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

On 6 Aug 2003 08:45:07 -0700, (vince) wrote:

| The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow

Yeah, like the military occupation of England began under William, the
military occupation of Italy under Roger Giscard or of Palestine under
Geoffrey Boullion.

Apples and oranges. Henry VII was worried that the Anglo-norman
military occupiers of Ireland would use it as a base.

As was Henry II.

Ireland was essentially a proprietary colony. Large land grant were
awarded ... to anglo norman soldier adventurers who coudl then
go and fight to take the land from the locals.

Much like the United States then. When do you intend to end the
military occupation of Nebraska? I mean, really: it's not as if you
have a use for the place.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

"vince" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
...
| "vince" wrote:
| | Fred J. McCall wrote in message n
| | :
| | :However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or there
| abouts the
| | :south release in the 1920's
| |
| | I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took over
| Ireland
| | until Liz I.
| |
| |
| | The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow and Henry
II
| | The Treaty of Windsor in 1175 recognized the military conquest.
| |
| |
| | http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0711.html
|
| From your link: "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English
had
| little influence over Ireland. Henry feared that foreign or domestic
| enemies would use Ireland as a base for attacking him."
|
| Apples and oranges.

No, your comment implied total control since the 12th Century, your
reference says otherwise.

"ZZBunker" wrote in message
om...
Jim Watt wrote in message
. ..
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.

It's hardly illegal, since the Navy has a base there.
And the CIA is known to frequent many places in the Carribean.
And the State Department, who are US Citizens hopefully,
can do pretty much whatever they want to, with foreign relations.
And the International Olympics Officials are there constantly.


It's not illigal to travel to Cuba, it's illigal to do buisniss with Cuba or
Cuban companies.
- You can travel there, but while you're there you can't spend any money.
So it's effectivly illigal for turist travel.

Note there is a procedure to get exceptions to the rule and food and medice
can be sold to Cuba.
Plus you can send a small $500(?) amount of money to your relatives in cuba
each year.

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)

I don't bank US Government Checks either. That's
sorta like investing in Money Markets. Which
is even sillier than investing in an
Ivy League Education.

You missed the English/American transaltion there. "Bank check" = "Cash
check"

Money is sitting in an escrow account some where.

[trim]

"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...
On 5 Aug 2003 17:33:08 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote:

Jim Watt wrote in message
. ..
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.

It's hardly illegal,

CNN report otherwise:

"On President George W. Bush's orders, the Treasury
Department has begun an energetic campaign to track down
and punish Americans who defy U.S. travel restrictions to the
communist-run island, the only country in the world off-limits
to most Americans."

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/....us.travelban/


You missed the important paragraph from that article:

"Since May, hundreds of Americans who didn't even have their passports
stamped have received these notices, with fines that can go as high as
$50,000.
The law forbids unauthorized Americans from spending money there,
effectively preventing them from traveling. Critics say that's a violation
of the First and Fifth amendments, which guarantee freedom of expression and
other individual rights. "

[trim]

So now it's an "individual right" to defy economic sanctions?

In message , Jim writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Hey, Britain is still in the grip of William's invaders of 1066, and
there are plenty of Viking occupiers still lording it over their serfs.

And don't even get me _started_ about those Roman carpetbaggers.


How many generations of resident family do you need, before you can call
where you were born "home"?

So long as they are held against their will by force of arms...

Can I ask for a donation for the Iceni Liberation Front, then?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"vince" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
...
| "vince" wrote:
| | Fred J. McCall wrote in message n
| | :
| | :However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or there
abouts the
| | :south release in the 1920's
| |
| | I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took over
Ireland
| | until Liz I.
| |
| |
| | The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow and Henry
II
| | The Treaty of Windsor in 1175 recognized the military conquest.
| |
| |
| | http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0711.html
|
| From your link: "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English
had
| little influence over Ireland. Henry feared that foreign or domestic
| enemies would use Ireland as a base for attacking him."
|
| Apples and oranges.

No, your comment implied total control since the 12th Century, your
reference says otherwise.

My coomment was "The Military occupation of Ireland began under
Strongbow and Henry II" Tehat is undoubtedly correct. As ain the
war of the roses in England, the central power (the king) had to deal
with regional powers ( the barons) htis truggle was a fact of British
hsitory throughout the plantagenate era. Ireland, lke amny other
areas was caught up in htis game among competing anglo norman
warlords.

Vince

Jim Watt wrote in message . ..
On 5 Aug 2003 17:33:08 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote:

Jim Watt wrote in message . ..
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.

It's hardly illegal,

CNN report otherwise:

"On President George W. Bush's orders, the Treasury
Department has begun an energetic campaign to track down
and punish Americans who defy U.S. travel restrictions to the
communist-run island, the only country in the world off-limits
to most Americans."

That's nice. But if CNN or BBC actually had an employee with
IQ 80, it would be better.


http://www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/....us.travelban/

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

Unless they are affilliated to the IARU or you are bombing
the British Legion I'm safe.


We've ceased bombing everywhere for the moment,
until we can find a really neato target like Bin Laden to bomb.


But of us don't care if they're baseless, since they're
obviously not Cruise-Bomb less, or Reinforced-Cement less.


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.

That's good to know. Since we have to keep reminding
you British that we don't *have* a country.

Perhaps thats why you are illegally occupying other people's
although the CIA do list the USA as a country:

The *CIA* would have to list it as a country,
since the CIA is run by the *Pentagon*, not the US.


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html

We have 50 States. Britian has a country, but
it doesn't have bears, lobsters, or bear rifles.

I still believe that the reason America invaded was an
acute shortage of baths. Many of your bathrooms are
without and Dubya missunderstood the word ba'ath.

Of course our bathrooms are without.
Since we got bathrooms on the *Moon*,
and Britain's only got bathrooms in France,
and some other political wastelands
like Stalingrad, Berln, and Baghdad.


PS: its spelt Britain and its in a better state.

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 15:59:56 GMT, (The
Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

On 6 Aug 2003 08:45:07 -0700, (vince) wrote:

Ireland was essentially a proprietary colony. Large land grant were
awarded ... to anglo norman soldier adventurers who coudl then
go and fight to take the land from the locals.

Much like the United States then. When do you intend to end the
military occupation of Nebraska? I mean, really: it's not as if you
have a use for the place.

The plans for the colonization of America were directly taken from the
contemporaneous plans for colonizing Ireland. Same layout for
colonies, same lists of supplies for colonists, etc. Read "Martin's
Hundred" by Ivor Noel Hume for more detail and references.

The colonists were, by then, English, not Anglo-Norman. There were
probably some Welsh and Scots colonists, too, of course, but the real
flood of Scots followed Culloden and the Enclosure Acts. A lot of
those Scots ended up in North Carolina, by the way. Gabaldon did her
research well on that one.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On 6 Aug 2003 18:17:30 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote:

But if CNN or BBC actually had an employee with
IQ 80, it would be better.

CNN keep it that way so as not to confuse the president.

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

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"vince" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
...
| "vince" wrote:
| | "Brett" wrote in message
...
| | "vince" wrote:
| | | Fred J. McCall wrote in message n
| | | :
| | | :However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or
there
abouts the
| | | :south release in the 1920's
| | |
| | | I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took
over
Ireland
| | | until Liz I.
| | |
| | |
| | | The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow and
Henry
II
| | | The Treaty of Windsor in 1175 recognized the military
conquest.
| | |
| | |
| | | http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0711.html
| |
| | From your link: "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the
English
had
| | little influence over Ireland. Henry feared that foreign or
domestic
| | enemies would use Ireland as a base for attacking him."
| |
| | Apples and oranges.
|
| No, your comment implied total control since the 12th Century, your
| reference says otherwise.
|
| My coomment was "The Military occupation of Ireland began under
| Strongbow and Henry II" Tehat is undoubtedly correct.

What part of "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had
LITTLE INFLUENCE over Ireland" do you find difficult to understand. A
military occupation in the 12th Century does not imply that the control
was absolute or that the occupation was continuous for three centuries.
If you had bothered reading the rest of the history you presented as
evidence you would have found that a good number of the Irish appeared
to enjoy being part of the struggle for power in the British Isles and a
occupation British Army didn't spend three centuries putting down the
natives.

you clearl do not understand either the statement or Irish History.
In the 12th- 15c century "England" had relatively little influence.
That is becasue the military occupation was by anglo normans, but only
nominally in favor of England as opposed to themselves. it was
occupation by "English" but only nominally by England.

As teh BBC puts it

This is when the trouble became big trouble. For Diarmait promptly
went shopping for mercenaries among the nastiest and greediest
possible bunch of knights. These were the Anglo-Normans who, around
the 1160s, seemed to be on the losing end of the war against the Welsh
princes of Gwynedd. They had lost castles, land and peasants. They
were in an ugly mood and they were looking for somewhere to recoup
their losses. Enter Diarmait. Spread the word, the likes of Robert
fitzStephen and Richard fitzGilbert de Clare (known to his friends,
and especially to his many enemies, as 'Strongbow') must have said:
'Forget about Wales; forget about those unpleasantnesses in the
mountains and valleys. Come west young knights. Ireland will be a
piece of cake. It's said that the natives are primitive. But the
pastures are green. So what are you waiting for?'.

Within a year Diarmait had his throne back in Dublin. But he also now
had an army of Anglo-Normans who weren't about to go away now that the
job was done. In fact, from the beginning, Diarmait had known this. He
not only expected but wanted the likes of Strongbow to stick around,
lest his old enemies get ideas of booting him out again. Robert
fitzStephen was quite right when he told his followers that Diarmait
'loves our race; he is encouraging our race to come here and has
decided to settle them in this island and give them permanent
roots...'. And Diarmait even went to the trouble of marrying his
daughter to Strongbow to make sure that the alliance had staying
power.

Their agreement spelled out that if none of Diarmait's sons survived
(and one had been blinded, another been taken hostage, another was
illegitimate), then Strongbow could even inherit the throne of
Leinster himself! 'The Irish kings did homage to Henry as they would
to any High King...' At which point Henry II suddenly sat up and took
notice of what was going on in the west. He had meant to use
Diarmait's appeal to get a foothold in Ireland. What he had
inadvertently created was a monster: a colony of Anglo-Normans, who
answered to exactly the kind of jumped-up superbaron Henry was busy
sitting on in every other part of his enormous empire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/n...asion_03.shtml

"The English identity which the settlers voiced with growing stridency
in the fourteenth century had older roots. The initial incursions into
Ireland had been by marcher knights and other freelances from south
Wales hired by Diarmait MacMurchadha, the King of Leinster. However,
the rapid intervention of Henry II ensured that from 1171, the main
beneficiaries of the conquests were men associated with the royal
court and military household, some of whom retained estates in England
and Wales. However unruly they might be in the Irish regions, they
held their lands from the crown and saw themselves as the king's
subjects. Royal power was sufficient to prevent the conquests from
developing into an unregulated scramble and to ensure that Ireland
remained politically tied to England."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/n...eland_03.shtml

So the bottom line was that it was a military occupation, not a
poltical fusion until much later. As a resutl "england" had little
influence but the occupiers were unquestionably Anglo Normans

Vince