Jump to content
The World News Media

Un juez de Nueva York ordenó que Irán pague una millonaria indemnización a familiares de víctimas del 11-S

Raquel Segovia

Recommended Posts

  • Member

El magistrado consideró que Teherán "brindó asistencia técnica" a los miembros del grupo terrorista Al-Qaeda que llevaron a cabo los ataques a las Torres Gemelas.

Los ataques del 11-S dejaron más de mil muertos.

Los ataques del 11-S dejaron más de mil muertos.

Un juez de Estados Unidosdictaminó este martes que Irán deberá pagar unos 6.000 millones de dolares a familiares de las víctimas de los atentados del 11 de septiembre de 2001, pese a la falta de pruebas sobre un supuesto vínculo entre Teherán y los autores de los ataques a las Torres Gemelas.

En su fallo, el magistrado de Nueva York, George B. Daniels, consideró que Irán “brindó asistencia técnica” a los miembros del grupo terrorista Al-Qaeda que llevaron a cabo los atentados.

La sentencia responsabiliza a la República Islámica, el Cuerpo de Guardianes de la Revolución Islámica (CGRI) y el Banco Central de Irán de la muerte de 1008 personas como consecuencia de los ataques del 11-S.

Torres Gemelas

Los ataques del 11-S dejaron más de mil muertos.

La sentencia del juez dictamina que la indemnización debe ser de 12,5 millones de dólares para los que perdieron un cónyuge, 8,5 en el caso de que falleciera uno de los progenitores o un hijo y 4,25 si la víctima era un hermano o hermana. Sin embargo, varios medios estadounidenses destacan el carácter simbólico de un fallo de Daniels que se considera inaplicable

La reciente sentencia se basa en la Ley de Justicia contra los Patrocinadores del Terrorismo (JASTA, por sus siglas en inglés), que fue aprobada en 2016 y permite a los familiares de las víctimas llevar a los tribunales a gobiernos de otros países.

No se trata de la primera vez que Daniels emite sentencias por incumplimiento contra Irán. En 2011 y 2016, este mismo juez ordenó a la República Islámica el pago de miles de millones dólares a las víctimas del 11-S.

Los ataques del 11-S dejaron más de mil muertos.

Los ataques del 11-S dejaron más de mil muertos.

Teherán, que todavía no se ha pronunciado sobre el reciente fallo, ya rechazó las anteriores sentencias considerándolas "ridículas", ya que ninguno de los autores materiales era iraní y no existe un vínculo directo con los ataques.

De los 19 autores materiales de los atentados del 11-S, 15 eran de Arabia Saudita, dos de Emiratos Árabes Unidos, uno de Egipto y otro del Líbano. No obstante, la demanda de EE.UU. presentada en 2004 afirmaba que Teherán apoyó de manera económica a los secuestradores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Views 212
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
    • I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes.
    • One issue with historian Flavius Josephus is that he suggests that the Royal Captain of the (Guard) can also be regarded as General Nebuzaradan. A confusion arises from Josephus' account of the captives mentioned in Jeremiah, as he claims that they were taken from Egypt instead of Babylon. Since Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Rilah, he directed his generals to lay siege to Jerusalem. This could potentially account for the numerous dispatches that Nebuchadnezzar would have sent to the west, but the considerable distance to Borsippa still poses a challenge. As a result, the Babylonians managed to gain control of regions such as Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Moab. The only territories that remained were the coastal cities, where the Egyptians held sway. King Josiah decided to form an alliance with Babylon instead of being under Egyptian rule. So, that part of the territory was covered until King Josiah was defeated.  It's interesting how they started back then in 4129, but still end up with the same conclusion with Zedekiah's Defeat 3522 607 B.C. 3419 607 B.C. even though their AM is different.  
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.