Fair Tribunals at Guantanamo? (Was: YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ???)

On 4 Aug 2003 18:08:45 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote:

The original lease was a hundred years.
Since then, it's been extended. Since Cuba is desparately
in need of US tourism money far more than it's
need of Gitmo or UN money.

I thought it was illegal for US citizens to go there at present.

Fidel does not bank the rent cheque for your occupied territory

(or so he said on television, I have no personal knowledge of his
finances)

We're not occuying Cuba, since if we were, we'd
be occupying Havana, not Gitmo.

Dunno whether is because I've been complaining about your
Government, but they are now making if difficult to impossible
to visit your fair land by withdrawing the visa waiver scheme
as from October

But, that parts of our master plan.
We don't really care if Al Qauda visits Guantonemo Bay, Cuba
or Mecca. But we've withdrawn all of their
Visas for New York, or anyplace in the US
that has non-government jobs.

Checked my memberships and suggestions that I joined that
organisation are baseless.

As for paying $100 dollars for a visa to visit your country, I
don't think so. Cuba sounds more interesting, but not
the concentration camp.

http://www.iberianews.com/cgi-bin/ne...&order=&page=1


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Jim Watt wrote in message . ..
On 4 Aug 2003 19:32:23 -0700, (vince) wrote:

"William Black" wrote in message ...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
Why occupy someone elses
country against the wishes of its inhabitants ?

Like IRELAND?

And which bit of the island of Ireland is occupied against the wishes of a
majority of its inhabitants?

oooooo how clever

if you kill the inhabitants and bring in your own folks its never

"occupied against the wishes of a majority of its inhabitants?"

Vince

Like Indians, I have reservations.

People who are born in Ireland are Irish, people who pretend
they are Irish because their ancestors fled the potato famine
or the police, and settled in another land displacing its
indigenous people are more correctly called Americans

- when being polite.

nonsense. nations are characterized both by cultural descent and by
attachment to a place. Inhabiting the place is neither necessary nor
suffiient to constitute "attachment" Diasporas do not change the fact
of who is a member of the national community In the case of any
country occupied by force this is especially important.

Vince

"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:23:47 -0500, "Jim" wrote:

What is unsatisfactory in your View might I ask..

The fact that your government is detaining British citizens
illegally. and that they are facing a kangaroo court.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com


Oh I see... Now I get it... you disagree with our (the US) Kangroo Kourt
and you agree with the (EU- Brussles ) Kangroo Kourt?
It guess it just depends if you control the Kangroos (judges) very
intresting.

Jim

Like Indians, I have reservations.

People who are born in Ireland are Irish, people who pretend
they are Irish because their ancestors fled the potato famine
or the police, and settled in another land displacing its
indigenous people are more correctly called Americans

- when being polite.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

No we screwed Native Americans no about that, (as did the French and British
and Spanish before us)
I am honest enough to admit that. However , Indians are Americans by your
definition...

I wounder is a Brit born in Hong Kong then Chinese? Pounder that...

As for Americans of Irish decent, or English decent or German decent,
we may be americans as country of birth however our ancestry and etnicity.
can be English or german or dutch Irish .....

For example I am an American with English, Welsh Danish and German
ancestors.

One last observation, it must really **** the old world off that the dregs
and cast outs of your Euoroean Society have
grown up to be Stronger, faster, Richer, freer and could have if we trully
wished stepped on you like a bug.


Jim

- when being polite.

nonsense. nations are characterized both by cultural descent and by
attachment to a place. Inhabiting the place is neither necessary nor
suffiient to constitute "attachment" Diasporas do not change the fact
of who is a member of the national community In the case of any
country occupied by force this is especially important.

Vince


No Vince, Brits born in Honk Kong are chineese.....


Jim

On 5 Aug 2003 07:42:17 -0700, (vince) wrote:

Jim Watt wrote in message . ..
On 4 Aug 2003 19:32:23 -0700, (vince) wrote:

"William Black" wrote in message ...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
Why occupy someone elses
country against the wishes of its inhabitants ?

Like IRELAND?

And which bit of the island of Ireland is occupied against the wishes of a
majority of its inhabitants?

oooooo how clever

if you kill the inhabitants and bring in your own folks its never

"occupied against the wishes of a majority of its inhabitants?"

Vince

Like Indians, I have reservations.

People who are born in Ireland are Irish, people who pretend
they are Irish because their ancestors fled the potato famine
or the police, and settled in another land displacing its
indigenous people are more correctly called Americans

- when being polite.

nonsense. nations are characterized both by cultural descent and by
attachment to a place. Inhabiting the place is neither necessary nor
suffiient to constitute "attachment" Diasporas do not change the fact
of who is a member of the national community In the case of any
country occupied by force this is especially important.

Vince

Northern Ireland is somewhat different to Palestine and Iraq.

I see the churches in Dublin are being replaced by mosques
and the nigerians now run the protection rackets. The Tinkers
get mugged by Albanians and a Europe with open frontiers
means that Ireland now has an immigration problem.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:33:58 -0500, "Jim" wrote:

One last observation, it must really **** the old world off that the dregs
and cast outs of your Euoroean Society have
grown up to be Stronger, faster, Richer, freer and could have if we trully
wished stepped on you like a bug.

No, we just cringe at those sufficiently ignorant as to believe their
own propaganda.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:05:22 -0500, "Jim" wrote:


"Jim Watt" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:23:47 -0500, "Jim" wrote:

What is unsatisfactory in your View might I ask..

The fact that your government is detaining British citizens
illegally. and that they are facing a kangaroo court.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com


Oh I see... Now I get it... you disagree with our (the US) Kangroo Kourt
and you agree with the (EU- Brussles ) Kangroo Kourt?
It guess it just depends if you control the Kangroos (judges) very
intresting.

Jim

One has an independent judicary which nobody controls and the
other takes orders from the military, compare and contrast.






--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

"vince" wrote in message
om...
"William Black" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
Why occupy someone elses
country against the wishes of its inhabitants ?

Like IRELAND?

And which bit of the island of Ireland is occupied against the wishes of
a
majority of its inhabitants?

oooooo how clever

if you kill the inhabitnats nd bring inyour own folks its never

"occupied against the wishes of a majority of its inhabitants?"

Come off it Vince, it's all from well before anyone but Indians were a
majority where you live.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

"William Black" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

On my Visit to Ireland I came to the understanding from talking to
Irishmen
that the majority of "Irish" would perfer the British left...
The Irish I talked with made it clear there was 1 Ireland and the only
reason there is a notheren is a minority of Irishmen (ulsters??) wish
the

I imagine something similar gets said in Iraq as well.

However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or there abouts the
south release in the 1920's

I guess you will have a valid argument if we are still occupying IRAQ in say
800 years.

jim