Iran fined $2.65 billion for terrorism

#1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070908/ap_on_go_ot/iran_terrorism;_ylt=ApXSkkd5iHOLVjgjDrSCThlw24cA

Iran must pay $2.65 billion to the families of the 241 U.S. service members killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, a federal judge declared Friday in a ruling that left survivors and families shedding tears of joy.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth described his ruling as the largest-ever such judgment by an American court against another country.
 
#2
Strikes me that this might be another attempt to stir up popular acceptance for a war that is almost inevitablle.

Me biggest fear is that the American people will believe the same people who got us where we are vis-a-vis Iraq.
 
#3
Devil_Dog said:
Strikes me that this might be another attempt to stir up popular acceptance for a war that is almost inevitablle.

Me biggest fear is that the American people will believe the same people who got us where we are vis-a-vis Iraq.
American soldiers not defenceless civilians were attacked and killed. It is no more than a military operation. If USA would fine any country that resisted numerous American invasions then it would be very profitable method to pay huge American debt. Why not to fine Vietnam for example?
 
#4
KGB_resident said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070908/ap_on_go_ot/iran_terrorism;_ylt=ApXSkkd5iHOLVjgjDrSCThlw24cA

Iran must pay $2.65 billion to the families of the 241 U.S. service members killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, a federal judge declared Friday in a ruling that left survivors and families shedding tears of joy.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth described his ruling as the largest-ever such judgment by an American court against another country.
God help the yanks if the Iraqi families of civvies killed put in a claim!

2.65 Billion Divided by 241 is about 11 million each.

Unless Iraqi's lives aren't worth as much of course........?
 
#5
KGB_resident said:
Devil_Dog said:
Strikes me that this might be another attempt to stir up popular acceptance for a war that is almost inevitablle.

Me biggest fear is that the American people will believe the same people who got us where we are vis-a-vis Iraq.
American soldiers not defenceless civilians were attacked and killed. It is no more than a military operation. If USA would fine any country that resisted numerous American invasions then it would be very profitable method to pay huge American debt. Why not to fine Vietnam for example?
Please correct me if I am wrong but, the US soldiers were part of a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon not an invading force. The attack was a terrorist operation not a military one. The effect of which was the withdrawal of US forces and a longer civile war that is only now being sorted out.
 
#6
KGB_resident said:
Devil_Dog said:
Strikes me that this might be another attempt to stir up popular acceptance for a war that is almost inevitablle.

Me biggest fear is that the American people will believe the same people who got us where we are vis-a-vis Iraq.
American soldiers not defenceless civilians were attacked and killed. It is no more than a military operation. If USA would fine any country that resisted numerous American invasions then it would be very profitable method to pay huge American debt. Why not to fine Vietnam for example?
So then what your saying Sergey is that it was an act of war by Iran? It wasn't an invasion, it was a peacekeeping force.

You can back terrorists if you like, but don't try to make it look as though it's the Americans as aggressors in that situation.
 
#7
offog said:
KGB_resident said:
Devil_Dog said:
Strikes me that this might be another attempt to stir up popular acceptance for a war that is almost inevitablle.

Me biggest fear is that the American people will believe the same people who got us where we are vis-a-vis Iraq.
American soldiers not defenceless civilians were attacked and killed. It is no more than a military operation. If USA would fine any country that resisted numerous American invasions then it would be very profitable method to pay huge American debt. Why not to fine Vietnam for example?
Please correct me if I am wrong but, the US soldiers were part of a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon not an invading force.
As I'm aware the multinational forces in Lebanon nadn't status of peacekeepers.Anyway they were not authorised by UN Security council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_civil_war

A multinational force landed in Beirut on August 20, 1982 to oversee the PLO withdrawal from Lebanon and U.S. mediation resulted in the evacuation of Syrian troops and PLO fighters from Beirut. The agreement also provided for the deployment of a multinational force composed of U.S. Marines along with French, Italian and British units.
...
on 23 October 1983, a devastating suicide bombing in Beirut targeted the headquarters of the U.S. and French forces, killing 241 American and 58 French servicemen.
From my point of view armed forces have an ability to defend themselves and any attack on soldier can not be terrorism. It is an act of war, military operation and so on but not a terrorism.

offog said:
The attack was a terrorist operation not a military one.
I understand your opinion but please define exactly then an attack against soldiers is terrorism and then not. Btw, do you think that attacks on Coalition forces in Iraq are terrorist or not?

offog said:
The effect of which was the withdrawal of US forces and a longer civile war that is only now being sorted out.
USA tried to demonstrate its military might and failed.
 
#8
KGB_resident said:
offog said:
KGB_resident said:
Devil_Dog said:
Strikes me that this might be another attempt to stir up popular acceptance for a war that is almost inevitablle.

Me biggest fear is that the American people will believe the same people who got us where we are vis-a-vis Iraq.
American soldiers not defenceless civilians were attacked and killed. It is no more than a military operation. If USA would fine any country that resisted numerous American invasions then it would be very profitable method to pay huge American debt. Why not to fine Vietnam for example?
Please correct me if I am wrong but, the US soldiers were part of a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon not an invading force.
As I'm aware the multinational forces in Lebanon nadn't status of peacekeepers.Anyway they were not authorised by UN Security council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_civil_war

A multinational force landed in Beirut on August 20, 1982 to oversee the PLO withdrawal from Lebanon and U.S. mediation resulted in the evacuation of Syrian troops and PLO fighters from Beirut. The agreement also provided for the deployment of a multinational force composed of U.S. Marines along with French, Italian and British units.
...
on 23 October 1983, a devastating suicide bombing in Beirut targeted the headquarters of the U.S. and French forces, killing 241 American and 58 French servicemen.
And the para before had

The Habib-negotiated truce called for the withdrawal of both Israeli and PLO elements, as well as a multinational force composed of U.S. Marines along with French and Italian units that would ensure the departure of the PLO and protect defenseless civilians.
So it was a truce with the backing of all sides. The US were invited in along with a number of other countries they did not invade. It did not need to come from the UN.


KGB_resident said:
From my point of view armed forces have an ability to defend themselves and any attack on soldier can not be terrorism. It is an act of war, military operation and so on but not a terrorism.

offog said:
The attack was a terrorist operation not a military one.
I understand your opinion but please define exactly then an attack against soldiers is terrorism and then not. Btw, do you think that attacks on Coalition forces in Iraq are terrorist or not?
See the law of armed conflict, on uniform, no state, must be criminal = terrorist. Could this person be identified as not being a civilian then they are not part of an army.
 
#9
KGB_resident said:
Devil_Dog said:
Strikes me that this might be another attempt to stir up popular acceptance for a war that is almost inevitablle.

Me biggest fear is that the American people will believe the same people who got us where we are vis-a-vis Iraq.
American soldiers not defenceless civilians were attacked and killed. It is no more than a military operation. If USA would fine any country that resisted numerous American invasions then it would be very profitable method to pay huge American debt. Why not to fine Vietnam for example?
Thats an act of war. What if it had been a Russian barracks ?
 
#10
This is another pointless Court Judgement which is going to stir more tension between the 2 countries. Does the US courts really think that anyone will see this money, who are they going to get DOG the Bounty Hunter to go into Iran and get the money or the Iranian President.

I wonder how much this court case ruling cost I bet it was over $1million, which would of been some kind of help to the victims families instead of the promise of $2.65 million they have no hope of seeing. :x
 
#11
KGB_resident said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070908/ap_on_go_ot/iran_terrorism;_ylt=ApXSkkd5iHOLVjgjDrSCThlw24cA

Iran must pay $2.65 billion to the families of the 241 U.S. service members killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, a federal judge declared Friday in a ruling that left survivors and families shedding tears of joy.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth described his ruling as the largest-ever such judgment by an American court against another country.
Tears of joy for what? that the judge found the Iranians guilty.....mmmm bygone conclusion really he wasnt about to do anything other than find them guilty now was he!!

or tears of joy for the payout? I'm sure the Iranians are just dashing around opening their bank vaults to collect that cash..... i can just see the mad git in charge of Iran...whateverthehellhisnameis.... writing out a special postit note for top priority...No1 stir up antiwestern hatred....No2 pay the American government $2.65 billion
 
#13
The_IRON said:
This is another pointless Court Judgement which is going to stir more tension between the 2 countries. Does the US courts really think that anyone will see this money, who are they going to get DOG the Bounty Hunter to go into Iran and get the money or the Iranian President.
When the Shah got overthrown and Khomeini took over the US froze all of the Iranian governments assets since they didn't recognise the Islamic regeime. Can't they just use this judgement to take it out of these assets?
 
#14
offog said:
So it was a truce with the backing of all sides.
Apparently the bombers belonged to (yet unknown) side that didn't take partt in the negotiations.

offog said:
The US were invited in...
by whom exactly? Maybe by Israel and pro-American Lebanese political forces?

offog said:
...along with a number of other countries they did not invade. It did not need to come from the UN.
...and we know how this 'invitation' ended. Btw, the USA entered Iraq along with a number of other countries and we are looking how it is ending. If the USA each time seeks a resolusion issued by UNSC then it would prevent loses of many lives.

offog said:
KGB_resident said:
From my point of view armed forces have an ability to defend themselves and any attack on soldier can not be terrorism. It is an act of war, military operation and so on but not a terrorism.

offog said:
The attack was a terrorist operation not a military one.
I understand your opinion but please define exactly then an attack against soldiers is terrorism and then not. Btw, do you think that attacks on Coalition forces in Iraq are terrorist or not?
See the law of armed conflict, on uniform, no state, must be criminal = terrorist. Could this person be identified as not being a civilian then they are not part of an army.
Indeed, let's look at the laws of armed conflict. Who could be regarded as a POW? According to Geneva convention...

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory...
In Lebanon the Americans were well aware that numerous militias operate in the country that American forces could be attacked from any side. As for covered operations then any army use them. Let's recall 2 SAS operatives captured in Basra by Iraqi police. They killed Iraqi police officer. Was it a terrorist act? No, of course.
 
#15
tomahawk6 said:
KGB_resident said:
Devil_Dog said:
Strikes me that this might be another attempt to stir up popular acceptance for a war that is almost inevitablle.

Me biggest fear is that the American people will believe the same people who got us where we are vis-a-vis Iraq.
American soldiers not defenceless civilians were attacked and killed. It is no more than a military operation. If USA would fine any country that resisted numerous American invasions then it would be very profitable method to pay huge American debt. Why not to fine Vietnam for example?
Thats an act of war. What if it had been a Russian barracks ?
I agree with you sir. It was an act of war. And there is a difference between act of war and terrorist act. Attack against a school, a theatre centre, exposions in subway, in residential blocks are terror acts. While attack against barracks is a military operation, an act of war.
 
#17
KGB_resident said:
tomahawk6 said:
KGB_resident said:
Devil_Dog said:
Strikes me that this might be another attempt to stir up popular acceptance for a war that is almost inevitablle.

Me biggest fear is that the American people will believe the same people who got us where we are vis-a-vis Iraq.
American soldiers not defenceless civilians were attacked and killed. It is no more than a military operation. If USA would fine any country that resisted numerous American invasions then it would be very profitable method to pay huge American debt. Why not to fine Vietnam for example?
Thats an act of war. What if it had been a Russian barracks ?
I agree with you sir. It was an act of war. And there is a difference between act of war and terrorist act. Attack against a school, a theatre centre, exposions in subway, in residential blocks are terror acts. While attack against barracks is a military operation, an act of war.
I hate to say it, but your post may be interpeted as "if they attack me, it's terrorism, if they attack you, it's a legitimate act of war". I'm sure you don't really mean that...
 
#18
flamingo said:
KGB_resident said:
tomahawk6 said:
KGB_resident said:
Devil_Dog said:
Strikes me that this might be another attempt to stir up popular acceptance for a war that is almost inevitablle.

Me biggest fear is that the American people will believe the same people who got us where we are vis-a-vis Iraq.
American soldiers not defenceless civilians were attacked and killed. It is no more than a military operation. If USA would fine any country that resisted numerous American invasions then it would be very profitable method to pay huge American debt. Why not to fine Vietnam for example?
Thats an act of war. What if it had been a Russian barracks ?
I agree with you sir. It was an act of war. And there is a difference between act of war and terrorist act. Attack against a school, a theatre centre, exposions in subway, in residential blocks are terror acts. While attack against barracks is a military operation, an act of war.
I hate to say it, but your post may be interpeted as "if they attack me, it's terrorism, if they attack you, it's a legitimate act of war". I'm sure you don't really mean that...
You understand it in the wrong way Flamingo. Of course, I don't mean that.

For example, 4 years ago in Chechnya a lorry laden with expolives was used agaist local headquters of FSB (present name of KGB). From my point of view it is a military operation. Also police bases in Chechnya were constant targets of suicide bombers. During Chechen wars police participated in the armed conflict. So they were military operations as well.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads