A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the government of Libya to pay $6 billion in damages in connection with a 1989 terror bombing of a French airliner over Western Africa.
Hang on a second. Hold the phone.
Not only were there terrorists in the 1980's but they were bombing French airliners??!!
Bonus points to the first liberal college student or Paul-bot basement dweller who can figure out a way to tie those activities to George W. Bush and Jewish neocons.
Libya ended decades of international isolation in 2003 when it agreed to halt a weapons program and to pay compensation for the 1988 bombing of a U.S. airliner over Scotland, in which 270 people were killed.
Toppling Saddam and the Taliban alone would have justified the Bush Doctrine. But to have subdued Libya -- without firing a shot -- man, that's a huge accomplishment too.
* * *
Here's a link to a report by Reuters. If you read that report, keep in mind the author got very sloppy when it came to explaining how the judge arrived at that $6 billion figure. Here's a link to the actual decision -- which among other things sets forth the damages calculations in great detail.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Islamic Fascism, Justice, Law, Middle East, News
Comments (11)
ok, here it goes:T... (Below threshold)1. Posted by jab | January 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
ok, here it goes:
The terrorists, knowing full well that GWB would be elected in 2000, chose pre-emptive martyrdom/murder as there method of outrage.
1. Posted by jab | January 16, 2008 1:51 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 13:51
2. Posted by Scrapiron | January 16, 2008 2:31 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Never present a fact to a democrat. The blood and skull bone fragments which penetrate the walls and ceiling from their head exploding is hard to clean up, no brain to worry about.
2. Posted by Scrapiron | January 16, 2008 2:31 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 14:31
3. Posted by Brian | January 16, 2008 3:49 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Bonus points to the first liberal-bot college student or Paul-bot basement dweller who can figure out a way to tie those activities to George W. Bush and Jewish neocons.
I'm sure you'll find a way to blame it on Clinton first.
3. Posted by Brian | January 16, 2008 3:49 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 15:49
4. Posted by nogo war | January 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Terrorists?
Maybe you folks have forgotten bin laden's home country. Maybe you folks have forgotten the home country of 15 of those in 9/11.
Maybe you folks have no problem with Bush just kissing the Saudi ass.
Maybe you are suckered into the Iran thing as opposed to
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18791.html
But hey...no need for outrage..
Let Bush tell us who the enemy is..
God bless the Saudi and the democratic strength with right for all their citizens that they bring as a friend against our enemy.
4. Posted by nogo war | January 16, 2008 3:51 PM |
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 15:51
5. Posted by Steve Crickmore | January 16, 2008 4:01 PM | Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
The Libyans were sentenced by a special French court in Paris March 10, 1999. The Libyan government was actually half-cooperating with the West by by then.
The previous week Washington(Clinton) had given an ultimatum of 30 days for Gadhafi to hand over the two Libyan suspects in the Lockerbie Pan-Am crash by April 6,1999 for trial at the Hague. Helped by additional pressure of an extension of UN Secuity Council sanctions and a April 5th visit by Mandela, Gadhafi gave in, and the Libyan suspects flew from Tripoli to the Hague April 6, 1999.
By the way, in the Niger /UTA crash the evidence points strongly to Libya, but the Pam Am 103 Lockerbie crash, 9 months earlier is still suspect and smells of a deal so that Libya could begin collecting its billion dollar oil royalties and America could close the case and the families of the victims could receive reparations.
5. Posted by Steve Crickmore | January 16, 2008 4:01 PM |
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 16:01
6. Posted by Old Coot | January 16, 2008 4:03 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Scrapiron nailed it. Need proof? Just look at the two following posts.
6. Posted by Old Coot | January 16, 2008 4:03 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 16:03
7. Posted by Brian | January 16, 2008 4:31 PM | Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Scrapiron nailed it.
LOL! Now you know you're in trouble! Next you'll be citing Ted Kaczynski!
7. Posted by Brian | January 16, 2008 4:31 PM |
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 16:31
8. Posted by LoveAmerica ImmigrantL | January 16, 2008 5:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Scrapiron nailed it.
LOL! Now you know you're in trouble! Next you'll be citing Ted Kaczynski!
------------------------------------
Proving Scrapiron's point again. Just here to distract. I would be ashamed to post again if I am caught red-handed lying not just once but several times. I guess some people are just beyond shame.
8. Posted by LoveAmerica ImmigrantL | January 16, 2008 5:13 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 17:13
9. Posted by LoveAmerica ImmigrantL | January 16, 2008 5:21 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Steve Crickmore is still trying to shill the liberal good liar "Bill Clinton". I guess how much Saddam and Osama were scared when Clinton and the UN gave an ultimatum.
Scrapiron's point is proven again. In fact, we should look at the next 3 posts (not just 2)
9. Posted by LoveAmerica ImmigrantL | January 16, 2008 5:21 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 17:21
10. Posted by marc | January 16, 2008 6:39 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
nogo - "Maybe you folks have no problem with Bush just kissing the Saudi ass."
And of course you have no problem giving your own special brand of condemnation to each President for the last 40 years. Right nogo?
OR... supporting a 100% ban on imported Saudi oil to the U.S. that would sky rocket prices. Right nogo?
10. Posted by marc | January 16, 2008 6:39 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 18:39
11. Posted by marc | January 16, 2008 6:43 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Brian - "LOL! Now you know you're in trouble! Next you'll be citing Ted Kaczynski!"
IT could be worse. Like citing you as an authoritative voice on anything beyond the correct flavoring for an Orange Popsicle.
11. Posted by marc | January 16, 2008 6:43 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 18:43