I appreciate this is probably a sensitive subject, but am I missing something?

(Families of) Victims of IRA bombs want compentsation from Libya, because Libya was the source of the semtex.

I just don't follow the logic there. If I get hit by a drunk driver can I get compensation from the pub he was drinking in? Or the brewary that made the beer? Or the haulage firm that transported it?

I'm not suggesting there is any other reason for the IRA to be buying Semtex, but the fact remains that it was the IRA that blew shit up.

Not that I'm very comfortable with that argument, either tbh.

I guess I view it similarly to Iraqi (or East Timorese, or countless others) seeking compensation from BAE Systems, rather than the actual aggressor.

I'm not suggesting that Libya (or BAE, or whoever) 'get away' with their part in shit, just the concept of who can/should impose those settlements an that.

Possibly so, I'm not arguing that you couldn't. Although (and perhaps this is tinged with hypocrisy) I do draw a distinction between terrorism and 'traditional' warfare. For sure, the outcome is often the same for civilians (innocent people get killed or their likelihoods and families destroyed) but there is, in my befuddled mind, a distinction between a soldier who openly takes part in combat ostensibly against a similarly 'honourable' foe and a terrorist whose only intent is to run away before the damage is done.

Then, of course, there are the terrorists who sacrifice themselves as part of their attack and the 'death by wire' tactics employed by otherwise traditional armies that blur the lines. But sure, let the UK be sued too. You bloody deserve it you peddlers of death!

If I sold/gave you a knife knowing that you intended to murder one Andrew Holgate or Staffordshire, and then you travelled to Staffordshire whereupon you dispatched one dinosaur disillusionist, would I be prosecuted as an accomplice/co-conspirator?

(Because if so, you're not having it)

>>While it'll no doubt be unpopular I'd argue that terrorism is the 'legitimate' (in a certain sense) response to 'illegal' warlike acts.

I'd have to agree with that.

And also disagree with the notion that it's in anyway less 'honourable' to be a terrorist than a sodjer.

A terrorist organisation is, by definition, a group with far less power and resource than a national army, so of course they'll turn to guerilla tictacs (they're the Camo coloured ones) and 'soft targets' to maximise the impact of what they /do/ have.

By which I'm not saying I think terrorists are honourable, but rather that armies are not (unless in existence purely for defence and never ever used for first-strike/agression/securing oil reserves. More a peoples millitia than an army, really).

The Libyan government where and arguably still are a bunch of bastards, but if the people who paid for and planted the bombs are allowed to walk free it doesn't leave any justification for this case beyond exploited or poorly targeted grief.
In my opinion they should be busy badgering the government for an explaination of why Libya are being brought in from the cold but still get to act like dicks.

Bearing in mind that I don't find any form of warfare (except revolution :C ) honourable, I don't find targeting civilians necessarily less honourable than other tactics.

Asuming the civilians are from the nation/state that is presumably abusing it's power to subjugate or oppress another (the basis for most terrorism), then there is a legitamate argument that those civilians, as the electorate, are as responsible as the Government or army of that nation.