'Murica! (2,118 Viewers)

[Fred]

Yeah, that bill would be extremely hypocritical tbh

Though the reasoning behind the veto is probably mostly geopolitics.

Most certainly.

States (or in some cases departments of states) have legal personality. This means you can sue them. You need to do on a legal basis and you need to show a direct interest (in most countries).

Most of the time the question is on what basis you might sue and whether or not private individuals have the legal standing to do so.

In all honesty it really depends on the country you're in if a lawsuit is possible. But in the case of a verdict the question becomes how you're going to execute it. Let's say you've succesfully sued the USA for 10 million dollars. What happens if they don't acknowledge the verdict?

Which is why it will never happen, no country can force the US to acknowledge their court's verdicts, but the US can. As they've done before with Iran and Libya.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

Which is why it will never happen, no country can force the US to acknowledge their court's verdicts, but the US can. As they've done before with Iran and Libya.

Right now it's almost impossible to bring US citizens to justice. It's unfathomable to think you could succesfully sue the US as a country.

 

[king Ale]

Most certainly.



Which is why it will never happen, no country can force the US to acknowledge their court's verdicts, but the US can. As they've done before with Iran and Libya.

Iran Air flight 655:
"In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...". As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability but agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims."

Lockerbie:
"On 29 May 2002, Libya offered up to US$2.7 billion to settle claims by the families of the 270 killed in the Lockerbie bombing, representing US$10 million per family."

The US crimes in Iraq will never trouble them though because they had good intentions, never intended to kill or terrorize, were just trying to bring peace and democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it is possible. Victims of a 1983 bombing in Lebanon successfully sued Iran for 2 billion dollars. Congress passed a law which allowed the victims to be paid from money belonging to Iran and currently blocked in US banks. In April Supreme Court upheld that law


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You heard about this right:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-places-blame-for-world-s-worst-terror-attack

 

[Seven]

Iran Air flight 655:
"In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...". As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability but agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims."

The ICJ settles cases between states. So this is different from what we were talking about.

 

[king Ale]

It was a response to what Fred said.

 

[Seven]

It was a response to what Fred said.

I know. But he said 'their' courts - referring to national courts, which will never (more correctly: almost never) hear cases between states. The ICJ is a supranational court, which does.

 

[Ronn]

Iran Air flight 655:
"In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...". As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability but agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims."

Lockerbie:
"On 29 May 2002, Libya offered up to US$2.7 billion to settle claims by the families of the 270 killed in the Lockerbie bombing, representing US$10 million per family."

The US crimes in Iraq will never trouble them though because they had good intentions, never intended to kill or terrorize, were just trying to bring peace and democracy.

- - - Updated - - -



You heard about this right:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-places-blame-for-world-s-worst-terror-attack

Oh yeah. I forgot about it. One of the most moronic court decisions I've ever heard of


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bjerknes]

Probably that and we have various secret bases in Saudi Arabia to protect.

Yeah, we don't want anything to happen to Obama's secret torture bases.

You heard about this right:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-places-blame-for-world-s-worst-terror-attack

It was a great ploy to shift focus off of the Kingdumb.

 

[Seven]

Yeah, we don't want anything to happen to Obama's secret torture bases.

Sometimes I think the best thing about Obama is that he has such an easy name for the haters. Like, you can really pronounce it with disdain and digust. Ow-ba-ma. It's all Ow-ba-ma's fault, man.

 

[Bjerknes]

Sometimes I think the best thing about Obama is that he has such an easy name for the haters. Like, you can really pronounce it with disdain and digust. Ow-ba-ma. It's all Ow-ba-ma's fault, man.

I know, it's such a great name.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Sometimes I think the best thing about Obama is that he has such an easy name for the haters. Like, you can really pronounce it with disdain and digust. Ow-ba-ma. It's all Ow-ba-ma's fault, man.

Someone will always show up to "trump" him though.

 

[Seven]

Someone will always show up to "trump" him though.

Clinton's name is great too. It sort of sounds like Evilcorp. It's difficult to imagine there are people out there who are actually called Clin-ton.

 

[Ocelot]

Okay, I mean I still don't really like those types of comparisons and I do believe that both the individuals and the circumstances are actually quite different, but...read this and tell me the descriptions don't remind you of a certain someone

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.html

 

[Maddy]

Okay, I mean I still don't really like those types of comparisons and I do believe that both the individuals and the circumstances are actually quite different, but...read this and tell me the descriptions don't remind you of a certain someone

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.html

A demagogue is a demagogue.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Okay, I mean I still don't really like those types of comparisons and I do believe that both the individuals and the circumstances are actually quite different, but...read this and tell me the descriptions don't remind you of a certain someone

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.html

Except this is nothing but pandering tripe to the post war propaganda, I really think you should check out david irving the historian, no one comes close

 

[Ocelot]

Except this is nothing but pandering tripe to the post war propaganda, I really think you should check out david irving the historian, no one comes close

Why?

And which books/texts exactly and what's his thesis there?

I mean I don't wanna reject anything before actually reading it, but Holocaust deniers are really pushing it, makes it difficult for me to take even his other historical work seriously.

- - - Updated - - -

A demagogue is a demagogue.

But what's interesting is the personality description, it doesn't fit any of the major right-wing demagogues in Europe atm (at least not those I'm familiar with), but does closely resemble Trump (notice that there's no mention or connection to Trump in the article itself).

Not sure of course how accurate the portray is of Hitler actually is though, was never much interested in Hitler the man and much more in the National socialist movement and the circumstances and events through which it came to power. Mainstream belief, popular books & documentaries place waayy too much importance on the individual Hitler imo, he's become almost mystified at this point.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Why?

And which books/texts exactly and what's his thesis there?

I mean I don't wanna reject anything before actually reading it, but Holocaust deniers are really pushing it, makes it difficult for me to take even his other historical work seriously.

- - - Updated - - -



But what's interesting is the personality description, it doesn't fit any of the major right-wing demagogues in Europe atm (at least not those I'm familiar with), but does closely resemble Trump (notice that there's no mention or connection to Trump in the article itself).

Not sure of course how accurate the portray is of Hitler actually is though, was never much interested in Hitler the man and much more in the National socialist movement and the circumstances and events through which it came to power. Mainstream belief, popular books & documentaries place waayy too much importance on the individual Hitler imo, he's become almost mystified at this point.

Interesting since every serious historian is a Holocaust denier by definition

 

[Ocelot]

Interesting since every serious historian is a Holocaust denier by definition

Way to dodge my questions

And only if you stretch the definition of the word "denier", and no serious historian denies the Holocaust the way Irving does.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Way to dodge my questions

And only if you stretch the definition of the word "denier", and no serious historian denies the Holocaust the way Irving does.

I specifically said Irving the historian, not Irving the op contributor or political activist, i think you have enough objectivity to make the distinction. Even if the conclusions you will come up with won't be popular.

 

[Ocelot]

I specifically said Irving the historian, not Irving the op contributor or political activist, i think you have enough objectivity to make the distinction. Even if the conclusions you will come up with won't be popular.

Okay, but what works of his should I read?