Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!

[Zelig]

C'mon man...thug in the park with a gun, strongarming wallets. That guy is pretty much a terrorist, only lacking the 'politically motivated' label for his crimes. Heck, if he jokingly says "I only rob republicans cuz democrats don't have any money" and it turns up on tape he is a terrorist.

And what does law enforcement say to do if you get mugged? Cooperate. What does society say if you don't cooperate? You're an idiot. What is the mantra we chant anytime the subject comes up? 'Your wallet isn't worth your life!'

So they paid off like a slot machine when they had a kidnapping. That happens all over the world all the time. That's how simple it really is.

It's basically the prisoner's dilemma.

 

[Tahuti]

Oh, I totally agree that those IRA supporters should have been doing hard time. Thing is, I really don't excuse the euro governments at all here. They had a choice to make and they chose to fund terrorism. It's really as simple as that.

Having governments that fund our own enemies has become a tradition since WWII, sadly.

 

[IglooDame]

Um... yeah okay, moving on!

So anyway, does this revelation open up these European governments to civil lawsuits by those injured by Al-Queda (and affiliates) attacks, or the families of those killed by same? Basically, those injuries and deaths are apparently being financed by these governments. That makes them complicit, yes?

Not a hope in hell. You are suggesting a system in which the victim of one crime is liable when the proceeds finance further crimes. The End.

Thanks for getting us back on track though.

That reminds me of the proposals to legislate that victims that have guns stolen from their homes and then used in other crimes be (partially) legally responsible for the criminal usage of those guns.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That reminds me of the proposals to legislate that victims that have guns stolen from their homes and then used in other crimes be (partially) legally responsible for the criminal usage of those guns.

Unfortunately the equally daft flip side is "my poorly secured gun was stolen so now a criminal is armed, but since the loss is covered by insurance I can just get another one and not secure it any better." How many times have we heard "we can't let nuclear weapons proliferate because country X can't be trusted to secure them properly so they might be stolen by terrorists"?

Note I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the issue is not as totally one sided as it appears at first glance. My own position is that gun ownership should not only be unrestrained but encouraged, however the responsibility of gun ownership should be taken at least ten times more seriously than pretty much anyone takes it.

 

[bhsup]

FWIW mine is safely locked away in a gun box which has a steel cable looping through a beam in the closet. Can it be stolen? Yeah, but they'll have to do some wreckage to get it. Or shoot me and get my key...

That said, I must strongly disagree with both of your comparisons. I'm not really keen on comparing nation-state behavior to individual crimes because they just...well they are not the same.

This has become an institutionalized thing, just like the Barbary pirates, which again America had to friggin' deal with. And the XYZ affair, from which the thread title originates.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

FWIW mine is safely locked away in a gun box which has a steel cable looping through a beam in the closet. Can it be stolen? Yeah, but they'll have to do some wreckage to get it. Or shoot me and get my key...

That said, I must strongly disagree with both of your comparisons. I'm not really keen on comparing nation-state behavior to individual crimes because they just...well they are not the same.

This has become an institutionalized thing, just like the Barbary pirates, which again America had to friggin' deal with. And the XYZ affair, from which the thread title originates.

Fair enough. Let's try a more 'nation to nation' comparison. Huge numbers of guns sold in Arizona wind up in the hands of criminals in Mexico. Because of the nature of current gun control law merchants are often pretty well aware that they are selling to buyers who are making false statements on the purchase documents, but for a variety of very good reasons they complete the transactions. The US government is aware of the situation, but has yet to find a way to put a stop to it (not for lack of trying, just because it's frickin' hard to do, much like letting a kidnap victim just die would be).

Does this open up the US government to liability in crimes committed with those guns, or is that the responsibility of the criminals involved (including or excluding the one making false statements on the purchase documents and/or the merchant who is technically not committing any crime at all)?


By the way, thanks for securing your gun so well. Steel cable may be easier to deal with than you think, but it would clearly take an effort and there's no question you have made a more than reasonable effort.