time ago. It has pretty much nothing to do with you. In fact, Dresden has about as much to do with me as the thirty years war has to do with you.

The Libyan government isn't doing this out of the goodness of its heart, BTW. The UN placed sanctions on Libya, which will not be lifted (and the US will not resume normal relations) until their government accepts full responsibility for the destruction of Pan Am 103 and pays damages to the families of the victims.

Mrs Pigpen

I did actually look up 'Thirty years war' and read up the chronology of events, and yes its called something else here.

But to get back to the point though, I did not mention Dresden to make a comparison with Libya. I used Dresden to ask Niteguy for a clarification. I never made any direct connection between Dresden and the bombing of targets in Libya by the USA.

I know that Khaddafi is only going through the motions, but that doesn't really matter to how I feel about the topic at hand.
It strikes me that an armed conflict has been taking place between the muslims and the west (America?) for some time now, and that each side is guilty of killing innocent people. I can't see how one side is some how better than the other simply because they abide by their own rules.

That is not to say that I am defending the actions of the Libyan terrorists either. I am not concerend about them, because the subject is whether or not innocent Libyan people should be granted the same right to compensation as innocent Americans and Scots.

I think my point is as Moif- that no compensation is neccesary, because mostly, war is hell, and only the winner is writing the rules of compensation- the only reason Libya is paying is because it lost, not because it is wrong, etc etc. I don't think Libya is any less or more moral than the US, as I don't think the PLO is any less or more moral than Isreal, it is just that one is the winner and the other the loser, so the winner demands some spoils of war, or the modern equivilent.

CR, you don't see any difference between a military strike and intentionally targeting civilians???
With respect to your opinion, isn't that carrying moral relativism a tad too far?

I hope you don't mind if I answer this question.

For us in the democratic west there is a clear difference, and it revolves around the question of intent. If you purposely only target military personnel, then you are sending a message that offers a possible solution. But if you attack civilian targets, then you are saying that you do not wish to negotiate a peacefull settlement, you only wish to inflict as much damage as possible.

However, the distinction I see, is that if we launch a military strike with the full knowledge that civilians may, or will be killed as a result, then waht we are really doing is the latter. We are attacking civilians, but pretending that we are not.

So, when I see American aircraft targetting Libyan military installations, from the air, at night, using weapons known to be inaccurate over a city, than what I see is a disregard for the obvious civilian casualties that will result.

So in other words, Reagan also chose to attack civilian targets because he knew civilian targets would be hit.

I believe it is necessary to retaliate if another country attacks, because non-retaliation might provide incentive for more attacks. We are currently much too quick to war and “peacemake”. However, in response to a direct attack (such as Libya), the course is clear.

Civilian casualties are absolutely unavoidable, especially in a country which uses hospitals and schools to hoard their warfare equipment. If we were limited to casualty free targets, the country with the least regard for human life would win, for obvious reasons. The side that attempts to limit civilian casualties against a side which targets civilians is already inherently crippled. It is obviously in everyone’s interest to place the most value on civilian life and avoid them whenever possible. Therefore, a country which targets civilians directly as a modus operandi should be punished for doing so.

Warfare would be pretty cheap for us if we used the same tactics, but that would lead to a devastated world very quickly.

Mrs P

What you are saying is that your (US) military action is justified, because they fired first.



Where do you get this from? I was under the impression that the hospital which was hit was in a city...

And don't forget the recent bombing of Baghdad, are you going to tell me that the Iraqi's are scoundrels because they chose to place their ministries and command head quarters in their capital city?




But from my perspective, any military action that will kill civilians can be classed as such a modus operandi.
Where I see a difference is if war has been legally declared, but as far as I know, America did not have UN permission to bomb Libya, nor was America itself attacked.
Now I understand the principle that should a state sponsor terrorism then the state should be held responsible, but in the case of Libya, I see this as an easy cop out by the Reagan administration, designed to appear tough and affirmative to the American people, but in truth, of little merit. What really annoys me is the assumption that the actions of a dictator like Khaddafi immedietly translate to the actions of a state.

We have seen this in Iraq as well where the people of that suffering nation are paying for the crimes of an unelected dictator. What makes this relleveant to this thread, is that Khaddafi himself, whom the USA holds responsible for the original terrorist actions, is not being held accountable. He is even still in power!

Mrs P- not singling you out, but just replying to your question- it is this type of thinking that make us such hypocrites. We kill civilians and justify it, they justify killing civilians. It is only the order and scale that it is done that is the difference. Calling a dead baby "collateral damage" instead of "intended target" makes no real difference to the family or the target. You blow up a large bomb in a crowded place, you kill innocent poeple, and saying you "didn't mean too" is plain stupid, because you meant to, you knew it was going to happen for god sake! This is one reason why people cheer when Americans are killed and when the WTC collapsed. To poeple in Iraq, they would have been very happy if only 2000 non combatants lost thier lives!

That is the other interesting thing about our response to the 9/11 attack- by our own definitions, they were legitimate targets of Al-Quaida. They bombed our military command and control (pentegon) and our economic center (WTC) - so neither of those attacks qualify as "terrorist" attacks, but rather, casualties of war. When we bomb a factory, there is nothing but non-combatant civilians inside, but that doesn't stop us from killing as many as possible of them! There was no military target in Dresden except to bring home the point that Hitler was not telling the poeple the truth abou the war. etc etc.

As a nation, we need to grow up and stop listening to our goverments propaganda, no matter who is spewing it, or we are headed for a mighty fall. I love my country, and the path we have been plotting since the mid-70s are leading us to decline IMO.

When they place weapons in mosques and hospitals, and place command & control centers in public air raid shelters, why yes they are scoundrels.


Any place targeted with the specific mission of killing Americans is attacking America.
From BBC Link

Yes, the Iraqis placed SAMs in public areas and within cities. I have a very reputable first-hand source who told me they placed SAMs ( firing on aircraft), directly on busy highways and other populated areas within cities. The Serbs did this as well, incidentally.

Don't forget the bombing of U.S. embassy in Beirut; bombing of Marine Barracks in Beirut; bombing of U.S. embassy in Kuwait; bombing of U.S. embassy annex in Beirut; highjacking                                    of Kuwaiti airliner to Iran; highjacking of TWA 847; Achille Lauro;highjacking of EgyptAir 648; and Rome and Vienna airport attacks. All of which happened between 1983 and 1985

Cruisingram...If I place my baby next to an anti-aircraft artillery gun and my baby is killed, it is my fault. A government that is so corrupt and evil that it uses civilians as human shields is responsible for their own civilian deaths. If you don't see the difference between bombing a passenger airliner and that, I really can't help you.

DTM



From where else would you have suggested they defend Baghdad? in the middle of the desert?



Thats fair enough, but why do innocent Libyans and Iraqi's have to die for crimes they did not commit?


Mrs P



I think you will find such examples ever since the first Hotchkiss anti aircraft guns were built. In order to shoot down the bombers/ bombs, you have to be in their immediete vicinity.
Whilst condemning the Iraqi's for placing their guns in the highways and close to mosques, you might also ask yourself why US forces where targetting those area's.

A lot of this debate seems to hinge on the different perspectives of whether or not it is right to kill civilians. I contend that it is not, not under any circumstances, but it seems that others accept civilian casulaties. Just as long as they hear them described in an acceptable manner.

If you place your baby next to an AA gun and it is killed then it is indeed your fault.

If your baby is killed by a jagged piece of shrapnel that flies sixty meters down the street and passes through the wall to hit your baby, then who's fault is that? I would say it is the fault of whom ever dropped the bomb.

Let us be frank. War does not solve anything. Bombing Libya did not bring Khaddafi to his knee's, it took more than a decade of sanctions to do that. And war has not brought stability to Iraq or even Afghanisttan either.

I find it appalling that we can be so jaded as to accept that because some terrorist killed some of our civilians, then its okay for us to kill some of theirs.

Since when did we gauge ourselves by the measure of men like Kaddafi and Hussein?

If by doing so, we kill the perpetrators, and stop subsequent killing of our civilians, then yes it is indeed OK, unfortunately.

If they were compassionate humans towards their own people, I would suggest they not purposely place military targets next to or intermingled with large concentrations of civilians. This is done by despotic oxygen thiefs for two reasons:
No concern for their own citizens and,
The ability to manipulate world press and attitude by using massive civilian casualties to undermine opinion of their enemy.

If civilian casualties are always unacceptable than war is always unacceptable. I believe that is a utopian goal. If everyone agreed with you, there would be no war or killing at all(something I would support along with you 100 percent). Clearly not everyone does.

SAMs fired on our aircraft when we were not engaged in warfare. Our aircraft were permitted to fire only when fired upon, during the patrolling of the no fly zones. Therefore, placing SAMs specifically within crowded civilian areas and firing on our aircraft was an attempt by the Iraqis to promote civilian casualties. Clearly, they could've placed SAMs or shoulder-launched rockets anywhere in the desert and fired away. They chose to place them in crowded public areas.

A liberal voice on the conservative side of this argument.

Reality check here. By OUR rules Al Qaeda most certainly did commit a terrorist act.

1. They attacked a civilian set of buildings. (I am not sure that attacking our economic "center" is a definition of a legitimate target even if other legitimate qualifications are met)
2. There is no such thing a the country of Al-Qaeda and it is not a civilian resistance group in an occupying country.
3. Al-Qaeda did not declare war on the United States.


This was an attack that was intended to create civilian deaths and wreak havoc on the American psyche and economy.

Now, is belittling collateral damage a good thing. In my liberal mind, no.

Is equating the actions of our government with a known terrorist sponsor like Khadaffi (sp?) a good type of mathematical equation. He() no!!!

I don't agree with our war on Iraq, but there is international law and we tend to follow it.

Libya sponsored attacks on civilians for the purpose of killing civilians. What military objective could Libya have achieved from this? A process of warnings was used in Libya and, although I think trying to assassinate a world leader in that situation was against American law, Libya made itself a legitimate target for reprisals.

Mixing in Dresden and Tokyo and bombing factories (begging the question in modern war, who is more dangerous the person who launches the bomb or the person who builds it?) is only a distraction from the question of this thread. These things all happened in wars.




Um, war does solve things. In 1776 America was created as a result of a war. In 1945 the world was saved from fascism. War is simply the worst manmade force and it is an incredibly blunt instrument. And er Libya has been very very tame since Khaddafi was personally targeted. Sanctions have brought him to his knees only now in 2003.

We have our flaws and problems in carrying out our foreign policy here in the US. But our gray foreign policy is not the black foreign policy of terrorism. Blowing up planes and leaving bombs to kill random civilians is unacceptable. This is being done by citizens who need to be considered international murderers and need to be brought to justice. When this blight is dealt with then maybe American foreign policy will be the most evil thing going. But at this point America is to jay walker as Muslim Fundamental Terrorist is to serial rapist.

Compensating the families of innocent Libyans for being collateral damage for the Reagan strikes could be nice but is by no means necessary. Compensating the families of Libyans who were not innocent would be like compensating the family of a guilty criminal who was executed.



And finally. All killing of civilians can not be deemed worthy of compensation. In were people die. We should strive to avoid war at all costs, but the world cannot pay dearly for every civilian death that occurs in war. When governments sponsor terrorists acts or commit atrocities against civilians they should be held accountable.

Eeyore



I'd like to point out that you are still equating the actions of a dictator with those of a nation.




If war saved us from facism, then why was half of the world consumed by communism? And why are we still fighting against people like Saddam Husein?

[FONT=Optima][SIZE=7]

I reckon that the Libyan should be compensated. Are we actually to say that somepeople lives are worth more that others?! The Libyan families that lost their loved ones did not ask for the tragedy of Lockerbie. Thier loss must also be remembered and compensated. Its not about being a bleeding heart liberlal but about focusing our anger at Gaddafi.

I think it is very important to point out that those who advocate that no civilian deaths are tolerable are in fact creating the very situation that places them in harms way. Foreign governments are using this very sentiment when they place their military targets specificially in civilian areas. This tactic would be completely useless were it not for the extreme concern the U.S. has shown for minimizing civilian deaths--which, BTW, is also exactly what differentiates these attacks from terrorism.

Moif, however unfortunate it may be, the fact of the matter is, when a dictator takes over a country, there is no differentiation between said dictator and the nation. At that point, he is the representative of that nation, just as our President is the ultimate representative of ours.

Of course most of the people of a given nation may not like what is being done in their name. That doesn't mean that, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the dictator isn't the one running the country, or commiting acts in the name of the country, or speaking for the country.

We cannot fail to respond to defend the safety and security of our citizens and the citizens of other free nations, just because the nation involved is run by a dictator, and the people there don't necessarily agree with it's government's actions.

Niteguy



I agree, but I also think that when innocent people are killed like that, their families should be compensated.

To do otherwise is to admit that their lives are worthless.

Ok, Moif, fine.

But, I want to see their check before we cut one of our own. After all, I know we're good for it. Most of these other nations, I fear are going to be hard pressed to keep their checks from bouncing.

Second, I would agree only in the case of our killing civilians. Anyone in a uniform is fair game.

And I would not be opposed if everyone could come up with a specified amount per civilian killed. Say, $5 million per person, on each side of the fence, terrorist or military attack. We shouldn't be required to pay the same $2 billion dollars for 30 people, for example, as we're going to get when when they kill 300.

I fully agree on the military personnel point. Any one who serves a dictator has to understand that they are guilty by association.

And 5 million certainly sounds very generous to me, though I wonder who would pay with regards to terrorist attacks when the terrorists were not affiliated with any one country.

What about conscripted armies which must either serve the dictators or die? They are as 'innocent' as the civilians aren't they?

Communism and fascism are distinctly iddferent political systems. The Communists chose a Popular front approach in cooperating with democratic nations in the 1930s to try to protect the Soviet Union from fascist aggression.

Saddam Hussein was a dictator but not a fascist.

I don't think they should be given compensation. Lybian civilians weren't deliberately targeted unlike the victims of Lybian terror. The United States like any other nation, also has a right to defend itself from attack. The bombing of Lybian military targets was a defensive measure.

I also don't think the bombings of Dresden or Hiroshima can be compared to modern day terrorist attacks. While those bombing raids involved deliberate targetting of civilian targets, it also was a diferent era. Smart bomb technology did not exist yet, and for the most part it was it was impossible to seperate legitimate military targets from the civilian infrastructure which surrounded them. The Germans and Japanese were also far worse than the allies. Both practiced large scale genocide, the Germans on the Jews and the Japanese on the Chinese. While the bombings of civilian targets by the allies may be morally questionable, I don't think either the Germans or the Japanese rated any compensation.

No. The retalitory strike on Libya was a justified act because of the terrorist attacks form Lybia. The Lockerbie incident was a terrorist act that spawned no justification.