Libya pays $1.5 billion to settle terrorism claims.

[Gan]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States has received $1.5 billion from Libya as payment for victims of terrorist attacks, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Congress on Friday.

"These funds are sufficient to provide the required compensation to victims of terrorism under the Libyan Claims Resolution Act," the State Department said in a statement.

"The administration will now move expeditiously to arrange for distribution of these funds in lieu of the pending U.S. court cases against Libya."

Washington had promised to normalize relations with Libya to reward it for abandoning its weapons of mass destruction program and for taking responsibility for the downing of Pan Am 103 and other terror attacks against Americans.

The payment was a key element in an agreement between the two countries that involves improving relations, ending Libya's legal liability for the attacks and opening the way for U.S. investment in the oil-rich country.

Part of the complicated agreement between the two nations called for the creation of a special fund set up by the State Department to finalize the terrorism claims.

In September, Rice became the first American secretary of state to visit Libya since 1953, after months of complicated negotiations between the two countries.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/10/31/libya.payment/index.html

__________________________________________________ ________

Wait, I thought Libya was not a terrorist state?

:whistle:

[Parkbandit]

Wait, I thought Libya was not a terrorist state?

:whistle:

Way to throw Tsa'ah under the stupid bus.

[Tsa`ah]

Please review the article and understand "legal liability" does not denote terrorism.

There has never been an admission of guilt, only allegations that could not stand up in any court.

This isn't new ... it's just confirming that Libya has followed through with the agreed upon settlement made some time ago.

[Solkern]

1.5 billion seems like an admission of guilt.

[Tsa`ah]

Finding a bouncing tit avatar and claiming it's your girlfriend from another country also seemed like a good idea to you ... doesn't say much for your judgement.

So ... umm ... every time there is a settlement it's an admission of guilt?

You really need to learn to walk away and think about what you're going to post ... before you do it.

[Solkern]

Ok tsa'ah wanna play that game

find the post I "claimed" she was my girlfriend, oh wait you can't I never did, so stop trying to bring it up you fucking retard
let me repeat it again for you, incase you messed the other ten times I posted
I met her while visiting the states, that's it, do you understand? or are you to stupid to figue it out? actually you might be, i mean, you can't even fill out a proper form at barackobama.com

So let's for example say this
Someone accuses you of robbing them, and you didn't do it, you know you didn't do it, and they demand 500 dollars, you're telling me you'd pay up?


go back to doing your super mod duties, oh wait, that's right you can't.

[Tsa`ah]

First ... I'm going to have to take a page from Quinten (and Keller) ...

http://yogan.meinungsverstaerker.de/fun/English_Motherfucker_-_Do_You_Speak_it.gif

Second ... do you have any clue how many domestic cases are settled every year? Settled globally? Across international lines?

Third ... is your internet usage monitored from the educational facility you claim to teach at? If so ... when do you expect walking papers for sucking so horribly at basic composition? I'd rather sit down and read an op-ed from Palin on the constitution than three more lines of legal commentary from you.

[Parkbandit]

In Shit4Brains' head, the US is the only terrorist state around.

[Gan]

Please review the article and understand "legal liability" does not denote terrorism.

There has never been an admission of guilt, only allegations that could not stand up in any court.

This isn't new ... it's just confirming that Libya has followed through with the agreed upon settlement made some time ago.

Right. Libya just forked over 1.5 billion because they had it lying around doing nothing.

Did you have a stroke or something?



Rescission of Libya's Designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism

Countries whose governments the U.S. has determined have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated as state sponsors of terrorism under provisions in the Foreign Assistance Act, Arms Export Control Act, and Export Administration Act. The Secretary of State can rescind Libya’s designation as a state sponsor, if the President submits a report to Congress at least 45 days before the proposed rescission. The report needs to justify the rescission and certify that the government of Libya has not provided any support for international terrorism during the last six months and has provided assurances that it will not support future acts of international terrorism. After careful review, the President submitted a report on Libya to Congress on May 15, 2006. In conjunction, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced her intention to rescind Libya’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism after the 45-day period expires.

Libya was designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1979. Relations deteriorated further during the 1980s, particularly in the aftermath of Libya’s role in the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, killing 270 people. In 1999, Libya began seriously to address our terrorism concerns and began the process of fully meeting the requirements to distance itself from terrorism by transferring the suspects in the Pan Am 103 case for trial by a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. Beginning in 2001, the United States and the United Kingdom initiated three-way direct talks with Libyan representatives to secure Libya's compliance with the remaining international terrorism requirements. Based upon these discussions, on August 15, 2003, Libya sent a letter to the United Nations Security Council confirming its commitment "not to engage in, attempt, or participate in any way whatever in the organization, financing or commission of terrorist acts or to incite the commission of terrorist acts or support them directly or indirectly" and to "cooperate in the international fight against terrorism." Libya also accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials in the Pan Am 103 incident, agreeing to pay over $2 billion in compensation to the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 and pledged to cooperate in the investigation.

On December 19, 2003, after intense discussions with the United States and the United Kingdom, Libya announced its decision to abandon its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and MTCR Category I missile delivery systems. President Bush responded that the United States would reciprocate Libya's good faith in implementing this change of policy. At the same time, Libya moved forward in implementing its pledge to cooperate in the fight against international terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, Libya has provided excellent cooperation to the United States and other members of the international community in response to the new global threats we face. Based on this cooperation, Secretary Rice also announced on May 15, 2006, that, for the first time, Libya will not be certified this year as a country not cooperating fully with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.

The United States has responded to Libya's actions through a careful step-by-step process designed to acknowledge Libya's progress, but still allow review at each stage. Libya has responded in good faith not only in the area of international terrorism but also in the related field of weapons of mass destruction. Libya is an important model to point to as we press for changes in policy by other countries (such as Iran, North Korea, and others), changes that are vital to U.S. national security interests and to international peace and security.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/66244.htm
2006/496



State-sponsored terrorism
Libya
After the military overthrow of King Idris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Idris) in 1969 the Libyan Arab Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Arab_Republic) (later the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Socialist_People%27s_Libyan_Arab_Jamahiriya) ) to the bewilderment of some supported with weapon supplies, training camps located within Libya and monetary finances an array of armed paramilitary groups both left wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics) and right wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_wing). Leftist and socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) groups included the Provisional Irish Republican Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army), the Basque Fatherland and Liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_Fatherland_and_Liberty), the Umkhonto We Sizwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_We_Sizwe), the Polisario Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polisario_Front), the Palestine Liberation Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine) while others were on the Far Right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Right) such as the Moro National Liberation Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_National_Liberation_Front), the government of Libya even had brief contacts with the Neo Nazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_Nazi) British National Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Front) which attempted to enlist financial aid from Libya during the 1980s. These contacts were ended after the fascist nature of the NF was discovered during Nick Griffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin)'s visit to Libya in 1986.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

In 2006 Libya was removed from the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) list of terrorist supporting nations after it had ended all of its support for armed groups and the development of weapons of mass destruction.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#cite_note-8)

Out of the armed groups Libya used to support the Provisional IRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA), Umkhonto we Sizwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe) and the Moro National Liberation Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_National_Liberation_Front) have completely abandoned terrorist tactics or political violence.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Libya




Swati Parashar
Article No:40, June 30, 2005


A Tumultuous Journey since Independence:

The North African State of Libya has been in news recently for reasons other than the controversial antics of its President, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The capture of the Al Qaeda operative, Abu Firaj al Libby, a Libyan citizen, in early May this year in Mardan (Pakistan), calls for a deeper study of the Al Qaeda-Libya connection. Almost exactly a month later, on June 3, 2005, Libya was in news again when it was reported that an Al Qaeda cell in Libya has threatened an attack on the north east coastal city of Darna, if one of its cell leaders was not released from prison. Besides this attack, the group, in its internet statement also mentioned a list of other targets including President Gaddafi.

In the context of these two developments it is time to take note of the complex relationship between Libya and terrorism and Libya’s place in the ‘global war on terror’. Ranked second in the CIA fact list among the richest countries in Africa with a GDP of $7900 US, per capita, Libya has been a pariah for most of the time since its independence from colonial rule in 1951 under King Idris al-Sanusi. The Gaddafi era emerged in 1969 when the King was deposed in a military coup led by Col. Gaddafi, who began to pursue a pan Arab agenda. Libya has no friends among the Arab countries because of its strong political stand against ‘soft regimes’ in the Arab world. It has been an outcast even in its relations with the Western world, having witnessed political and diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions because of its acknowledged sponsorship of terrorist activities against Western targets.

There are two dimensions of Libya’s involvement in terrorist activities. One is its state sponsored terrorism targeted against regimes in the Arab world and the West. The other is the presence of Al Qaeda and other jihadi elements within its territory.

State Sponsored Terrorism:

The Libyan Intelligence Service was accused by a German court of being involved in the 1986 bombing in Berlin that killed two American servicemen and a Turkish woman and wounded 229 other people. In August 2004, The Gaddafi Foundation for Charity Association, headed by Gaddafi’s son, Seif al-Islam, agreed to pay compensation of $35 million to the families of the non American victims of the attack, even though Libya did not accept responsibility for the attack and said it was only making a humanitarian gesture.

The 1989 bombing of a French UTA passenger aircraft which exploded in mid-air over Niger and killed all the 171 passengers onboard led to the conviction of four Libyans. In January 2004, the Gaddafi Foundation agreed to pay $170 million as compensation to the families of the non American victims of the attack. The cases filed by the families of American victims are still under scrutiny in the American courts.

In a third such case, Libya accepted responsibility for the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people on board. In 2003, Libya reached a deal with the families of the victims and agreed to pay $2.7 billion as compensation in return for the lifting of UN and US sanctions and its elimination from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The UN sanctions imposed in 1992 were lifted in 2003 while the US imposed sanctions in 1986 were removed in April 2004. The EU also lifted sanctions against Libya in October 2004. Libya is expected to make the complete payments as soon as it is eliminated from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Apart from these specific acts of terrorism carried out by the Libyan Government on foreign soil, Libya has also been accused of terrorist activities against prominent political figures of moderate Arab and African countries. Plots uncovered were against President Habre of Chad in 1984 and President Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire in 1985. There were also evidence of attacks against President Anwar Sadaat of Egypt, Jaafar al Numayri of Sudan, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, President Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia, King Hussein of Jordan and King Hassan II of Morocco.

In August 2004, Abdul Rahman al Amoudi, a native of Eritrea, a powerful political player in the Washington area Muslim community, pleaded guilty in federal court to illegal financial transactions with the Gaddafi regime and confirmed his participation in a Libyan conspiracy to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

Further accusations against Gaddafi’s regime include training, arming and financing radical factions of the PLO. In the mid 80s, Gaddafi’s links to the Abu Nidal Organisation or the Fatah Revolutionary Council and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) were discovered. Apparently millions of dollars had been siphoned to these organisations by the Libyan state agencies. Libya has also provided material support to the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Basque separatist group (ETA) of Spain, and Sierra Leone’s Revolutionary United Front.

Libya’s tumultuous past continues to haunt its relations with the international community as the rest of the world struggles to come to terms with the Gaddafi regime.


http://www.sspconline.org/article_details.asp?artid=art47


Clearly you're in the minority in your opinion.

[Daniel]

Right. Libya just forked over 1.5 billion because they had it lying around doing nothing.

Did you have a stroke or something?

.

It's not really far fetched to assume that Libya just paid the money so that they could start receiving US investment, which I'd imagine is going to be much more than 1.5billion.

[Parkbandit]

It's not really far fetched to assume that Libya just paid the money so that they could start receiving US investment, which I'd imagine is going to be much more than 1.5billion.

OR we could just, I don't know.. take our government's word for it when they said they settled the terrorism claims against them.. which is far less fetched.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

[Daniel]

Yes. I never said they didn't settle. I simply stated their likely reason. Libya doesn't really give a shit about what America thinks. They haven't for a long time. So, it's not like they all of a sudden had a change of heart.

[Tsa`ah]

Right. Libya just forked over 1.5 billion because they had it lying around doing nothing.

You are aware that they are an oil producing nation right? You are aware that they have been selling crude since .... the sanctions right? You are aware that when crude was selling at 140 a barrel, Libya was getting ... 140 a barrel ... are you following me?


Did you have a stroke or something?

No, I just happen to agree with the guy that wrote the legal definitions of terrorism.

Using a US government source as a critical piece of your argument is sort of like using a GOP flier as evidence that Obama pals around with terrorists.

Additionally ... you should probably concluded a long time ago that a wiki entry isn't always the best source either.

Further more ... in the case of your third source, which pretty much parrots the other two, it sites accusations upon accusations.

All three are bereft of one crucial thing .... evidence to back up the claims. Libya has never fit the bill for terrorist activity, or sponsoring it. Too much to lose and a regime that was, and is, very antagonistic to Islamic extremists and fundamentalists.


Clearly you're in the minority in your opinion.

Not really.

[Parkbandit]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=831792&postcount=8

[Gan]

You are aware that they are an oil producing nation right? You are aware that they have been selling crude since .... the sanctions right? You are aware that when crude was selling at 140 a barrel, Libya was getting ... 140 a barrel ... are you following me?
Sorry, the US is not the only nation buying oil. Its a remote possibility, thats about it.




No, I just happen to agree with the guy that wrote the legal definitions of terrorism.
Now you're arguing semantics.


Using a US government source as a critical piece of your argument is sort of like using a GOP flier as evidence that Obama pals around with terrorists.
Did you read that Libya was classisfied as a terrorist state since 1979. Jimmy Carter... are you following me?


Additionally ... you should probably concluded a long time ago that a wiki entry isn't always the best source either.
And yet its not stopped you from using Wiki when its convenient for you.
Stop attacking the source and refute the information contained therein.


Further more ... in the case of your third source, which pretty much parrots the other two, it sites accusations upon accusations.
And...?


All three are bereft of one crucial thing .... evidence to back up the claims. Libya has never fit the bill for terrorist activity, or sponsoring it. Too much to lose and a regime that was, and is, very antagonistic to Islamic extremists and fundamentalists.
Do you have a source to back up this statement or is it simply your opinion? Because I'm more inclined to believe official sources (like the state department) rather than... well, you know... you.




Not really.
I'm eagerly awaiting the wall of text you are prone to use when you've actually got sources to back up your statements.

And waiting...

And waiting...

[Gan]

It's not really far fetched to assume that Libya just paid the money so that they could start receiving US investment, which I'd imagine is going to be much more than 1.5billion.

Agreed.

I'm more doubtful in this case when there are now more global trading partners that could substitute for the US market. But I am in agreement that its a likely motivator for their settlement.

[Stanley Burrell]

Oh my God...

They found me.

I don't how, but they found me.

RUN FOR IT, MARTY!

What the: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgAIF1vkzCU

Edited to include, with god-like intelligence: Back to the Future depicted Libyans in a way more cinematically entertaining light that pwns any validity that any argument stated by any individual(s) can withhold, pertaining to this conversation.

[Tsa`ah]

Sorry, the US is not the only nation buying oil. Its a remote possibility, thats about it.

When crude is going for 140 a barrel, that's what the WORLD pays.


Now you're arguing semantics.

No, I'm arguing the facts ... maybe you should look him up.


Did you read that Libya was classisfied as a terrorist state since 1979. Jimmy Cater... are you following me?

Legal classifications of terrorists states did not occur until the Reagan administration.


And yet its not stopped you from using Wiki when its convenient for you.
Stop attacking the source and refute the information contained therein.

Your sources fail to site any evidence, only assumption and conjecture. I'm sorry ... lack of evidence a bad case makes. Lack of motive, lack of ambition, absolutely no way to defend against the retaliation ... not an Islamic sympathetic nation to begin with.

I'm sorry ... settlements and US and US parroted reports don't conclude or prove a thing. I'm not the one arguing semantics.


And...?

Key words that escaped your scope of reason? Parroted the other two, cited accusations upon accusations. Spelled out ... lack of evidence to substantiate the claims.


Do you have a source to back up this statement or is it simply your opinion? Because I'm more inclined to believe official sources (like the state department) rather than... well, you know... you.

You made the argument ... the claim ... the accusation. The onus isn't on me. Read the transcripts.


I'm eagerly awaiting the wall of text you are prone to use when you've actually got sources to back up your statments.

You're pulling a Mabus now. You made the claim ... get to work. I've sited plenty in identical threads.


And waiting...

And waiting...

Is that the sound of one hand clapping with the other hand fap fap fap ping?

You're turning into a PB jr.

[Xaerve]

The word is cited... not sited.

[Tsa`ah]

Well it apparently got you off ... now go correct Gan.

[Solkern]

I think it's funny, on how many times, you complain and nazi grammer/spelling other people, and you fuck up, unless you get everything right stop trying to act big and correct other people.

now give me more eurotrash neg rep, it's the only reason i'm posting.

thanks


edited: got it right on time. thanks!

[Tsa`ah]

Dude ... you're digging yourself a hole.

I certainly respond to yours ... that of an "educator". Did you see me bust Gan's chops? Unless some other tard brings it up, or they post like you ... I often just ignore it.

This isn't the conversation you want to get into ... stick with claiming you're tagging random hotties you find pics of. Or maybe start another thread asking for advice on where to live in Europe ... or maybe you can start a poll about the next exotic car you want to buy .... just go off and be stupid in some other folder.

[Solkern]

Dude ... you're digging yourself a hole.

I certainly respond to yours ... that of an "educator". Did you see me bust Gan's chops? Unless some other tard brings it up, or they post like you ... I often just ignore it.

This isn't the conversation you want to get into ... stick with claiming you're tagging random hotties you find pics of. Or maybe start another thread asking for advice on where to live in Europe ... or maybe you can start a poll about the next exotic car you want to buy .... just go off and be stupid in some other folder.


Oh please, Tsa'ah tell me what "hole" i'm digging? please tell me how this "hole" influences anything I do? this is a forum board, who the fuck cares, maybe it's more to you, then a place to post and have fun, and push peoples buttons.
Edited: please tell me Tsa'ah how this "PC hole" is going to alter or effect what I do with my life!
Maybe as you being a supermod can help me understand...oh wait..nevermind

[Tsa`ah]

This sort of reminds me of a story.

My dad took my brothers and I on a pheasant hunt when I was in the 7th grade ... not a real hunt, a youth hunt at the county preserve that was stocked with farm hatched pheasants.

A guy that worked with my dad, and followed him around like a puppy dog, kept bugging him to bring him along on later hunting trips for about two years.

Finally, three years later, we all go rabbit hunting and this guy insists on bringing his dog to rouse the rabbits.

So there we are, walking a line pattern along a pasture and the dog flushes a rabbit and gives chase .... dad's co-worker lines up his shot and BAM ... peppers his own dog in the ass.

That's not the end of it.

The dog obviously yelps in pain and limps back to the guy that shot him in the ass. Dad's co-worker gets a dejected look on his face and says ... that's the third time I've shot this dog and he's so loyal that he keeps coming back.

My dad responded with "No, he's a lot like you. You begged me for three years to bring you along on a hunt ... after you shot yourself in your own leg in the same day you shot that dog for the second time .... stupid."

I just can't figure out which one you remind me of.

[Gan]

So you say they're not a terrorist state based on your definition of terrorism.

Yet every Secretary of State since 1979 has supported the premise/idea/label/fact that Libya is a terrorist state.

Guess who's word I'm going to take?
Henry Kissinger
Cyrus Vance
Warren Christopher
Edmund Muske
Alexander Haig
George Schultz
James Baker
Lawrence Eagleburger
Madeleine Albright
Colin Powell
Condoleeza Rice

Unless you've got some credentials that we dont know about.

[Tsa`ah]

It's their job? Of course we're going to consider them a terrorist state. They revolted and took over the government we were propping up, they kicked us out of their oil fields, and evicted our military from their newly formed nation.

They didn't stop there ... they were very vocal about our involvement in middle eastern affairs due to energy consumption. They rallied their neighbors, flipped us the bird and kinked the hose as a message.

What you need to do is provide proof ... you have failed to do so ... and continue to fail.

[Gan]

I'm afraid you fail in this thread bub.

*Still waiting for those sources that state Libya was NOT a terrorist state.

[Tsa`ah]

Please familiarize yourself with the term onus ... and what that means in reference to your claims.

I'd also suggest you read about Mendella's involvement in the hearings and his positions.

And once again ... you need to provide some evidence.

[Parkbandit]

Is that the sound of one hand clapping with the other hand fap fap fap ping?

You're turning into a PB jr.

There goes Tsa'ah again.. back to the male genital area that seems to be his comfort zone.

Seriously Tsa'ah, with as much cock worshiping as you do, I'm amazed you have kids. Maybe your Beard was artificially inseminated?

[Gan]

Please familiarize yourself with the term onus ... and what that means in reference to your claims.

I'd also suggest you read about Mendella's involvement in the hearings and his positions.

And once again ... you need to provide some evidence.
I have the US State Department from the end of the Carter Admin, through the Reagan Admin, Bush1 Admin, Clinton Admin and Bush2 Admin declaring Libya a terrorist state. Thats my evidence.

Where's your evidence to the contrary? I'm merely iterating a position that has been held by not only the US, but the European Nation as well as the UN. The onus is on you since you're saying that Libya never sposored terrorism. Like I said earlier, there are very little who hold to the belief that Libya never sponsored terror. In fact, I believe you're the only one I've ever heard that claim from.

So again, where's your source to debunk what all the experts think?

The Tsa'ah State Department?

:lol:

Still waiting, since you're the one claiming Libya never was a State sposoring terror.

[Tsa`ah]

I have the US State Department from the end of the Carter Admin, through the Reagan Admin, Bush1 Admin, Clinton Admin and Bush2 Admin declaring Libya a terrorist state. Thats my evidence.

Umm ... it was accepted that the earth was flat and the center of the universe at one time.

It was accepted that Iraq harbored Al Queda and had WMDs.


Where's your evidence to the contrary? I'm merely iterating a position that has been held by not only the US, but the European Nation as well as the UN. The onus is on you since you're saying that Libya never sposored terrorism. Like I said earlier, there are very little who hold to the belief that Libya never sponsored terror. In fact, I believe you're the only one I've ever heard that claim from.

Do you know how asinine that entire position is? Prove that the evidence does not exist when the evidence hasn't been presented? It's the stuff of Salem Witch trials. Prove to me that you're not a witch.

I have a black hole in my pocket, although I lack the evidence to prove it ... the onus is on you to disprove it. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work like that.

You're arguing your case based on hearsay, conjecture, and assumption ... because administration officials do so.

If Libya harbored terrorist training camps ... where are the photos? If the Libyan government was behind an array of bombings ... where is the evidence? I'm sorry, but your stance is based on the word of people that have it in their best interest to perpetuate that word.


So again, where's your source to debunk what all the experts think?

Evidence to disprove what the experts think ... wow. Disprove a thought that has no tangible support. Sort of like saying "show me that god doesn't exist" instead of asking to prove that god does in fact exist.

Are you catching on yet? Or are you intentionally playing dumb?


Still waiting, since you're the one claiming Libya never was a State sposoring terror.

I'm still waiting for evidence that you're not some douche that only parrots what he reads ... and doesn't read anything that shakes the foundations of the crap he chooses to read.

[Gan]

Umm ... it was accepted that the earth was flat and the center of the universe at one time.

It was accepted that Iraq harbored Al Queda and had WMDs.



Do you know how asinine that entire position is? Prove that the evidence does not exist when the evidence hasn't been presented? It's the stuff of Salem Witch trials. Prove to me that you're not a witch.

I have a black hole in my pocket, although I lack the evidence to prove it ... the onus is on you to disprove it. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work like that.

You're arguing your case based on hearsay, conjecture, and assumption ... because administration officials do so.

If Libya harbored terrorist training camps ... where are the photos? If the Libyan government was behind an array of bombings ... where is the evidence? I'm sorry, but your stance is based on the word of people that have it in their best interest to perpetuate that word.



Evidence to disprove what the experts think ... wow. Disprove a thought that has no tangible support. Sort of like saying "show me that god doesn't exist" instead of asking to prove that god does in fact exist.

Are you catching on yet? Or are you intentionally playing dumb?



I'm still waiting for evidence that you're not some douche that only parrots what he reads ... and doesn't read anything that shakes the foundations of the crap he chooses to read.

Evidence that supports a claim made by the great Tsa'ah or the evidence that supports State Department assessments since 1979.

I'll pick the State Department for 1,000 Alex.

Still waiting for your evidence to refute the State Departments assessment that Libya was not a terrorist state.

Still waiting...


And waiting...


And waiting...

[Warriorbird]

Libya was formerly a terrorist state. I don't see anything wrong with stating it. There are obviously selfish reasons for them to do this but I think there's definite benefits to any country cleaning itself up. While other countries were free to invest there I'm sure that having Americans invest will give Libya added cred with EU investors.

[Gan]

Libya was formerly a terrorist state. I don't see anything wrong with stating it. There are obviously selfish reasons for them to do this but I think there's definite benefits to any country cleaning itself up. While other countries were free to invest there I'm sure that having Americans invest will give Libya added cred with EU investors.

And now we add WB to the list.

:lol: @ Tsa'ah

[Tsa`ah]

Evidence that supports a claim made by the great Tsa'ah or the evidence that supports State Department assessments since 1979.

I'll pick the State Department for 1,000 Alex.

Still waiting for your evidence to refute the State Departments assessment that Libya was not a terrorist state.

Still waiting...


And waiting...


And waiting...

I don't think you understand the process ... which isn't surprising.

You have to prove guilt ... which requires evidence. The words of the uninvolved do not do that.

Again, you're asking me to reverse the process because you can't prove anything outside of what an article states ... even when the article can't provide evidence.

I'm sorry ... not even in bizarro world would your reverse logic work.

Ok .... let's look at it this way.

Prove that you didn't kill Hudson's mother, borther, and nephew.

[Gan]

Still waiting.

[Tsa`ah]

So what you're saying is you can't provide evidence.

I guess I'm also correct in suggesting you're guilty of three homicides.

[Gan]

So what you're saying is you can't provide evidence.

I guess I'm also correct in suggesting you're guilty of three homicides.

No, I'm saying you cant provide evidence to refute the experts assertion and assignment of Libya being a terrorist state.

The assertion has already been made by the US government since 1979.

You say its in error. Prove it.


Still waiting!

:lol:

[Tsa`ah]

So what you're saying is that you murdered three people recently.

[Gan]

Still waiting!

[Parkbandit]

Tsa'ah is the only one that thinks that Libya has never sponsored terrorism. Even the country Libya doesn't agree as they are paying the settlement.

Let him play in the stupid sandbox by himself. It's silly to argue with someone this fucking retarded.

[Solkern]

Tsa'ah is the only one that thinks that Libya has never sponsored terrorism. Even the country Libya doesn't agree as they are paying the settlement.

Let him play in the stupid sandbox by himself. It's silly to argue with someone this fucking retarded.



that's what I said earlier, if Libya didn't sponsor terrorism, why would they even think about paying 1.5b.

[Tsa`ah]

Still waiting!

Of course you are ... because you've taken the retarded approach to debate. In any case ...

http://www.globalissues.org/article/335/libya-and-terrorism

http://mondediplo.com/2001/03/05libya

http://books.google.com/books?id=QwMdC3hoezEC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=Libya+evidence+terrorism&source=web&ots=r7AAWtMjDV&sig=sW5OsrrAAG2SD7PNMc-rzGxmv7Q&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

http://terrorism.about.com/od/originshistory/p/PanAmBombing.htm

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/locevd.htm

I'm not alone in my opinion, doubts, or understanding of the flimsy and/or non-existant evidence.

Chances are that if I were to keep digging, it would take several posts to cover the articles.

Go ahead and submit whatever "evidence" you have. I'm most interested in the evidence of terrorist training camps.


that's what I said earlier, if Libya didn't sponsor terrorism, why would they even think about paying 1.5b.

Libya produces nearly 2m barrels of crude per day ... do the math (or in your case, have someone else do it). It's the cost of doing business in a global economy.

[Solkern]

Libya produces nearly 2m barrels of crude per day ... do the math (or in your case, have someone else do it). It's the cost of doing business in a global economy.

I'm not disputing what they are making per day.
All I'm saying is, if they aren't a terrorist state, why bother paying out 1.5b?

If the American gov't has no proof, and no one else does, why should they pay 1.5b?

[Tsa`ah]

I'm not disputing what they are making per day.
All I'm saying is, if they aren't a terrorist state, why bother paying out 1.5b?

If the American gov't has no proof, and no one else does, why should they pay 1.5b?

You do understand that the US and UK didn't require proof to impose sanctions right? You do understand that he US continued to impose sanctions even after the UN lifted them right? You do understand that it's not a trial setting to impose sanctions right? Guilt doesn't have to be proven ... it really only takes accusation.

They have to pay because "we say so" or they're stuck with continued sanctions. You're still stuck on the notion that "settlement = guilt". That's never been the case in our courts. Cases are settled every year in the US ... hell, I've worked for companies in the past that settled "racial discrimination" cases when there was enough evidence to the contrary. Settlements are just the most expedient method of making a claim go away in the most cost effective manner.

If Libya continued to flip us off, they would have been stuck at under 2m barrels of crude a day without the possibility of foreign investment in either direction. Settling with a week's worth of production opens the door for .... more production, more profits, better infrastructure, financial security.

In 4-5 years they can return to a system where utility costs to citizens was covered under oil revenues.

[Parkbandit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1144893.stm

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1022/754356724_5397681c4d.jpg

[Tsa`ah]

The American government promised a key witness five million dollars if he would say that he saw the Libyan suspects with a certain suitcase.(9) However, the story was so weak that one ofthe two men was found innocent. Unfortunately, the defense team were very weak. They neglected to call a witness who saw the suitcase being loaded in London, not Malta.(10) Without this evidence, one of the two men was assumed to be guilty. Most Scottish experts are astonished that the weak evidence against him was enough to establish a link. Ian Bell wrote in the Scottish Sunday Herald on February 4, 2001

"Last week you would have been hard-pressed to find an Edinburgh lawyer willing to bet on any guilty verdict being reached at Camp Zeist [the scene of the trial]. The same belief was evident, it is reported, in Whitehall

The mere fact that he's in the appeals process, that an appeal would even be considered, is a testament to the lack of evidence.

You should really learn to read before you post.

[Solkern]

You do understand that the US and UK didn't require proof to impose sanctions right? You do understand that he US continued to impose sanctions even after the UN lifted them right? You do understand that it's not a trial setting to impose sanctions right? Guilt doesn't have to be proven ... it really only takes accusation.

They have to pay because "we say so" or they're stuck with continued sanctions. You're still stuck on the notion that "settlement = guilt". That's never been the case in our courts. Cases are settled every year in the US ... hell, I've worked for companies in the past that settled "racial discrimination" cases when there was enough evidence to the contrary. Settlements are just the most expedient method of making a claim go away in the most cost effective manner.

If Libya continued to flip us off, they would have been stuck at under 2m barrels of crude a day without the possibility of foreign investment in either direction. Settling with a week's worth of production opens the door for .... more production, more profits, better infrastructure, financial security.

In 4-5 years they can return to a system where utility costs to citizens was covered under oil revenues.

Ahh, gotcha, I can see the logic in there. good point.

[Kembal]

I'm not disputing what they are making per day.
All I'm saying is, if they aren't a terrorist state, why bother paying out 1.5b?

If the American gov't has no proof, and no one else does, why should they pay 1.5b?

Irrespective of Libya's actual guilt or not, Tsa'ah is correct on one point: Settlements are the most expedient way of getting rid of a legal problem.

Considering $1.5b is chump change compared to the potential investment in developing the infrastructure for oil production (and thus subsequent oil revenue), someone in the Libyan government could have made a cost-benefit calculation and they decided on this instead.

Gotta remember, oil production technology is most developed by Western companies.

(If you're wondering what I think, I do believe Libya was a state sponsor of terrorism.)

[Parkbandit]

The mere fact that he's in the appeals process, that an appeal would even be considered, is a testament to the lack of evidence.

You should really learn to read before you post.

Because we know guilty people would never go through the appeal process

I'm not chasing you around the room with a dumbstick, Shit4Brains. If you would like to say that Libya has never sponsored terrorism, regardless of all the ample evidence available to you.. feel free. It's a free world, knock your self out (literally please). I'll continue to believe my government and most western governments around the world that says they are.

[Gan]

Of course you are ... because you've taken the retarded approach to debate. In any case ...

http://www.globalissues.org/article/335/libya-and-terrorism

http://mondediplo.com/2001/03/05libya

http://books.google.com/books?id=QwMdC3hoezEC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=Libya+evidence+terrorism&source=web&ots=r7AAWtMjDV&sig=sW5OsrrAAG2SD7PNMc-rzGxmv7Q&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

http://terrorism.about.com/od/originshistory/p/PanAmBombing.htm

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/locevd.htm

I'm not alone in my opinion, doubts, or understanding of the flimsy and/or non-existant evidence.

Chances are that if I were to keep digging, it would take several posts to cover the articles.

Go ahead and submit whatever "evidence" you have. I'm most interested in the evidence of terrorist training camps.

:conspiracy alert:

Thanks for actually putting some effort into your argument. Even if it still fails.

As for your other question. Here you go. Happy reading!

UN Security Resolution 731 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/010/90/IMG/NR001090.pdf?OpenElement)

UN Security Resolution 748 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/011/07/IMG/NR001107.pdf?OpenElement)

UN Security Resolution 883 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N93/626/78/PDF/N9362678.pdf?OpenElement)

UN Security Resolution 1192 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N98/251/64/PDF/N9825164.pdf?OpenElement)

[Gan]

(If you're wondering what I think, I do believe Libya was a state sponsor of terrorism.)

Hey Tsa'ah. Perhaps we should start a poll?

:lol:

[Tsa`ah]

:conspiracy alert:

Thanks for actually putting some effort into your argument. Even if it still fails.

As for your other question. Here you go. Happy reading!

UN Security Resolution 731 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/010/90/IMG/NR001090.pdf?OpenElement)

UN Security Resolution 748 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/011/07/IMG/NR001107.pdf?OpenElement)

UN Security Resolution 883 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N93/626/78/PDF/N9362678.pdf?OpenElement)

UN Security Resolution 1192 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N98/251/64/PDF/N9825164.pdf?OpenElement)

First, you fail at linking. Second, you fail at comprehension.

You're posting reading material that I'm already familiar with .. material that does nothing to support your assertions.

731, lifted .... in a language you can understand, demanded Libya cooperate with the investigation into PA 103 and UTA 772. Nothing more.

748, lifted ... in a language you can understand ... demands the same as 731 with the addition that Libya denounce terrorism and cease in the assistance of. This is where sanctions began ... due to Libya's refusal to cooperate with investigations.

883, lifted ... in a language you can understand, demanded the same 731 and 748 ... with additional sanctions.

1192, lifted ... in a language you can understand, demanded the same as 731, 748, and 883 with specific conditions to the surrender of suspects

None of the resolutions directly implicated Libya, or the suspects, in acts of terrorism. What they demanded was that Libya cooperate with investigations by turning over the accused and renounce terrorism ... and if they sponsored it, to stop.

Please learn to both read and comprehend the material you chose to post as your own thoughts. Or better yet, read the shit and use your own language ... a language supported by substance.


Hey Tsa'ah. Perhaps we should start a poll?

:lol:

Yes, because the court of public opinion is based on facts such as evidence. You're a shining example of it. What a fucking moronic tool of a mouthpiece.

[Daniel]

I've stayed away from this argument because I think it's a red herring, but people do realize that the UNSC is a political body right?

If you took it at face value you would have to conclude that Israel is a terrorist state as well.

[Tsa`ah]

Terrorist

[Gan]

I've stayed away from this argument because I think it's a red herring, but people do realize that the UNSC is a political body right?

If you took it at face value you would have to conclude that Israel is a terrorist state as well.

I would think that any governing body would be political in nature. Would you not agree?

So do you think that Libya was a state sponsor of terrorism?

[Daniel]

I would think that any governing body would be political in nature. Would you not agree?

So do you think that Libya was a state sponsor of terrorism?

Like I said. I haven't participated in this discussion because I think it's a red herring.

It's an absolutely worthless distinction anyway you spin it. There are millions (if not billions) of people around the world who would argue that the United States is a "State sponser of terrorism".

What exactly is the point?

[Tsa`ah]

Hater of America.

[Gan]

Like I said. I haven't participated in this discussion because I think it's a red herring.

It's an absolutely worthless distinction anyway you spin it. There are millions (if not billions) of people around the world who would argue that the United States is a "State sponser of terrorism".

What exactly is the point?

The point in the grand scheme of things is negligent. The point in this minute discussion on the PC is simply to weigh in on whether or not you think Libya was a state sponsor of terrorism that resulted in the sanctions being applied by the UN legitimately.

So, a simple yes or no would suffice.

[Tsa`ah]

The point in the grand scheme of things is negligent. The point in this minute discussion on the PC is simply to weigh in on whether or not you think Libya was a state sponsor of terrorism that resulted in the sanctions being applied by the UN legitimately.

So, a simple yes or no would suffice.

So essentially you have abandoned the mountains of apparent evidence and will settle for "opinion".

Nice.

[Daniel]

The point in the grand scheme of things is negligent. The point in this minute discussion on the PC is simply to weigh in on whether or not you think Libya was a state sponsor of terrorism that resulted in the sanctions being applied by the UN legitimately.

So, a simple yes or no would suffice.

It may suffice for you.

However, to suggest that the UNSC is the end all be all is to undermine US foreign policy in regards to Israel. Something I dont think you'd want to do.

[Gan]

First, you fail at linking. Second, you fail at comprehension.

You're posting reading material that I'm already familiar with .. material that does nothing to support your assertions.

731, lifted .... in a language you can understand, demanded Libya cooperate with the investigation into PA 103 and UTA 772. Nothing more.

748, lifted ... in a language you can understand ... demands the same as 731 with the addition that Libya denounce terrorism and cease in the assistance of. This is where sanctions began ... due to Libya's refusal to cooperate with investigations.

883, lifted ... in a language you can understand, demanded the same 731 and 748 ... with additional sanctions.

1192, lifted ... in a language you can understand, demanded the same as 731, 748, and 883 with specific conditions to the surrender of suspects

None of the resolutions directly implicated Libya, or the suspects, in acts of terrorism. What they demanded was that Libya cooperate with investigations by turning over the accused and renounce terrorism ... and if they sponsored it, to stop.

Please learn to both read and comprehend the material you chose to post as your own thoughts. Or better yet, read the shit and use your own language ... a language supported by substance.



Yes, because the court of public opinion is based on facts such as evidence. You're a shining example of it. What a fucking moronic tool of a mouthpiece.

Yea, the links busted out. And its funny that someone as internet retarded as you cries fail about busted links. And yet you still understood what the links were for (which speaks volumes in and of itself) Pot meet kettle?

I thought you would catch the hint that the UN acting on behalf of the evidence (the extent I doubt the average public will not know for a long time) had a legitimate basis to impose sanctions and declare the UN a state sponsor of terrorism. They are, afterall, the UN.

Specifically here are some points as to why I think Libya is a state sponsor of terrorism. Specifically with aims at removing western influence from the middle east.


In October 1978, Gaddafi sent Libyan troops to aid Idi Amin in the Uganda-Tanzania War when Amin tried to annex the northern Tanzanian province of Kagera, and Tanzania counterattacked.
In August 1981, in the first incident of the Gulf of Sidra, two Libyan jets fired on U.S. aircraft participating in a routine naval exercise over international waters of the Mediterranean Sea claimed by Libya. The U.S. planes returned fire and shot down the attacking Libyan aircraft.
Also in 1984, the United Kingdom severed diplomatic relations with Libya after the killing of British policewoman Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy in London.
Libyan complicity was discovered in the 1986 Berlin discotheque terrorist bombing that killed two American servicemen.
In 1988, Libya was found to be in the process of constructing a chemical weapons plant at Rabta, a plant which is now the largest such facility in the Third World. As of January 2002, Libya was constructing another chemical weapons production facility at Tarhunah.
In January 1989, there was another encounter over the Gulf of Sidra between U.S. and Libyan aircraft which resulted in the downing of two Libyan jets.
Cooperation and support with the PIRA.
Cooperation and support of the UwS.
Cooperation and support with the PLO.
Cooperation and support with the MNLF.
Cooperation and support with the ETA and Basque Fatherland and Liberty.
Cooperation and support of the Polasario Front.
UTA Flight 772.
Pan Am Flight 103.So yes, I do believe Libya not only engaged in acts of terrorism but was also a sponsor of other entities involved in terrorism.

[Gan]

It may suffice for you.

However, to suggest that the UNSC is the end all be all is to undermine US foreign policy in regards to Israel. Something I dont think you'd want to do.

So then you agree that Libya was a state sponsor of Terror.

*Edited to add.

The question on the table refers only to Libya. We are not discussing terrorist acts performed by Israel, US, UK, Russia, Canada, etc. For the purposes of this discussion, to which you are creatively dodging the answer, the question is : Do you think Libya was a state sponsor of terrorism.

Its a simple question.

[Daniel]

:facepalm:

[Gan]

So essentially you have abandoned the mountains of apparent evidence and will settle for "opinion".

Nice.

You're so predictable.


:lol:

[Tsa`ah]

Yea, the links busted out. And its funny that someone as internet retarded as you cries fail about busted links.

No, I generally test out my links.


And yet you still understood what the links were for (which speaks volumes in and of itself) Pot meet kettle?

Considering I've actually read the resolutions before you searched them out ... yes, I should have understood what the resolution numbers were in reference to you line of complete bullshit.


I thought you would catch the hint that the UN acting on behalf of the evidence (the extent I doubt the average public will not know for a long time) had a legitimate basis to impose sanctions and declare the UN a state sponsor of terrorism. They are, afterall, the UN.

At this point, evidence would have surfaced. It's not like the UN, let alone the US or UK have never imposed sanctions without legitimate merit in the past. I do remind you that your claim is based on evidence you seem to know exists. Evidence that would have surfaced in the trials if such evidence existed.


Specifically here are some points as to why I think Libya is a state sponsor of terrorism. Specifically with aims at removing western influence from the middle east.

This is where you say "I'm sorry, but I've been talking out of my ass for for several posts ... I should have clarified from the start that it is my opinion that Libya is/was a state sponsor of terror ... since I never had evidence".


In October 1978, Gaddafi sent Libyan troops to aid Idi Amin in the Uganda-Tanzania War when Amin tried to annex the northern Tanzanian province of Kagera, and Tanzania counterattacked.

So what of the US involvement in foreign conflicts that involve propped up governments?


In August 1981, in the first incident of the Gulf of Sidra, two Libyan jets fired on U.S. aircraft participating in a routine naval exercise over international waters of the Mediterranean Sea claimed by Libya. The U.S. planes returned fire and shot down the attacking Libyan aircraft.

Familiarize yourself with the "Line of death", also familiarize yourself with multiple depictions of the events you just pasted.


Also in 1984, the United Kingdom severed diplomatic relations with Libya after the killing of British policewoman Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy in London.

I do believe that particular claim is in the links I provided ... read up.


Libyan complicity was discovered in the 1986 Berlin discotheque terrorist bombing that killed two American servicemen.

You are again confusing assertion with fact. Doubt has been placed on the claim.


In 1988, Libya was found to be in the process of constructing a chemical weapons plant at Rabta, a plant which is now the largest such facility in the Third World. As of January 2002, Libya was constructing another chemical weapons production facility at Tarhunah.

Again, assertion ... conjecture. No evidence.


In January 1989, there was another encounter over the Gulf of Sidra between U.S. and Libyan aircraft which resulted in the downing of two Libyan jets.

Revisit my suggestion about the "Line of Death" and the conflicting reports.


Cooperation and support with the PIRA.
Cooperation and support of the UwS.
Cooperation and support with the PLO.
Cooperation and support with the MNLF.
Cooperation and support with the ETA and Basque Fatherland and Liberty.
Cooperation and support of the Polasario Front.
UTA Flight 772.
Pan Am Flight 103.[/LIST]So yes, I do believe Libya not only engaged in acts of terrorism but was also a sponsor of other entities involved in terrorism.

I'm fine with your opinion ... everyone is welcome their own. Don't suggest for a minute that your opinion is based on anything factual.

[Parkbandit]

I'm fine with your opinion ... everyone is welcome their own. Don't suggest for a minute that your opinion is based on anything factual.

Wait, aren't you doing the EXACT same thing?

[Gan]

Wait, aren't you doing the EXACT same thing?

Winner winner chicken dinner.

[Tsa`ah]

Winner winner chicken dinner.


Oye ...

My position has never been based on the assumption of evidence. My position is based on the clear lack of evidence in the presence of perceived political manipulation.

[Gan]

Oye ...

My position has never been based on the assumption of evidence. My position is based on the clear lack of evidence in the presence of perceived political manipulation.

Its your opinion none the less.

It doesnt make your any more or less right than mine, unless you count Libya paying off the 1.5 billion claim as well as the UN Sanctions. ;)

[Tsa`ah]

Its your opinion none the less.

It doesnt make your any more or less right than mine, unless you count Libya paying off the 1.5 billion claim as well as the UN Sanctions. ;)

In the absence of truth ....

[Gan]

In the absence of truth ....

conspiracy

[Tsa`ah]

conspiracy

I'd say that's an accurate summation of your posts on the subject thus far.

[Gan]

I'd say that's an accurate summation of your posts on the subject thus far.

Or yours. ;)